12/04/2016

:00:00. > :00:13.which of course provides and jobs. Demand has exceeded supply. We must

:00:14. > :00:17.now move on. A point of order, shall . I have made the Minister aware of

:00:18. > :00:22.my intention to make this point of order. In an answer to my written

:00:23. > :00:25.parliamentary question asking for the number of deaths that have

:00:26. > :00:30.occurred in child and adolescent mental health units since 2010, the

:00:31. > :00:35.Minister for community and social care said that there had been only

:00:36. > :00:40.one such death recorded by the Sea QC. However freedom of information

:00:41. > :00:42.requests have found that at least nine young people have tragically

:00:43. > :00:53.died in England while receiving inpatient care. The minister said in

:00:54. > :00:58.an interview with panorama that he did not know how many children and

:00:59. > :01:00.adolescents had died in psychiatric units in recent years. This

:01:01. > :01:06.discrepancy between the government account and the data collected by

:01:07. > :01:10.freedom of information requests raises serious questions about how

:01:11. > :01:13.deaths in psychiatric care of some of the most vulnerable people are

:01:14. > :01:19.treated, recorded, investigated, and learned from. Can I be advised as to

:01:20. > :01:23.whether there is any indication from ministers that they intend to

:01:24. > :01:26.clarify for the parliamentary record an accurate figure for the number of

:01:27. > :01:33.children who have tragic it did in all psychiatric inpatient setting

:01:34. > :01:39.since 2010? Important questions are raised by

:01:40. > :01:42.this matter, though not for me. We cannot have Question Time on the

:01:43. > :01:47.basis of doing it through points of order. Seeing as the Minister of

:01:48. > :01:52.State is here and is apparently willing to say some words, you will

:01:53. > :01:58.be happy to hear from him. I am very grateful. I appreciate the

:01:59. > :02:04.honourable member giving me notice of this. There were very serious

:02:05. > :02:12.questions raised by panorama last night. I have agreed to meet the

:02:13. > :02:14.lady who put in the Freedom of information request, there is a

:02:15. > :02:18.discrepancy and there are difficulties in definition, but the

:02:19. > :02:21.present situation is not acceptable. I will look to find as quickly as

:02:22. > :02:25.possible a way of correcting the record as soon as we know the

:02:26. > :02:30.figures and make sure that we have sorted this data problem out

:02:31. > :02:35.effectively for the future. I am grateful to the Minister for

:02:36. > :02:39.his courtesy and honour. On a personal note can I wish him very

:02:40. > :02:44.well on that important meeting with Bracco? She is a formidable

:02:45. > :02:48.character. We knew each other in university. Very formidable, I wish

:02:49. > :02:56.him well. We have just had questions from the

:02:57. > :03:00.Secretary of State and we had an excellent team of ministers but we

:03:01. > :03:04.did not have the Secretary of State. The Minister for Europe made the

:03:05. > :03:07.point that the Secretary of State is on the last leg went overseas visit.

:03:08. > :03:12.I thought was the Convention of this House that Parliament came first.

:03:13. > :03:16.And that the Secretary of State should be here and there is an

:03:17. > :03:20.emergency took him away from the House. Clearly, this was planned,

:03:21. > :03:24.and can you give any guidance to the House on whether the Secretary of

:03:25. > :03:28.State should be on overseas trip when there are scheduled questions

:03:29. > :03:34.the Department? I will take Peter, then respond.

:03:35. > :03:38.Things may have changed since I paid attention because it is 25 years

:03:39. > :03:42.since I was a minister but in my day a minister for the government spoke

:03:43. > :03:48.with the same authority, no matter what rank.

:03:49. > :03:53.Certainly the team communicate to the House as a team. That is

:03:54. > :03:57.undeniable. It is not within the power of the chair, the Secretary of

:03:58. > :04:04.State did courteously write to me to notify me that he would be absent,

:04:05. > :04:07.my sense is that he is not likely to be absent and anything irregular

:04:08. > :04:12.basis. If that were to happen it would be strongly deprecated not

:04:13. > :04:18.just by the chair but by members across the House. Let's hope it does

:04:19. > :04:21.not happen again. If there are no further points of order perhaps we

:04:22. > :04:27.can move onto the ten rule motion. I like to move that leave be given

:04:28. > :04:31.for me to bring an appeal to make it an offence to be found in possession

:04:32. > :04:35.of or to use certain articles or substances capable of causing injury

:04:36. > :04:41.or behaviour likely to lead to injury, at, or in transit towards,

:04:42. > :04:46.certain events, concerts, festivals, other public gatherings, and for

:04:47. > :04:52.connected purposes. In plain English this bill proposes to prevent

:04:53. > :04:55.audience members at concerts and festivals from using dangerous

:04:56. > :05:03.pyrotechnics such as flares, fireworks, and smoke bombs. Items

:05:04. > :05:09.like this cannot be safely used in the confines of a live music

:05:10. > :05:16.audience. Players can burn at up to 1600 Celsius, fireworks, even

:05:17. > :05:23.hotter, up to 2000 Celsius. Not to mention the danger from a

:05:24. > :05:27.projectile, and smoke bombs pose a risk to members with asthma or other

:05:28. > :05:32.such breathing difficulties. The surprise throwing off pyrotechnics

:05:33. > :05:38.from within a crowd can also create dangerous and distressing crowd

:05:39. > :05:44.disturbances. In 2014 of were 255 incidents involving flares at live

:05:45. > :05:50.music events. Both indoor and outdoor, ranging from festivals such

:05:51. > :06:03.as T in the Park, two popular city venues like extreme Academy. -- like

:06:04. > :06:07.Brixton Academy. I enjoy live music but nobody should be seriously

:06:08. > :06:12.burned as part of a fun afternoon. Nobody wants to see a panic at the

:06:13. > :06:17.disco or any such music event, we want to see the number of these ends

:06:18. > :06:23.is is down to an all-time low digs and festivals are particularly

:06:24. > :06:25.popular among young people. They and their parents have a right to feel

:06:26. > :06:30.safe in attending or sending their children there. Unfortunately this

:06:31. > :06:34.was not the experience of an 18-year-old girl who attended an

:06:35. > :06:40.Arctic monkeys concert and required three dressings to burns on her arms

:06:41. > :06:44.from a flair that have been thrown. Or a 17-year-old at Reading Festival

:06:45. > :06:50.who suffered a panic attack of that been burned by a smoke bomb. When I

:06:51. > :06:57.mentioned the subject of this hill to others many people outside the

:06:58. > :07:02.music industry was surprised that audience use pyrotechnics is not

:07:03. > :07:06.already banned. Their surprise is understandable given that such

:07:07. > :07:13.protection has long been afforded to football supporters by the sporting

:07:14. > :07:17.events act 1985. This made it an offence to attempt to enter a

:07:18. > :07:23.stadium whilst in possession of a flair, a smoke bomb, or a firework.

:07:24. > :07:26.The courts have taken such public endangerment very seriously and even

:07:27. > :07:29.those without previous criminal records have been given custodial

:07:30. > :07:35.sentences of one or two months and banned from foot or grounds for up

:07:36. > :07:40.to six years. The numbers bear this out as an effective approach. Both

:07:41. > :07:47.legislatively and judicially. In contrast to the 255 incidents in

:07:48. > :07:53.2014 at music events there were just three incidents at football grounds.

:07:54. > :07:55.In my capacity as chairman of the APG for music I find broad support

:07:56. > :08:02.for this bill throughout the industry. Live nation, one of the

:08:03. > :08:06.largest concert organisers and ticket riders in the UK has been

:08:07. > :08:11.campaigning on this subject for a significant time. As yet, without

:08:12. > :08:16.success. I would like to see that change sooner rather than later.

:08:17. > :08:21.Because these injuries and incidents are absolutely avoidable with the

:08:22. > :08:24.right support. The Association of Independent festivals, representing

:08:25. > :08:29.many popular events including the secret Garden party, the Isle of

:08:30. > :08:35.Wight Festival, ask for the laws support. I quote, it is the

:08:36. > :08:38.responsibility of organisers to provide a safe and enjoyable

:08:39. > :08:41.environment and the government should support this objective by

:08:42. > :08:49.creating a level playing field between music and sports fans. So

:08:50. > :08:53.concert organisers have every reason to want to protect concertgoers, but

:08:54. > :08:57.unfortunately with their power was limited to basically expelling

:08:58. > :09:01.someone from a venue, they feel toothless when it comes to deterring

:09:02. > :09:09.this kind of behaviour. Despite a behaviour to do exactly that.

:09:10. > :09:23.The current situation is as follows. On the ratings are banned from

:09:24. > :09:27.carrying fireworks in public places. However, an overwhelming majority of

:09:28. > :09:32.concerts and festivals occur on private property. There is no such

:09:33. > :09:37.regulation for flares because they are not intended for entertainment

:09:38. > :09:41.use at all. There is no offence for adults carrying fireworks or smoke

:09:42. > :09:45.bombs unless it can be proven that this is being done with intent to

:09:46. > :09:52.cause injury. Contact injuries from these articles are usually a case of

:09:53. > :10:05.boneheaded this regard for others rather than malice. It amounts to no

:10:06. > :10:13.rules or protection for those using pyrotechnics at music events. When

:10:14. > :10:20.an industry welcomes a law as an in central -- an essential protection,

:10:21. > :10:24.then surely Parliament must act and we would not be doing our duty if we

:10:25. > :10:33.ignored it. My right honourable friend, the Minister confirmed in a

:10:34. > :10:38.letter in March 2015 that in his view, this matter was requiring

:10:39. > :10:43.proper examination of how best to determine the misuse of these

:10:44. > :10:53.devices. I share this view but little progress has been made. I

:10:54. > :10:59.believe proper examination leads to the conclusion that a ban covering

:11:00. > :11:08.music events will be the best step open to us and those proposing the

:11:09. > :11:12.bill, I believe the time has come to take that forward. I am not by

:11:13. > :11:18.instinct someone who likes to ban things. I think, by and large,

:11:19. > :11:30.people should have the right to choose to take risks themselves.

:11:31. > :11:35.However, audience members have not chosen to be exposed to the dangers

:11:36. > :11:39.of flares and fireworks deployed in improper conditions and possibly by

:11:40. > :11:43.those who have no idea and are in no fit mind to use them. They have come

:11:44. > :11:56.to enjoy live music and these endangered them. To be clear, my

:11:57. > :12:00.bill would only apply to audience members and spectators. There has

:12:01. > :12:06.been a misleading report that venues and artists would not be able to use

:12:07. > :12:12.them. Stage setups would be the same as they currently are. I don't want

:12:13. > :12:20.to curtail the ability of trained professionals to put on a vibrant

:12:21. > :12:33.and striking show. I have enjoyed many a show and these can be part of

:12:34. > :12:40.a spectacle. I'm not sure if you are a fan of the Kings of Leon but I

:12:41. > :12:49.think you should ensure that nothing should ever be on fire. There is

:12:50. > :13:01.support from fans, professionals and colleagues in the house. This is a

:13:02. > :13:10.problem and there is a consensus. I am grateful to bring this issue

:13:11. > :13:17.before the house. The question is that the honourable member have

:13:18. > :13:26.leave to bring in the bill. The eyes have it. Who will bring in the bill?

:13:27. > :13:33.David Warburton, Steve Rotherham, Mark Pritchard, Pete Wishart, Craig

:13:34. > :13:46.Williams, Kevin Foster, Nigel Huddleston and myself, Sir.

:13:47. > :14:25.Second reading what they? Friday 22nd of April.

:14:26. > :14:40.We come now to the standing order, number 24 bill. I call Angela Eagle.

:14:41. > :14:48.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I place on record my thanks to you for

:14:49. > :14:55.granting this debate today. Such debates are rare but the situation

:14:56. > :15:00.facing the steel industry cannot be categorised as anything other than

:15:01. > :15:02.an emergency. Today's debate provides an opportunity for the

:15:03. > :15:09.Secretary of State to come to this post with a comprehensive solution

:15:10. > :15:17.for the steel industry, an industry hanging by the thinnest of threads.

:15:18. > :15:23.Anything less from him will be an abdication of his duty. I hope he

:15:24. > :15:33.will take the opportunity to explain to us in more detail exactly what he

:15:34. > :15:36.meant. Call it what you like, or investing, part nationalisation,

:15:37. > :15:41.temporary public stewardship or sheltering the assets. It is clear

:15:42. > :15:46.that circumstances might require the government to do this. They should

:15:47. > :15:54.spare their ideological blushes and get on with it. It is important the

:15:55. > :15:57.Business Secretary hears from those who represent steel-making

:15:58. > :16:02.communities. They have great expertise and knowledge which I hope

:16:03. > :16:06.will inform the response to this crisis. Up until now this is a

:16:07. > :16:10.government and Secretary of State that have been found wanting. They

:16:11. > :16:16.have been behind rather than ahead of events. Their response to the

:16:17. > :16:21.biggest crisis in steel-making in a generation has been warm words but

:16:22. > :16:25.little effective action. There has been an ideological driven

:16:26. > :16:29.reluctance to get involved as the crisis has deepened. It has been a

:16:30. > :16:37.mixture of indifference and incompetence. Can I just say I am

:16:38. > :16:41.not going to give way as generously as I normally do because this is a

:16:42. > :16:46.three-hour debate and I think it is really important those members from

:16:47. > :16:52.steel-making communities get their chance to have their say.

:16:53. > :16:57.The First Minister of Wales has called for all parties to come

:16:58. > :17:04.together to work towards a future rather than political point scoring.

:17:05. > :17:08.The Right Honourable lady is very passionate on this issue as we are

:17:09. > :17:12.on the side of the house. It is vital we have this. Can she ensure

:17:13. > :17:16.the house but she and her colleagues are approaching it in that combined

:17:17. > :17:29.political approach between the parties to secure that future? We

:17:30. > :17:35.will judge this government by actions and achievements rather than

:17:36. > :17:38.words. The complete absence of a manufacturing or industrial strategy

:17:39. > :17:44.has hampered this government's ability to think strategically about

:17:45. > :17:47.what is needed. Never has it been more urgent that the Business

:17:48. > :17:52.Secretary does so. On the 29th of March, Tata steel announced it would

:17:53. > :17:58.sell steel-making operations in the UK and it is leaving the future of

:17:59. > :18:09.steel-making hanging by a thread and putting jobs at imminent risk. I ask

:18:10. > :18:14.if the shadow secretary shares my concern that on the 29th of March we

:18:15. > :18:21.knew about this, people going to Mumbai knew it was happening, yet

:18:22. > :18:28.three years ago the Prime Minister reconvened this chamber within two

:18:29. > :18:33.days to talk about the death of Margaret Thatcher. I think it is

:18:34. > :18:37.regrettable that there was not a recall of Parliament but we are

:18:38. > :18:43.where we are and we've got this debate thanks to you. It is

:18:44. > :18:46.imperative to underline the fundamental importance of this

:18:47. > :18:53.industry for our economy and for the country. Steel is a foundation

:18:54. > :19:01.industry. Whilst it might make up 1% of total manufacturing output that

:19:02. > :19:05.is crucial. The world leading industries, real construction, all

:19:06. > :19:09.depend on a strong and sustainable domestic steel industry. The

:19:10. > :19:20.manufacturing sector already faces tough times. The ONS figures show a

:19:21. > :19:30.different picture. Manufacturing output remained frozen at the level

:19:31. > :19:39.of five years ago. It is still 6.4% down. In his budget speech the

:19:40. > :19:49.Chancellor spoke of his vision of Britain carried aloft by the makers

:19:50. > :19:57.but he has not reflected this. The manufacturing sector has shrunk. It

:19:58. > :20:02.has failed to materialise. In this context the challenges facing the

:20:03. > :20:06.steel industry represent annexes dental crisis for the manufacturing

:20:07. > :20:14.sector in the UK. I don't believe we can allow it to shrink further. I'm

:20:15. > :20:23.glad the government has realised this. We need action. The crisis in

:20:24. > :20:27.the steel industry matters for the wider economy as well. Much has been

:20:28. > :20:35.said about the cost of supporting the steel industry but far too

:20:36. > :20:41.little about the cost of it being destroyed. The collapse would lead

:20:42. > :20:49.to additional cost to the government of ?4.6 billion. It would take

:20:50. > :20:59.demand out of the economy, reducing household spending by ?3 billion.

:21:00. > :21:04.There would be secondary shocks up and down the country. Tata steel is

:21:05. > :21:12.the biggest business rates appear in rather with an annual bill of ?3.2

:21:13. > :21:26.million. The loss of this revenue to the local authority is equivalent to

:21:27. > :21:29.a 1.8% increase in council tax the. Does my right honourable friend

:21:30. > :21:35.agree that the way forward was shown by the Labour government when it

:21:36. > :21:51.introduced a car scrap scheme to support the automotive industry.

:21:52. > :22:01.This sector was preserved and it now prospers. My honourable friend is

:22:02. > :22:12.absolutely right and I hope the Secretary of State is taking note.

:22:13. > :22:29.The trade deficit is now the worst since 1948. The loss of steel and

:22:30. > :22:34.current exports in steel would make this clearly sustainable deficit

:22:35. > :22:43.even worse. Beyond this cost there would be an intolerable social cost.

:22:44. > :22:48.15,000 jobs are at stake and a further 25,000 at stake in the wider

:22:49. > :22:54.supply chain. These are the kind of jobs we need to see more of. The end

:22:55. > :23:00.of steel-making in the UK would be devastating for a 40,000 workers and

:23:01. > :23:06.the communities. Some have highlighted the cost of intervening

:23:07. > :23:16.but I believe the cost of letting steel feel is far greater. I don't

:23:17. > :23:21.mean to pre-empt what she says but could she confirmed to the house, is

:23:22. > :23:24.it the policy of Her Majesty's opposition that the steel industry

:23:25. > :23:27.should be nationalised and remain in public hands for as long as

:23:28. > :23:42.necessary? is what is necessary to preserve

:23:43. > :23:47.restructure and insure the survival of our steel industry for the

:23:48. > :23:52.future. And that is the job of government. We will be as supportive

:23:53. > :23:56.as we can and I will set out some parameters a bit later on in my

:23:57. > :24:01.speech but really, this is about the government getting it act in order.

:24:02. > :24:04.We are holding the government to account for their actions rather

:24:05. > :24:13.than just their words, that is what this debate is about.

:24:14. > :24:18.On that point, we heard nothing yesterday from the Secretary of

:24:19. > :24:24.State about what action the government is going to take on

:24:25. > :24:27.energy costs and business rates, which are burdening the industry,

:24:28. > :24:32.and government could act, yet we have had no sign the government will

:24:33. > :24:36.change policy in these vital areas. We will have the chance to hear

:24:37. > :24:40.about some concrete action from the government during the course of this

:24:41. > :24:45.debate. I was talking about the cost of letting the industry fail, for

:24:46. > :24:50.the community, the cost to the economy is high, but the cost to the

:24:51. > :24:54.workers and their communities with a higher. So we welcome the recent

:24:55. > :24:57.commitment from the Business Secretary to do everything they can

:24:58. > :25:05.to protect steel-making and processing in the UK. But this

:25:06. > :25:09.Business Secretary has form. Warm words are all very well but they are

:25:10. > :25:15.worth as if they are not. I'm meaningful action as the Redcar

:25:16. > :25:19.community now to their cost. -- if they are not backed up by meaningful

:25:20. > :25:23.action. We are in no doubt that there are huge challenges facing the

:25:24. > :25:28.industry but we also believe the steel industry in the UK can have a

:25:29. > :25:31.strong, sustainable future. The decisions made by this government

:25:32. > :25:37.will ultimately determine whether it does. That is why I welcome the

:25:38. > :25:41.commitment of the Business Secretary appeared to make during the

:25:42. > :25:46.statement yesterday, to what he called co-investment. Perhaps he

:25:47. > :25:50.will tell us if he is considering co-investment to save the blast

:25:51. > :25:56.furnaces at Port Talbot? Because we did not get out and said to this

:25:57. > :26:01.yesterday. Can the Business Secretary confirm here and now that

:26:02. > :26:03.he will avoid a fire sale of these assets and make sure that

:26:04. > :26:14.irreversible mistakes are not made in the way in which they are sold?

:26:15. > :26:21.Tata, is a responsible seller, must only consider offers which maintain

:26:22. > :26:29.both upstream and downstream assets. The government must also ensure that

:26:30. > :26:35.enough time is made available for the appropriate considerations of

:26:36. > :26:41.responsible offers. It took nine months for the Scunthorpe deal to be

:26:42. > :26:46.developed. And yet Tata have indicated they wish to exit the UK

:26:47. > :26:49.within four months. What is being done to reassure the easiest in

:26:50. > :26:54.customer base that their current and future contracts will be fulfilled

:26:55. > :27:01.during this period of uncertainty? These plants cannot be saved if the

:27:02. > :27:05.order book disappears. There are a number of areas where the government

:27:06. > :27:08.can make, I believe, a positive difference. The most significant

:27:09. > :27:11.cause of the crisis facing the industry is the one thing of huge

:27:12. > :27:23.amounts of cheap Chinese steel on the market. -- and dumping. Chinese

:27:24. > :27:28.state owned firms are making huge losses yet continued to pour out

:27:29. > :27:31.product. The UK simply cannot compete with state subsidised unfair

:27:32. > :27:35.trade which is threatening to destroy the European industry as

:27:36. > :27:41.well as ours. We are not calling for protectionism but we are standing up

:27:42. > :27:45.for fair trade and calling for quick, with tariffs, which help

:27:46. > :27:48.level the playing field. The Business Secretary must abandon his

:27:49. > :27:54.opposition to the abolition of the lesser duty rule and block unfair

:27:55. > :28:08.Chinese imports. Correcting market economy status to China must not be

:28:09. > :28:11.automatic -- granting. The Chinese may only one in five of the criteria

:28:12. > :28:26.yet the UK support the granting of that status as early as the share.

:28:27. > :28:31.Potential buyers of the Tata operation need the surest sign that

:28:32. > :28:37.the government is ready to act. To ensure that UK steel producers can

:28:38. > :28:43.benefit from large public sector contracts. The Ministry of Defence

:28:44. > :28:46.will spend ?178 billion on defence equipment over the next ten years

:28:47. > :28:51.yet the Coalition Government scrapped the Labour's defence

:28:52. > :28:54.industry strategy which made British jobs and industry the first priority

:28:55. > :29:00.in all decisions on Ministry of Defence contract. We now have the

:29:01. > :29:04.deeply regrettable situation of an aircraft carrier, surface ships, and

:29:05. > :29:10.armoured vehicles, all being manufactured in the UK with mainly

:29:11. > :29:16.imported steel. With more planning our domestic industry could have

:29:17. > :29:18.supplied these needs. The government must also take action on

:29:19. > :29:24.infrastructure investment, despite all the government we are about

:29:25. > :29:29.this, in reality public sector net investment in the UK will be lower

:29:30. > :29:34.as a percentage of GDP at the end of this parliament than at the start,

:29:35. > :29:38.half of what it was under the last Labour government. The project

:29:39. > :29:42.announced in the government infrastructure pipeline, just one in

:29:43. > :29:46.are under way. For the sake of our steel industry, and for the sake of

:29:47. > :29:51.the wider economy, on the government to bring forward rejects that

:29:52. > :29:58.require a significant amount of steel -- projects, and make sure

:29:59. > :30:07.that changes in the rules which the government keep posting about,

:30:08. > :30:12.actually make a difference. -- boasting.

:30:13. > :30:15.Yesterday I received a letter from the Prime Minister praising and

:30:16. > :30:21.infrastructure investment in the railway between Wrexham and Chester.

:30:22. > :30:23.Unfortunately this is being funded by the Labour Welsh Government. It

:30:24. > :30:32.appears to be the only example that the Prime Minister could forward

:30:33. > :30:35.investing in rail in North Wales. It is a very telling point and I

:30:36. > :30:44.hope the government will connect these things in its procurement

:30:45. > :30:46.efforts. So that we can make a real difference to the potential customer

:30:47. > :30:56.base for UK steel at this very difficult time.

:30:57. > :31:01.Does my honourable friend share my concern that certain major

:31:02. > :31:05.procurement project, like high speed two, like nuclear, are being given

:31:06. > :31:10.to China? My fear is they will actually want to use Chinese steel.

:31:11. > :31:13.Let alone the case that were these British companies they would pay

:31:14. > :31:18.corporation tax, national insurance, income tax, which developed the

:31:19. > :31:23.supply chain and export capacity. This she share I fear that there is

:31:24. > :31:31.no proper joint industrial strategy to protect jobs and futures?

:31:32. > :31:34.I do agree. It is hard to avoid, when we see the Chancellor

:31:35. > :31:40.travelling around China, asking them to bid for all of these contracts,

:31:41. > :31:48.we see what sexually happening. Business rates represent a higher

:31:49. > :31:57.cost for UK stupid users. -- what is actually happening. The Chancellor

:31:58. > :32:06.reportedly even costed the changes with a view to including it in the

:32:07. > :32:10.near infamous budget, before being dropped at the last minute. The

:32:11. > :32:16.measure that would actually improve prospects for the industry was

:32:17. > :32:18.sacrificed for an economically illiterate and increasingly

:32:19. > :32:24.unachievable surplus target. Part of the problem is ideology. Labour have

:32:25. > :32:31.been calling for a modern, intelligent industrial strategy. In

:32:32. > :32:36.yesterday's statement of the Business Secretary actually uttered

:32:37. > :32:45.the words, strategy, for the first time. -- the words, business

:32:46. > :32:55.strategy. Now that this Rubicon has been crossed all we now need is

:32:56. > :32:58.action to match the words. Today we spare a thought for the thousands of

:32:59. > :33:04.steel workers whose futures hang in the balance. The government ignored

:33:05. > :33:11.the warning signs for too long but now must act. They must act to find

:33:12. > :33:16.a suitable buyer. To work with the steel producers, the workforce, the

:33:17. > :33:22.clients, the customers, to place the industry on an even keel. The costs

:33:23. > :33:23.of failure both economically and socially are unthinkable. We need

:33:24. > :33:38.urgent action to save our steel. Order. The question is, that this

:33:39. > :33:43.House has considered Tata's decision to sell their UK steel operations,

:33:44. > :33:48.and the action that the government is taken to secure the future of the

:33:49. > :33:54.steel industry. The Secretary of State.

:33:55. > :33:57.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The whole House will be deeply concerned by

:33:58. > :34:03.the crisis affecting the global steel industry over the last year.

:34:04. > :34:08.The fact are familiar but they're repeating. Around the world

:34:09. > :34:14.steel-making capacity is 35% higher than the mind. In China alone the

:34:15. > :34:19.excess capacity is 25 times the UK's entire annual production. The man

:34:20. > :34:23.has slumped in China as the economy grows and demand here in Europe has

:34:24. > :34:32.yet to return to the crash levels. This surge in supply has inevitably

:34:33. > :34:35.led to a large fall in prices. The knock-on effect for steelworkers

:34:36. > :34:44.around the world has been devastating. In the UK we have sadly

:34:45. > :34:48.seen the closure of plants in Redcar after the parent company ran up

:34:49. > :34:54.unsustainable losses. Across Europe, 70,000 workers have been laid off

:34:55. > :35:00.since 2008. And last week we heard that US steel, the biggest in the

:35:01. > :35:05.United States, was laying off a quarter of its nonunion workforce,

:35:06. > :35:10.and earlier this month the owner of one of the two heavy steel mills

:35:11. > :35:16.left in Australia entered voluntary administration. This is of course

:35:17. > :35:20.more than just numbers. It is a human tragedy. When we talk about

:35:21. > :35:24.job losses in the abstract it is easy to forget that each of them

:35:25. > :35:31.represents a person. A hard-working, highly skilled person. Many of them

:35:32. > :35:35.will have husbands, wives, children, other dependents, to support, all

:35:36. > :35:39.will have local business relying on their custom, and that pattern will

:35:40. > :35:45.be repeated throughout the supply chain. That is why, where job losses

:35:46. > :35:49.have happened in Britain, we have done everything we can to support

:35:50. > :35:55.communities affected. I will give way.

:35:56. > :35:58.I thank the honourable gentleman. He said, we must not forget. I can

:35:59. > :36:04.pursue the honourable gentleman people in this House or not forget.

:36:05. > :36:08.I am one of the people you're government did this to 30 years ago

:36:09. > :36:13.when you closed the coal mines. You didn't care then, didn't care about

:36:14. > :36:16.the social cost that has destroyed areas like mine, and you need to

:36:17. > :36:24.bear that in mind going forward in this debate.

:36:25. > :36:29.Mr Speaker, I am sure the honourable gentleman agrees with me, where the

:36:30. > :36:35.government can help where there are job losses, of course, it must do

:36:36. > :36:39.so. I will give away in a moment. Let me speak about Redcar. I know

:36:40. > :36:44.that the honourable gentleman is interested in that as well. We have

:36:45. > :36:50.committed up to ?80 million to help people affected by the Redcar

:36:51. > :36:54.closure. More than ?16 million to help local firms employ former

:36:55. > :37:03.workers. Another ?16 million in supporting companies in the I supply

:37:04. > :37:11.chain in the wider region. -- the SSI supply chain. There was a ?1.7

:37:12. > :37:16.million package to help former SSI apprentices remain in employment or

:37:17. > :37:20.training. I give way. When he says this government will do

:37:21. > :37:25.everything for communities affected, and the date of the liquidation at

:37:26. > :37:33.Redcar, he announced an ?80 million total package, oh, it is ?90 million

:37:34. > :37:40.now! We have seen prior, at the dispatch box...

:37:41. > :37:46.Order, order. Junior minister, we don't need you shouting from a

:37:47. > :37:55.sedentary position. Be quiet! It is not required. I have told you so

:37:56. > :37:58.many times. Try to get the message! We saw at the dispatch box not long

:37:59. > :38:03.ago the Secretary of State changed the figure to ?50 million. The money

:38:04. > :38:06.on top was only gained because a trade union went to a tribunal to

:38:07. > :38:10.guarantee the workforce court what they were entitled to. The governor

:38:11. > :38:19.could have fast-track that seven months ago! -- government.

:38:20. > :38:23.I thought the honourable gentleman said, up to ?90 million. What we

:38:24. > :38:28.have always said, and it has not changed, is achingly in pounds. To

:38:29. > :38:41.be clear. I agree there is a long way to go. -- has not changed, is

:38:42. > :38:44.?80 million. More than 2000 workers from SSI, only a quarter of them are

:38:45. > :38:52.claiming jobseeker's allowance at the end of debris. I will give way.

:38:53. > :38:57.The 600 job figure is those who are in work or training. Not just work.

:38:58. > :38:58.That is important, because it is work that will be vital at the end

:38:59. > :39:10.of the training. The honourable lady makes a very

:39:11. > :39:17.important point. Retraining can lead to work so it is important to invest

:39:18. > :39:25.in that. But I do know that I need to, for the people of Redcar, this

:39:26. > :39:28.feels like a drop in the ocean. When a community is built around a single

:39:29. > :39:38.industry the death of that industry takes away more than just jobs. This

:39:39. > :39:47.government has been taking real action to support the industry. He

:39:48. > :39:50.begin to appreciate how this clause intercommunity? I attended a medical

:39:51. > :39:54.centre on Teesside who lost nurses because they had given up their

:39:55. > :39:58.bursary of funded training programmes because their husbands

:39:59. > :40:06.had lost their jobs. The ripples for this go right out. It is up to 9000

:40:07. > :40:12.people losing jobs and he should understand that very clearly. The

:40:13. > :40:20.honourable gentleman is absolutely right. It is devastating way beyond

:40:21. > :40:27.the community and that is why we must do everything together to

:40:28. > :40:30.prevent that happening. We must support the supply chain because as

:40:31. > :40:40.the honourable gentleman highlights it has a ripple effect throughout

:40:41. > :40:49.the community. I work very hard with members across the house to secure

:40:50. > :40:53.pensions from Ford. Even Tata steel have almost fully made up their

:40:54. > :41:08.pension fund, will the government socialised that fund so that

:41:09. > :41:12.pensions are secure? I will move on in just a moment. He rightly

:41:13. > :41:20.identifies pensions as an issue and we are looking at all possible

:41:21. > :41:24.solutions. I want to take a moment on the action we've already taken

:41:25. > :41:32.action with. ?76 million has already been paid and we expect to pay over

:41:33. > :41:40.?100 million this financial year alone. In the Autumn Statement we

:41:41. > :41:44.announced that we will go farther. Energy intensive industries will be

:41:45. > :41:49.exempted from renewable policy cost and it will save the steel industry

:41:50. > :41:55.over ?400 million by the end of this Parliament. Surely the honourable

:41:56. > :41:59.gentleman would agree that rather than compensating businesses for

:42:00. > :42:10.attacks we've levied it would be more logical to scrap the tax? My

:42:11. > :42:15.honourable friend will agree that our move to go to exemption rather

:42:16. > :42:22.than compensation is exactly what my honourable friend would like to see.

:42:23. > :42:29.Would he accept that the support this government is having is only a

:42:30. > :42:32.fraction of what Germany and other countries are giving to their steel

:42:33. > :42:39.industries, it would still leave the steel industry with much higher

:42:40. > :42:45.energy costs. Isn't it better to consider going farther to help the

:42:46. > :42:50.steel industry? I think the honourable gentleman does underplay

:42:51. > :42:59.the help this provides the industry. If you speak to the manufacturers,

:43:00. > :43:03.they see this as a game changer. Where I can agree with him, I think

:43:04. > :43:17.there is more to look at in this area, particularly with regards to

:43:18. > :43:20.securing a buyer. In a meeting with industrial communities which

:43:21. > :43:24.represent industrial areas in the UK the EU commission reiterated their

:43:25. > :43:31.commitment to change the trade defence instruments which would

:43:32. > :43:41.tackle the cheap steel issue. Will they make these changes? I will come

:43:42. > :43:55.onto that in a moment but let first talk about the delivery of

:43:56. > :44:00.flexibility. We've taken action on procurement, becoming the first

:44:01. > :44:06.country anywhere in Europe to take on EU rules which make it easier for

:44:07. > :44:17.the public to buy British. That is on top of our proud record of

:44:18. > :44:25.British Steel. He has the Minister for procurement next to him. He'd

:44:26. > :44:29.said the UK did not have full records of where they have got steel

:44:30. > :44:33.from. How can we be sure of this when departments are not even

:44:34. > :44:40.keeping records and defence projects are being made in other countries? I

:44:41. > :44:46.think he may hear more about that from the Minister for procurement in

:44:47. > :44:52.the coming days but when it does come to procurement, first of all

:44:53. > :44:57.with defence itself as an example, the new aircraft carriers are being

:44:58. > :45:07.built with 100,000 tonnes of British Steel. Crossrail, the biggest

:45:08. > :45:11.construction project in Europe, users British Steel almost

:45:12. > :45:22.exclusively. 96% of Network Rail spending goes to them. 1500 miles of

:45:23. > :45:31.it. Enough to build a two track line from London to Edinburgh. I believe

:45:32. > :45:43.the procurement of Network Rail is a case study in how to do procurement.

:45:44. > :45:50.But if you look at energy, we need to make sure it uses UK steel. What

:45:51. > :45:57.progress is he making with his colleagues to ensure that turns out

:45:58. > :46:01.to be the case? We've had meetings with that particular company and

:46:02. > :46:09.many others in a similar situation. Many of them are private companies,

:46:10. > :46:12.not subject to the rules around procurement, but there are ways to

:46:13. > :46:25.try and encourage them to invest in British Steel and that is what is

:46:26. > :46:34.happening. I will give the moment. The question was raised about

:46:35. > :46:42.defence. We've been working hard at the issue of trade defence. I hear a

:46:43. > :46:47.lot in this house about ideology. I'm just interested in one thing,

:46:48. > :46:53.that is what actually works. We are the evidence shows that tariffs will

:46:54. > :46:57.make a difference without harming reddish business, I will support

:46:58. > :47:07.them. That is why last July the UK voted to impose a 16% tariff. Since

:47:08. > :47:16.those duties were imposed on imports from China have fallen by as much as

:47:17. > :47:24.90%. Since duties were imposed on imports from China were down 80%. In

:47:25. > :47:30.January, we voted to impose an 11% tariff and since then imports of

:47:31. > :47:38.that steel product have fallen by 99%. In February we voted for a 15%

:47:39. > :47:46.tariff on flat products, which has already produced imports from China

:47:47. > :47:54.-- reduced imports from China to almost nothing. This is real action

:47:55. > :48:00.and they are making a difference. This is what the European steel

:48:01. > :48:06.Association spokesperson said about this rule. The fact that the UK

:48:07. > :48:11.continues to block it means when the government says it is doing

:48:12. > :48:17.everything it can to save the steel industry, it is not. Isn't that the

:48:18. > :48:21.truth? I will turn to that in a moment but I will give way to the

:48:22. > :48:29.honourable lady if she still wants to. I hope you will answer the

:48:30. > :48:36.question. On procurement, when it comes to energy, the government is

:48:37. > :48:43.intervening in the energy market. Has the Secretary of State looked at

:48:44. > :48:46.making sure when these often very generous contracts are negotiated

:48:47. > :48:53.that buying British made steel is part of that contract as well? No

:48:54. > :49:02.stone is unreturned in terms of making sure we sell as much British

:49:03. > :49:11.Steel as possible. Turning to the point about the letter duty rule.

:49:12. > :49:17.The opposition repeatedly raised this rule but they had no problem

:49:18. > :49:23.with it for many years whilst they were in government. Scrapping the

:49:24. > :49:30.rule altogether would cost dearly. It would mean raising prices on

:49:31. > :49:39.everyday items that we rely on. On footwear, the rules save British

:49:40. > :49:43.shoppers ?130 million. However, I am more than happy to look at ways of

:49:44. > :49:47.specifically helping the steel industry and I hope during this

:49:48. > :50:02.debate members will come up with ideas. I will be listening.

:50:03. > :50:08.I referred to the interventional Labour Government took when the

:50:09. > :50:17.government stepped up to the plate to support industry. Can I suggest

:50:18. > :50:27.that the Secretary of State approached the automotive sectors

:50:28. > :50:35.and ask them to engender, the way they can assist the UK steel

:50:36. > :50:45.industry and step up to the plate at this time of great difficulty? We

:50:46. > :50:48.have sector councils for both of those industries, we have that

:50:49. > :51:01.regular dialogue and that is exactly the kind of thing they are focused

:51:02. > :51:05.on and the work they are doing. I read a very interesting stat that

:51:06. > :51:16.there has been a decline in the industries across the UK. Can I ask

:51:17. > :51:21.the Secretary of State why he thinks the decline of these industries is

:51:22. > :51:26.twice the level of other OECD countries? I don't know where the

:51:27. > :51:33.honourable gentleman gets his numbers from but it brings me to a

:51:34. > :51:36.useful point, where the Right Honourable Lady had said earlier,

:51:37. > :51:42.but when I said manufacturing output is down, sorry, up since 2010, the

:51:43. > :51:47.honourable lady suggested it was incorrect. I can tell her that

:51:48. > :51:54.manufacturing output since 2010 is up 2.2% in real terms, 18.7% in

:51:55. > :51:57.current prices. Those are the official numbers and manufacturing

:51:58. > :52:02.and employment is up. If she wants to know about when manufacturing

:52:03. > :52:13.output falls, that was during the last Labour government when it fell

:52:14. > :52:16.from 18% of GPA to 10%. Steel companies are seriously concerned

:52:17. > :52:23.that the market economy status granted to China will severely

:52:24. > :52:28.jeopardise their ability to take Chinese or other companies to court

:52:29. > :52:38.for dumping. What assessment has been made of that threat? Mr

:52:39. > :52:44.Speaker, that will be a decision for the EU, but also, any country that

:52:45. > :52:57.once market economy status, it is clear that they need to earn it.

:52:58. > :53:00.Let's remember, you can still impose tariffs. Russia and the United

:53:01. > :53:10.States is a good example. Does the Minister accept that many

:53:11. > :53:13.on this side of the House believe it is for this House and this

:53:14. > :53:20.government to decide whether a country like China is dumping? And

:53:21. > :53:25.we should make the decision whether to improve tariffs. We think that if

:53:26. > :53:32.we had been outside the EU months ago we would have approved tariffs

:53:33. > :53:41.and solve the problem. I would tell my right honourable friend that we

:53:42. > :53:44.have led the way in taking this action and it has resulted in the

:53:45. > :53:48.right tariffs are helping the steel industry but at the same time

:53:49. > :53:52.helping producers and consumers. My friend will agree with me that when

:53:53. > :53:55.you do take action on tariffs you want to be sure that it is the

:53:56. > :54:00.actual amount is a sorry to help the industry but not help consumers and

:54:01. > :54:10.other producers. I will give way one more time.

:54:11. > :54:15.He has mentioned the issue of the tariffs and increasing them in that

:54:16. > :54:19.industry is obviously crucial, the exporters shunted up their tariffs

:54:20. > :54:23.before they came in, so we may have seen a drop off because of that. So

:54:24. > :54:27.does he still think the tariffs are high enough, or do they need to go

:54:28. > :54:32.even higher to deal with the industry changes going on to other

:54:33. > :54:38.factors? We should always be driven by the

:54:39. > :54:45.evidence. The results so far of that tariffs are 99%, year on year,

:54:46. > :54:51.suggesting it is effective, but we should always keep it under review

:54:52. > :54:51.and make sure that it is effective. These, the

:54:52. > :54:59.and will, yes. I am grateful. He has talked about

:55:00. > :55:05.the government action on procurement, the response on

:55:06. > :55:08.tariffs, and yesterday he talked about government co-investment. Any

:55:09. > :55:14.users opportunity to please clarify, what does the government mean by

:55:15. > :55:23.co-investment? My honourable friend will know that

:55:24. > :55:27.it was in relation to the Tata decision to sell the business. What

:55:28. > :55:31.I set out was to show that when the government says we will look at all

:55:32. > :55:36.options to help create a long-term, viable business, with a commercial

:55:37. > :55:42.operator, that it would be such an option. The key point is that any

:55:43. > :55:48.co-investment have to be on commercial terms. It can take a

:55:49. > :55:51.variety of forms. It can be set. It is a demonstration of all the

:55:52. > :55:55.options the government is looking at. I will move on to that in a bit

:55:56. > :56:02.moment when I have said a bit more about Tata, but that may finish on

:56:03. > :56:07.the actions they can already on tariffs, energy cost, and

:56:08. > :56:11.procurement. Not for now. Together, these send a powerful message to

:56:12. > :56:16.investors around the world. It is that the British government is

:56:17. > :56:21.standing up for UK steel. This commitment is not new. I have worked

:56:22. > :56:25.with the steel industry since my first day as secretary, long before

:56:26. > :56:31.this crisis made it onto the front pages. As I told the House

:56:32. > :56:35.yesterday, Tata contacted me several weeks ago to warn that they were

:56:36. > :56:39.planning to sell parts of their business, and that they planned

:56:40. > :56:44.immediate closure of the Port Talbot site. Thanks to the groundwork laid

:56:45. > :56:51.by my team and colleagues all over the past year we were able to secure

:56:52. > :56:55.a reprieve whilst a buyer was found. I lead the government efforts to

:56:56. > :57:00.help find that buyer and we will update the House on progress as soon

:57:01. > :57:06.as we possibly can. When a buyer is found the government stands ready to

:57:07. > :57:10.support them in any way that we can, to help get that deal done. We have

:57:11. > :57:18.already set out some ways we can help, I do not get it prudent to go

:57:19. > :57:23.into detail. -- do not think. But the goal is a commercial buyer with

:57:24. > :57:29.government help in securing the transaction and getting a long-term,

:57:30. > :57:36.viable future for the business. In terms of a broader view of

:57:37. > :57:42.co-investment, the steel sector does not have catapults status. Will that

:57:43. > :57:46.be looked at as a potential co-investment, if you like, for the

:57:47. > :57:52.sector, particularly around sites such as MPI, so that we can have a

:57:53. > :57:58.research and development link with our domestic steel industry?

:57:59. > :58:01.He will know that catapults centres are a partnership between

:58:02. > :58:07.government, businesses, and academia. If that can help the steel

:58:08. > :58:19.sector come forward with a proposal, then I am more than happy to

:58:20. > :58:22.research and look into that. There are hundreds of

:58:23. > :58:30.apprenticeships in Port Talbot who whilst receiving on-the-job training

:58:31. > :58:36.also attend college or university. If the steel-making facilities and

:58:37. > :58:40.subsequent sponsorships are removed then this will deprive future

:58:41. > :58:47.generations of potential, and for the UK being at the forefront of

:58:48. > :58:50.development. What I can pursue the honourable

:58:51. > :58:54.lady, who makes a very important point about the importance of skills

:58:55. > :59:01.training, is that we are working already with the Welsh Government on

:59:02. > :59:03.that. And I have already started discussions with the universities

:59:04. > :59:10.minister, and the schools minister, to make sure the issue remains to

:59:11. > :59:14.the front of the mind. Mr Speaker, I also want to talk about Tata,

:59:15. > :59:35.yesterday we heard about their deal with Grable, along with the

:59:36. > :59:38.liberty House acquisition Scotland and the West Midlands it is a vote

:59:39. > :59:42.of confidence in the British steel industry. I have not been able to do

:59:43. > :59:47.this work alone. I want to give praise to my right honourable

:59:48. > :59:51.friend, the Minister for business, she has been absolutely tireless in

:59:52. > :59:57.her efforts to protect steel. As has my honourable friend, the Secretary

:59:58. > :00:00.of State for Wales. I have had the pleasure of working closely with the

:00:01. > :00:04.Welsh First Minister and the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the

:00:05. > :00:10.assembly. They have been positive and constructive allies in the fight

:00:11. > :00:14.to save Port Talbot. And the steel unions, particularly community, have

:00:15. > :00:16.been equally constructive. They have consistently come forward with

:00:17. > :00:23.solutions rather than can claims and for that I would like to say thank

:00:24. > :00:34.you once again. Investors everywhere now that British Steel is the best

:00:35. > :00:36.in the world. They know that the British government stands with the

:00:37. > :00:40.steel industry and will do whatever they can to support and help them

:00:41. > :00:46.become more competitive. The challenges they face are great. They

:00:47. > :00:49.challenge the industry faces is global. But I fight for British

:00:50. > :00:54.steelworkers every hour of the day. I fought for them along before this

:00:55. > :00:58.crisis hit the headlines and I will go on fighting as long as it takes

:00:59. > :01:02.because British steelworkers are the best in the world and deserve no

:01:03. > :01:10.less. I congratulate the honourable member

:01:11. > :01:16.on securing this debate and IPC and your discretion, Mr Speaker, in

:01:17. > :01:20.omitting it, understanding order number 24. I will be brief, from our

:01:21. > :01:25.frontbenchers, in order to allow colleagues from steel communities,

:01:26. > :01:29.from Scotland, England, and Wales, to contribute to this short debate.

:01:30. > :01:33.The Business Secretary yesterday tried to get out of the hole he had

:01:34. > :01:39.dug himself by claiming credit for the news that Tata had found a

:01:40. > :01:43.buyer, claiming the government did everything they could for the steel

:01:44. > :01:49.industry and a sickly the workers in England and Wales should be grateful

:01:50. > :01:56.to the Tories. -- basically. I am grateful that Tata has found a buyer

:01:57. > :02:00.and hopefully the same can happen for Port Talbot and other sites, if

:02:01. > :02:06.the government is involved then I do commend it, but I am concerned about

:02:07. > :02:09.reports regarding the erosion of workers terms and conditions as part

:02:10. > :02:14.of the deal. Is the Business Secretary aware of it? Did this come

:02:15. > :02:24.up in discussions with Grable capital? And Willie you make

:02:25. > :02:26.representations to them? I am also concerned about the potential

:02:27. > :02:31.co-ownership of steel sites like Port Talbot, it was described as

:02:32. > :02:34.co-investment in commercial terms. Perhaps he can clarify that is

:02:35. > :02:39.yesterday left more questions than answers. Indeed it this morning

:02:40. > :02:44.appears that number ten was briefing against him, against this

:02:45. > :02:54.flirtation, saying that nationalisation is not the answer,

:02:55. > :02:57.it is uncoordinated and shambolic. What the honourable gentleman said

:02:58. > :03:01.about terms and conditions, that will be negotiated on site,

:03:02. > :03:05.including in my constituency, the terms and congestion is being

:03:06. > :03:09.reduced, and the pension conditions, R4 12 months only. That is usually

:03:10. > :03:14.called a short-term working agreement, I have negotiated them

:03:15. > :03:17.many times to save sight. As an industrial matter, not a political

:03:18. > :03:23.matter, does not really the place of this House to discuss it.

:03:24. > :03:28.I take the intervention with the intention in which it was clearly

:03:29. > :03:31.given. As I said yesterday, the fact that the Business Secretary was

:03:32. > :03:38.literally at the other side of the world at the height of the crisis is

:03:39. > :03:42.a perfect metaphor for the Conservative approach to the steel

:03:43. > :03:44.industry. Yesterday was the first time the government has proactively

:03:45. > :03:48.engaged with the House on this issue. Even that was after a

:03:49. > :03:53.shambolic recess where there were calls for the recall of Parliament.

:03:54. > :03:56.On every other occasion that I have been involved in discussions,

:03:57. > :03:59.certainly the vast majority of occasions when steel has been

:04:00. > :04:03.discussed in this House, it is because the government has been

:04:04. > :04:07.dragged here by opposition parties, as it has again today. It is clear

:04:08. > :04:11.the government has been behind the curve on steel, and I have already

:04:12. > :04:15.said that yesterday was the first time the government had proactively

:04:16. > :04:19.and so, and that was after a shambolic recess. The government has

:04:20. > :04:25.been behind the curve on this steel crisis. Defensive reactions rather

:04:26. > :04:28.than proactive, practical support. In stark contrast to the

:04:29. > :04:32.professional and diligent way the Scottish Government has approached

:04:33. > :04:36.the crisis facing fines in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon said the Scottish

:04:37. > :04:40.Government would leave no stone and turned in saving a crucial industry

:04:41. > :04:44.and that is exactly what happened. The Scottish steel task force was

:04:45. > :04:48.quickly assembled and I am delighted to say that my honourable friend

:04:49. > :04:52.from Motherwell, Wishaw, Hamilton West, contributed to that. Liberty

:04:53. > :04:57.House has now bought these sites to maintain a crucial industry in

:04:58. > :05:00.Scotland. The Business Secretary was noble enough yesterday to commend

:05:01. > :05:04.the Scottish Government for its action and efforts and I thank him

:05:05. > :05:08.for that, but the mask slipped later in the exchanges when my honourable

:05:09. > :05:12.friend from Rutherglen and Hamilton West asked if the UK Government had

:05:13. > :05:16.learned anything from the approach taken in Scotland. He said, the

:05:17. > :05:19.Business Secretary said, that the only reason Scottish steel had a

:05:20. > :05:24.bright future was because of the strength of the UK economy. Utterly

:05:25. > :05:30.complacent, arrogant, and ignorant of the facts, Mr Speaker. We on

:05:31. > :05:34.these benches stand in solidarity with English and Welsh steelworkers

:05:35. > :05:40.as they struggle and fight for their jobs and their industry alongside

:05:41. > :05:43.their union representatives. We hope the UK Government can work more

:05:44. > :05:47.cooperatively with EU colleagues on anti-dumping measures and other

:05:48. > :05:51.issues facing this industry so that there can be a long-term future for

:05:52. > :05:54.the crucial part of the manufacturing sector. There needs to

:05:55. > :05:58.be a credible manufacturing strategy, and for heavy industry, in

:05:59. > :06:03.the UK. As the Shadow Business Secretary said this government faces

:06:04. > :06:09.a massive, record-breaking, balance of trade imbalance. The only way of

:06:10. > :06:12.rectifying that is to start making things. If the government supports

:06:13. > :06:16.those areas of the economy rather than relying heavily on other areas.

:06:17. > :06:20.Imagine what could have been achieved with the Prime Minister had

:06:21. > :06:27.spent the last year touring European capitals, pressing for action on

:06:28. > :06:33.steel. Rather than testing the patience of European colleagues on a

:06:34. > :06:36.referendum gamble. To conclude, yesterday I asked the Business

:06:37. > :06:40.Secretary a simple question and he dodged it. Now he has the

:06:41. > :06:44.opportunity again to answer. With the published details of the

:06:45. > :06:47.meetings, phone calls, and correspondence that he, the Prime

:06:48. > :06:52.Minister, Chancellor, and other Cabinet members, have made in

:06:53. > :06:56.respect to the steel industry? If he has done the work that he claims to

:06:57. > :07:01.have done, if he has indeed strained every seen you for you will have

:07:02. > :07:08.nothing to hide. Indeed it would help to show if he really on the

:07:09. > :07:12.issue but he claims to have had. -- sinew. I suspect he dodged the

:07:13. > :07:16.question because of the reputation he gained for himself ringing true.

:07:17. > :07:19.What we needed to hear today and yesterday was about the commit this

:07:20. > :07:24.government to save a crucial industry. Not just for the workers,

:07:25. > :07:28.their jobs, their livelihoods, but the wider economy as well. I wonder

:07:29. > :07:33.if we'll ever hear that commitment from this government.

:07:34. > :07:39.There must be a time-limit, we will begin with six minutes.

:07:40. > :07:49.It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member. I must say to him

:07:50. > :07:54.though that I thought some of those remarks were more party political

:07:55. > :08:00.than dealing with what we face today. We are dealing with people's

:08:01. > :08:05.livelihoods. I hope the tone of the House today will be about a

:08:06. > :08:14.solution, and what we can do. Rather than making particle points.

:08:15. > :08:20.I regret that Parliament was not recalled. I thought it was a matter

:08:21. > :08:28.of such urgency that we could have come back and had a debate. Members

:08:29. > :08:40.would have attended. It was quite right and it was unanimously

:08:41. > :08:50.approved. In my brief remarks, and I declare interest, some of my

:08:51. > :08:56.constituents work and have been in touch about their concerns. It is

:08:57. > :09:09.not just those who work directly, it is those who rely on the economic

:09:10. > :09:19.benefit. I spent 13 years in South Wales. I thought the Shadow Business

:09:20. > :09:30.Secretary made an analysis of the situation very well. It strikes me

:09:31. > :09:37.that whichever way, there must be steel industry this country. We

:09:38. > :09:49.cannot be left without a steel industry. If there is a war in the

:09:50. > :09:56.future, you must have your own steel industry or you cannot defend

:09:57. > :10:00.yourself. I think everybody accepts that we need a steel industry and

:10:01. > :10:06.wants to work towards a solution and I know the ministerial team have

:10:07. > :10:17.been working very hard. I do think they are working with one hand tied

:10:18. > :10:29.behind their back. The problem we have is the unfair dumping of steel

:10:30. > :10:35.onto the market backed by state-controlled companies which

:10:36. > :10:43.could put millions of pounds into their industries. I suppose if I was

:10:44. > :10:48.sitting in China, the classic way that you do it is to sell your

:10:49. > :10:57.product abroad at less than what it costs to produce it. What then

:10:58. > :11:04.happens? As we have seen, there are businesses across Europe closing

:11:05. > :11:08.because of this and then what happens is because those industries

:11:09. > :11:16.are knocked out, the main supplier takes a bigger share of the market

:11:17. > :11:28.and they can bump the price of steel up. That is just what happens. Where

:11:29. > :11:33.I think one hand is tied behind the back is the European Union. The

:11:34. > :11:44.problem has been delays in the European Union dealing with tariffs.

:11:45. > :11:50.If we were in the united states, the president imposes tariffs and that

:11:51. > :12:00.shuts off Chinese steel. You think about the issue and whether the

:12:01. > :12:04.government is being Barrett at pushing for tariffs, I think we

:12:05. > :12:09.should agree that if this matter was totally in the hands of this

:12:10. > :12:12.Parliament, the government could make a decision and act and the

:12:13. > :12:22.opposition could criticise and a vote against it. The trouble is,

:12:23. > :12:27.because of state aid rules... This is an absolutely vital national

:12:28. > :12:32.industry. Can my honourable friend imagine any previous United Kingdom

:12:33. > :12:41.government allowing our steel industry to go down the tube? If we

:12:42. > :12:48.had control of our own destiny, surely we could stop this overnight.

:12:49. > :12:57.This is unfair and unreasonable and we should stop it. My honourable

:12:58. > :13:04.friend speaks correctly on this. I'm afraid the front benches cannot deal

:13:05. > :13:10.with this because of the position they've taken. I think if the

:13:11. > :13:19.referendum had not been going on at the moment... Until he got onto his

:13:20. > :13:29.usual track about the EU I agreed with him. But the constituency

:13:30. > :13:33.company I have is a Spanish and Catalan company. If we left, the

:13:34. > :13:39.uncertainty and damage in South Wales but he said he cared about

:13:40. > :13:45.would be immense and it is grossly irresponsible to suggest that

:13:46. > :13:51.leaving the EU would benefit this country. I think his analysis is

:13:52. > :13:55.absolutely wrong and his ideology is driving those comments. I'm not

:13:56. > :14:02.going to give way anymore. Other members want to speak and that would

:14:03. > :14:14.be wrong. It is interesting to note, by the time this debate ends, a

:14:15. > :14:19.cheque will have been written. That is how much money we send. A

:14:20. > :14:25.fraction of that money could be used to protect the steel industry.

:14:26. > :14:30.Whilst we are talking about whether we want to nationalise or sell off,

:14:31. > :14:34.I have no problem with that. If we want partial ownership of the steel

:14:35. > :14:45.industry, that makes sense. But there is no point doing that if you

:14:46. > :14:53.cannot solve the over rule problem, the dumping of steel in this

:14:54. > :15:02.country. You have to cut the cancer out first. It is because of... I

:15:03. > :15:07.have constituents that are concerned and worried about their jobs and I

:15:08. > :15:11.tell you that it is because of the European Union that they may lose

:15:12. > :15:14.their jobs. It may make you smile and laugh but that is the truth and

:15:15. > :15:28.you should be ashamed of saying otherwise. If we want to solve the

:15:29. > :15:32.problem, we must stop the dumping. I know that some members opposite

:15:33. > :15:40.don't like it. The only way to stave the steel industry is to come out of

:15:41. > :15:45.the EU and make our road decisions in this house. If we had not been in

:15:46. > :15:50.the EU months ago we would have imposed tariffs on China. If you

:15:51. > :15:57.want to save the steel industry you need to come out of the EU. I would

:15:58. > :16:04.like to start today by thanking my right honourable friend for securing

:16:05. > :16:07.this bit. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his pigment

:16:08. > :16:15.yesterday and today and to thank him for attending the meeting. -- his

:16:16. > :16:21.statement. I regret that these meetings have done very little to

:16:22. > :16:24.address the issue of investor and customer confidence, of paramount

:16:25. > :16:30.importance at this time. The priority at the moment alongside the

:16:31. > :16:37.efforts to find an operator should be securing the order book. The

:16:38. > :16:42.customer base is the most pressing issue, and the erosion of it. If

:16:43. > :16:46.that goes it will not come back. Unless the order book is secured, it

:16:47. > :16:51.does not matter what else happened. Nobody will buy a business if it has

:16:52. > :16:57.no customers. That is why I am deeply concerned by the response to

:16:58. > :17:00.my question yesterday. I asked him to outline the specific actions he

:17:01. > :17:05.was taking in this regard. His answer was he would be happy to

:17:06. > :17:10.engage with customers as and when they approached him. This is simply

:17:11. > :17:17.not good enough. The Secretary of State should be on the phone,

:17:18. > :17:21.reaching out to the CEOs, making it clear that the production of the

:17:22. > :17:25.world-class steel they have come to expect will continue come hell or

:17:26. > :17:30.high water. This house and every steelworker in the country now looks

:17:31. > :17:37.to the Secretary of State to take action. He should set out precisely

:17:38. > :17:41.the representations he intends to make to the companies that comprise

:17:42. > :17:46.the customer base which is the lifeblood of the British steel

:17:47. > :17:55.industry. The honourable gentleman makes an important point about the

:17:56. > :18:04.supply chain and customers. We are engaging with many of them. I know

:18:05. > :18:13.the Secretary of State for Wales is as well. I hope he understands that

:18:14. > :18:26.there is a lot of information it would be quite improper to dive old.

:18:27. > :18:38.I think it is important to be on the telephone. At the present time,

:18:39. > :18:49.forgive us for scepticism about the idea that there may be a lack of

:18:50. > :18:52.action. The Secretary of State is belatedly converted to the fact that

:18:53. > :18:57.the government and industry can work together in partnership, I'm not

:18:58. > :19:04.sure what co-investment means in his terms. I agree with the Secretary of

:19:05. > :19:07.State that nationalisation is not a long-term solution but customers

:19:08. > :19:13.need to know that come what may they will be able to purchase products

:19:14. > :19:17.from these sites. Such security can only be possible if the government

:19:18. > :19:22.commits to keep these options on the table. The men and women working in

:19:23. > :19:26.steel and connected industries across this country are among the

:19:27. > :19:34.most highly skilled and effective people in Britain and the workforce

:19:35. > :19:45.is turning the business around. Their skill and dedication is

:19:46. > :19:49.matched by the general secretary of Community, who even the Secretary of

:19:50. > :19:54.State managed to praise. But we need the government to announce an end to

:19:55. > :19:57.their relaxed attitude. We needed a list of all the discussions they've

:19:58. > :20:02.had with the customer base and what we got was prevarication and

:20:03. > :20:06.procrastination. What we needed was the announcement that all options

:20:07. > :20:09.were on the table and we got ambiguity. What we needed was the

:20:10. > :20:16.announcement they would give up their role as China's chief

:20:17. > :20:21.cheerleader in Europe and end their championing of market economy status

:20:22. > :20:26.for China and trade defence reform but what we got was more of the

:20:27. > :20:29.same. Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed what we already

:20:30. > :20:36.knew, that the approach has been characterised by a dangerous

:20:37. > :20:41.combination of indifference, incompetence, and rolling out the

:20:42. > :20:45.red carpet for Beijing. Was he as surprised as I was to hear the

:20:46. > :20:50.Chancellor going to China and inviting members to take part in the

:20:51. > :20:56.HS2 project so we could have Chinese steel in major infrastructure

:20:57. > :21:00.projects? I was not surprised and I would remind the house that 80% of

:21:01. > :21:09.the Chinese steel sector is state owned. On what planet can that be

:21:10. > :21:13.considered as a market economy? The claims to have been working on these

:21:14. > :21:18.four months do not stack up. The Secretary of State claimed to have

:21:19. > :21:22.been aware of Tata steel's decision to sell before it was publicly

:21:23. > :21:28.announced. If that was the case, why on earth was he on the other side of

:21:29. > :21:35.the world when the board meeting was taking place? Why was he caught on

:21:36. > :21:40.aware -- caught unaware? Why did he rushed back to the UK in a panic?

:21:41. > :21:44.The Secretary of State boasted that it was his actions alone that

:21:45. > :21:50.prevented Tata steel from closing rather than selling Port Talbot. I

:21:51. > :21:55.must admit that my jaw hit the floor when I heard that claim. I was out

:21:56. > :22:02.in Mumbai, I was therefore the board meeting with the head of Community.

:22:03. > :22:06.The Secretary of State was not there. Tata steel have expressed

:22:07. > :22:10.frustration with the lack of support they have received from this

:22:11. > :22:18.government. Many companies remaining to receive money. Weasel words from

:22:19. > :22:30.a government which got the latest steel for Ministry of Defence

:22:31. > :22:43.frigates from Sweden. This supposedly pro-business government

:22:44. > :22:53.is actually very limited. Labour MPs have raised the issue on over 200

:22:54. > :22:58.separate occasions. The clock is ticking. Tata steel have said they

:22:59. > :23:01.will give this seal all due time. Yesterday's news about Scunthorpe

:23:02. > :23:08.took almost nine months to come and is still not complete. The deal may

:23:09. > :23:12.take time. Mr Speaker, let us hope that today's debate marks a step

:23:13. > :23:17.change in attitude and action from this government. Let us hope they

:23:18. > :23:23.will draw actively work to protect the entirety of the order book, save

:23:24. > :23:29.the future of Port Talbot, define what they mean.

:23:30. > :23:43.As he is aware, his colleagues and the Welsh Government have been

:23:44. > :23:47.discussing this issue. Does he think the ?60 million allocated to Tata

:23:48. > :23:51.Steel is sufficient? We have a stark contrast between the actions of the

:23:52. > :23:54.Welsh Government and the UK Government. 60 million on the table,

:23:55. > :23:57.the Welsh assembly recall that when that surely should have been

:23:58. > :24:02.happening here, so the contrast is clear. Let us hope they will develop

:24:03. > :24:06.and execute a proper industrial strategy so that we on these benches

:24:07. > :24:10.do not have too raised this matter a further 200 times in the weeks and

:24:11. > :24:16.months to come. Let us hope that they will stand up for steel. Mr

:24:17. > :24:24.Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the member perhaps unfortunately his

:24:25. > :24:27.speech viewed too much towards the critical rather than the

:24:28. > :24:34.constructive but I think he can be forgiven because he's one of many

:24:35. > :24:36.MPs who would like to speak whose constituencies have significant

:24:37. > :24:41.steel-making. My constituency is not one of those but in Parliament we

:24:42. > :24:46.talk as one community as a whole for all of our constituencies and also

:24:47. > :24:50.how they want to reach out to other communities that are severely

:24:51. > :24:54.effected when things go wrong in an industry or because of natural

:24:55. > :25:00.disasters. Let me repeat that the issues in the steel industry are not

:25:01. > :25:08.going to go away. We face many, many years of brutal competition in the

:25:09. > :25:13.global steel industry. If my right honourable friend and his team are

:25:14. > :25:19.able successfully to find long-term solutions for the steel-making

:25:20. > :25:27.plants in Motherwell and Scunthorpe that will be a very significant

:25:28. > :25:34.achievement to come flesh in these times I think we ought to also talk

:25:35. > :25:46.about what the rules to be. The OTC geek's report on the steel industry

:25:47. > :25:50.-- OECD's report said that it is their own responsibility to adapt to

:25:51. > :25:53.market conditions. We have to accept that many steel companies in the UK

:25:54. > :25:59.have failed to achieve that. It goes on to say the role of governments

:26:00. > :26:04.should be to allow market mechanisms to work properly and avoid measures

:26:05. > :26:11.that artificially support steel-making capacity. The OECD

:26:12. > :26:17.understand the ways in which developing economies can prosper is

:26:18. > :26:21.important for the Government to bear those words in mind. It is also

:26:22. > :26:24.important and I would like to hear from this when the minister closes

:26:25. > :26:28.that whilst we prepare for the best we also have to prepare for the

:26:29. > :26:33.worst so I would like to know what the governor is doing in terms of

:26:34. > :26:37.preparing for support in Port Talbot should all of the best efforts of

:26:38. > :26:40.this Government not to come to fruition in saving those steelworks

:26:41. > :26:47.and may I just make one point from my memory of the times with the coal

:26:48. > :26:51.mining communities in the 1980s. There is never enough support that

:26:52. > :26:54.the Government can give to communities that rely on a single

:26:55. > :27:04.industry. There is never enough support. With respect, I am making

:27:05. > :27:09.the point that lessons have been learned from the 1980s and that in

:27:10. > :27:13.communities where there is a significant concentration of

:27:14. > :27:18.industries, the Government always has to do more than it thinks it has

:27:19. > :27:22.to do, but on the issue of duties and this has been mentioned a number

:27:23. > :27:29.of times so let's just clear up on the lesser duty role. The point is

:27:30. > :27:34.is the duty effective? We follow the lesser duty role. MP3 instances that

:27:35. > :27:42.my right honourable friend mentioned, the import duty has all

:27:43. > :27:46.but disappeared. If we give up the lesser duty rule, it is not about

:27:47. > :27:50.stopping steel coming in, it is about raising prices on those

:27:51. > :27:55.products. You take a 14% tariff and you increase it to 50% when imports

:27:56. > :27:58.have been eliminated and that will result in inflationary pressure from

:27:59. > :28:03.the steel industry to other markets and also may be seen as supporting

:28:04. > :28:07.subsidies from one part of the steel industry to another. It is not right

:28:08. > :28:15.for us to give up the lesser duty role which is the underpinning and

:28:16. > :28:31.go to the US approach of zeroing on tariffs. The same US decision impose

:28:32. > :28:37.a 31% tariff on Tata Steel itself. Tit-for-tat tariffs do not work.

:28:38. > :28:41.Does he have a view as to why it is that the dumping the Chinese are

:28:42. > :28:45.doing affect the UK industry so much more than it affects the German and

:28:46. > :28:48.the Dutch industry and indeed Tata Steel have consolidated in Holland

:28:49. > :28:52.and white is that we are differentially affected like this? I

:28:53. > :28:54.my honourable friend beaks intelligently. This is because

:28:55. > :28:59.private companies will make decisions in different markets

:29:00. > :29:02.across the EU. I think it is fair to say that I don't think the issue is

:29:03. > :29:07.here and I must disagree with my honourable friend because I am not

:29:08. > :29:11.sure that the EU issue here is pertinent to the decisions that will

:29:12. > :29:13.affect the steel industry. The Government is taking effective

:29:14. > :29:18.action on procurement, it is taking effective action on power. I do

:29:19. > :29:23.think having sat on the bill committee on the privatisation of

:29:24. > :29:26.Royal Mail that a case can be made by the Government to take action on

:29:27. > :29:31.the pension requirements for those members of the British Steel

:29:32. > :29:33.industry when it was nationalised. I think there was plenty of scope for

:29:34. > :29:36.people like myself who believe in a free market by the Government to

:29:37. > :29:39.take action on that basis and just to the point of nationalisation and

:29:40. > :29:49.we hear this from the opposition bench on they say they believe the

:29:50. > :29:53.nationalisation but not that it is a long one solution. Do the members

:29:54. > :29:57.opposite know when this crisis in the global steel industry will end?

:29:58. > :30:04.They don't. The global capacity is over 13%. I am afraid if you

:30:05. > :30:08.nationalised, you can do that, but you can't determine when you will be

:30:09. > :30:12.able to put it back into the private market. When you nationalised, you

:30:13. > :30:16.nationalised or as long as it takes and I believe, though I understand

:30:17. > :30:20.the reasons why my honourable friend will not roll this out, I personally

:30:21. > :30:25.believe the Government should pull out nationalisation. I think this is

:30:26. > :30:29.a step too far for the British economy to support the steel

:30:30. > :30:32.industry. If I made is that the issue of the steel industry in

:30:33. > :30:37.context because we are going in a global economy not just in steel but

:30:38. > :30:44.a global economy for the time that most of us will be in this house we

:30:45. > :30:49.will live through an environment where there is a global oversupply

:30:50. > :30:53.of capacity. It will not just be in steel. It will affect other sectors

:30:54. > :30:57.of our economy. We need to understand and abide by those rules

:30:58. > :31:02.that have created a free trade system that has been one of the most

:31:03. > :31:08.supporters of improving living standards around the world,

:31:09. > :31:14.supporting OECD pulls on the lesser duty tariff is important. Making

:31:15. > :31:18.sure those communities that have a significant industry that is

:31:19. > :31:21.affected and making sure that the Government does more than it thinks

:31:22. > :31:26.it needs to do to support the communities is part of making sure

:31:27. > :31:28.our economy support those measures. I commend the Government for its

:31:29. > :31:36.actions and I will continue to support them. Mr Speaker, it is a

:31:37. > :31:39.pleasure to follow my colleague on the business Select Committee. I do

:31:40. > :31:46.not agree with many of what he said today. The rigour of his analysis

:31:47. > :31:51.and also the work of the committee makes the committee much sharper in

:31:52. > :31:54.what we do so I commend him. I also welcome this emergency debate

:31:55. > :31:58.because we are facing in the steel industry a real emergency and we are

:31:59. > :32:01.facing for some time. In the long term, we in the committee found

:32:02. > :32:05.going back 40 years successive governments have failed to value the

:32:06. > :32:11.importance of manufacturing and domestic steel-making capability as

:32:12. > :32:16.the fountain missions -- like as the foundations of our economy. Other

:32:17. > :32:20.countries have valued their domestic steel industry more than we have

:32:21. > :32:27.which has made them more resilient to this perfect storm currently

:32:28. > :32:33.effecting global steel markets about overproduction. I want to put on the

:32:34. > :32:37.record that the challenges facing all steel manufacturers around the

:32:38. > :32:42.world are vast. Let me just say, China more or less produces more

:32:43. > :32:46.steel than every other steel-making manufacturing nation are put

:32:47. > :32:53.together. In two years, China has produced more steel than we as the

:32:54. > :32:57.inventor of modern steel-making, has produced since the start of the

:32:58. > :33:01.Industrial Revolution so even if the Government was doing all that it

:33:02. > :33:04.could, those challenges remain fast, but having said that, I do think the

:33:05. > :33:09.Government can be doing more because I think Britain does face an unlevel

:33:10. > :33:21.playing field in respect of steel production in the form of a -- in

:33:22. > :33:25.the form of high energy costs. The Government can have an effect on

:33:26. > :33:30.that. We on the business Select Committee published report about the

:33:31. > :33:33.Government response to the steel crisis in December. That was

:33:34. > :33:40.prompted by big turbulence, particularly the close of the steel

:33:41. > :33:45.plant in Redcar. What that revealed was a shocking ineffectiveness of an

:33:46. > :33:48.early warning system in Whitehall designed to detect mounting problems

:33:49. > :33:52.in the industry. The industry has been crying out about procurement

:33:53. > :33:57.and business rates and energy costs for some time but the Government had

:33:58. > :34:02.been deaf to these please. If fit had been alert, it would not have to

:34:03. > :34:06.resort to crisis management and preside over the closure of the

:34:07. > :34:12.second most efficient blast furnace anywhere in Europe and the loss and

:34:13. > :34:17.it is the lost forever of the steel industry of jobs and skills. We also

:34:18. > :34:24.found on the Select Committee report that the Government recognises the

:34:25. > :34:26.steel industry is of vital importance but giving increased

:34:27. > :34:32.activity, the increased activity had not yet translated into measurable

:34:33. > :34:35.impact for those in the industry and those communities they sustain. Five

:34:36. > :34:40.months on from the closure of the Redcar plant and with other closures

:34:41. > :34:43.and with the decision last month by Tata Steel to close its UK

:34:44. > :34:47.operations, I think it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those

:34:48. > :34:51.lessons have not been learned and that increased activity has not

:34:52. > :34:55.resulted in positive outcomes. He talks about the absence of an early

:34:56. > :34:59.warning system. Does he have any concerns in his capacity as chair of

:35:00. > :35:01.the business Select Committee that there is insufficient capacity

:35:02. > :35:04.within the Department itself to respond to these challenges as they

:35:05. > :35:07.emerge on the world markets? I think my honourable friend pics an

:35:08. > :35:11.interesting point there because in terms of what the Department should

:35:12. > :35:15.be doing, which is essentially looking out for the British economy,

:35:16. > :35:19.making sure that it is really the Department of future economic

:35:20. > :35:21.growth, it needs to have the capacity within the civil service to

:35:22. > :35:29.be able to do that and the proposal to lose 30-40% of its headcount will

:35:30. > :35:31.have enormous consequences in terms of having those early warning

:35:32. > :35:36.systems and in terms of the expertise and the knowledge. Steel

:35:37. > :35:40.industries and other key sectors in order to make sure that Britain can

:35:41. > :35:43.thrive. The Secretary of State will today and yesterday in his statement

:35:44. > :35:49.stated that he was aware that Tata Steel was planning to hard close its

:35:50. > :35:51.steel operations in Port Talbot and elsewhere, but he prevented that

:35:52. > :35:55.from happening. Sophie was fully aware of the enormity of the crisis

:35:56. > :35:59.committee still flew to Australia rather than Mumbai. The evidence has

:36:00. > :36:04.to suggest the conclusion, Mr Speaker, that he was left blindsided

:36:05. > :36:07.by Tata Steel's decision which again demonstrates that no effective early

:36:08. > :36:16.warning systems were in place. The Secretary of State should have gone

:36:17. > :36:19.out to bat with Tata Steel and bat for British steel-making. The fact

:36:20. > :36:23.that he subsequently went on by, days after that keyboard meeting,

:36:24. > :36:29.shows that he had known he had made an earlier error and I have to say

:36:30. > :36:33.the contract has to be made with the events of 2012 when Vince Cable,

:36:34. > :36:36.when he was Business Secretary, went to New York to persuade General

:36:37. > :36:39.Motors to make a long-term commitment to the UK despite

:36:40. > :36:45.overcapacity in carmaking operations in Europe which were loss-making and

:36:46. > :36:49.as a result of the close partnership between Government of the time,

:36:50. > :36:53.trade unions, and local management, General Motors close a plant in

:36:54. > :36:59.Germany and committed to build the new car in the UK and given the

:37:00. > :37:01.great industrial relations in steel, fantastic trade unions, exceptional

:37:02. > :37:07.steelworkers and committed local management, why can't this model be

:37:08. > :37:11.adopted for the steel industry? We have got to look to the future and

:37:12. > :37:15.to make sure that we have the sustainable steel industry. I have

:37:16. > :37:18.mentioned the existential threat to British steel-making, but it is

:37:19. > :37:23.important to recognise that steel should not be seen as an obsolete

:37:24. > :37:26.industry but one that is absolutely essential to much of British

:37:27. > :37:29.manufacturing. We should be honest about the challenges but we should

:37:30. > :37:34.not talk the industry down, which would hasten further the signing of

:37:35. > :37:37.the industry's death warrant. We all have a responsibility to ensure

:37:38. > :37:40.customers do not take flight. Government can help to a significant

:37:41. > :37:43.degree with regards to that. It has brought forward welcome changes to

:37:44. > :37:49.procurement rules which are favoured British meat steel and its products

:37:50. > :37:51.during the awarding of contracts, but something similar was announced

:37:52. > :37:54.in October following the steel summit but we have no real tangible

:37:55. > :38:00.evidence in the form of the contract is flowing into British companies

:38:01. > :38:06.and plans and. No single pound of value has been seen. I asked the

:38:07. > :38:15.Secretary of State about how urgently a collaboration was taking

:38:16. > :38:20.place. Will the Minister give further clarity on that?

:38:21. > :38:25.Steel-making plays a major part in the infrastructure of the country.

:38:26. > :38:29.The Government published on the 23rd of March the national infrastructure

:38:30. > :38:32.delivery plan. It has one reference to steel. Will the Government commit

:38:33. > :38:38.to talk to the Cabinet Office to make sure that more can be done?

:38:39. > :38:40.This is incredibly important both for my constituents and the future

:38:41. > :38:44.of British manufacturing. It is important that we move away from

:38:45. > :38:49.words into real, tangible action to safeguard British Steel.

:38:50. > :38:59.Thank you. It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Hartlepool,

:39:00. > :39:02.whose constituency also has a downstream Tartar production sites

:39:03. > :39:09.and we share that similarity. I share much of his concern. This is

:39:10. > :39:17.of much concern to families and call me alone. I think about them all the

:39:18. > :39:24.time in the work doing. To try and support those families in the steel

:39:25. > :39:27.industry in general. Ukip MVP, the Labour leader of the council and

:39:28. > :39:32.myself are working closely together to campaign on this issue. This is

:39:33. > :39:35.what people expect us to do and I was very pleased that the minister

:39:36. > :39:42.was able to come and join us last week. I'm also pleased to be working

:39:43. > :39:46.with other representatives. That relationship is very important.

:39:47. > :39:49.Their feedback helps me to participate in these debates and to

:39:50. > :39:53.put questions to ministers. And I think that needs to be replicated

:39:54. > :39:57.nationally. There's far too much knock-about at the moment. I want to

:39:58. > :40:01.see us getting around the table and working with unions, ministers and

:40:02. > :40:05.backbench MPs and employees to make sure we find solutions to these very

:40:06. > :40:11.pressing problems. And the bid it wasn't just useful last week, to

:40:12. > :40:15.meet the employees, but it is also useful to get a briefing on exactly

:40:16. > :40:19.where things stand. There was a clear message that came across. That

:40:20. > :40:25.was that it is not just money is needed, but it is also time and I

:40:26. > :40:30.think we need to bear that in mind as we head forward. And that leads

:40:31. > :40:34.me to the challenges it faces. The first one, so evidently, is the

:40:35. > :40:39.overarching challenge of dumping. These unfair and uncompetitive

:40:40. > :40:43.practices we are seeing are completely unacceptable. We have

:40:44. > :40:48.heard about Chinese dumping, but Russian dumping is of particular

:40:49. > :40:52.concern in Corby. We have also got a brilliant industry. The product as

:40:53. > :40:56.world leading in this country, but at the moment it cannot compete,

:40:57. > :41:02.because the playing field is uneven. That frames the whole debate. The

:41:03. > :41:10.Chinese objective in particular is very, very clear. It is to try and

:41:11. > :41:16.dominate the world market, put and other supplies out of business and

:41:17. > :41:26.then they can right price. Cheap steel may an attractive prospect for

:41:27. > :41:30.other industries. I think, as a whole, we need to take stock of that

:41:31. > :41:34.fact and I think we do need to respond with strong tariffs. I think

:41:35. > :41:39.we do need to try to eliminate some of the action President Obama has

:41:40. > :41:43.taken, for example. I will give way. He is making a compelling point on

:41:44. > :41:47.the issue of tariffs. These he agreed that it's not just the issue

:41:48. > :41:57.of how high you set the anti-dumping. It is also about the

:41:58. > :42:03.speed, the speed with which decisions are taken and in vetoing

:42:04. > :42:06.that the session, the government is also blocking an accelerated

:42:07. > :42:12.timetable for the position of anti-dumping duties. Thank you for

:42:13. > :42:18.the intervention. I take it we ought to have another look at the lesser

:42:19. > :42:24.duty rule. I think it's important to make our thinking fresh. But it is

:42:25. > :42:27.about... The point is that the speed as informant money the frustrations

:42:28. > :42:33.I was going to come onto is the amount of time it took the European

:42:34. > :42:38.Commission to approve the energy compensation package last year. That

:42:39. > :42:47.was unacceptable. -- is as important. I will give way. Thank

:42:48. > :42:51.you. I know that he was three times last week... He was at the Corby

:42:52. > :42:55.steelworks. But he agreed with the Right Honourable member for

:42:56. > :42:59.Sheffield Hallam when he criticised the European Union for being slow

:43:00. > :43:05.and an effective in dealing with the steel industry? Well, the former

:43:06. > :43:09.Deputy Prime Minister knows more than most how inefficient the

:43:10. > :43:15.European Union is. I'm not going to give way, because I am aware of the

:43:16. > :43:20.time. I want to touch on the fact that we need to get the tariffs

:43:21. > :43:23.right, but we also need to look for another argument being made. I take

:43:24. > :43:27.the view that if the Chinese are not going to play by the rules, they

:43:28. > :43:33.shouldn't be allowed to have market economy status. I do hope that the

:43:34. > :43:37.European Union reaches that conclusion as well. An energy costs,

:43:38. > :43:41.we have heard a lot in recent years about climate change. I think we

:43:42. > :43:48.need to be constantly thinking about the consequences of the policies we

:43:49. > :43:52.bring. Government cannot act in silent mentality. It's constantly

:43:53. > :43:56.got to be looking at the implications of energy policy. We

:43:57. > :43:59.must always bear that in mind and I welcome the compensation package an

:44:00. > :44:11.energy that I alluded to a little while ago. They take months to

:44:12. > :44:14.improve. Also mentioned yesterday was measures around exempting. We

:44:15. > :44:19.were hearing about potential delays in that. I would be interested in

:44:20. > :44:23.final remarks to understand what the situation is and where we are with

:44:24. > :44:26.that. I do think that that is an important step forward. On

:44:27. > :44:31.procurement, I happen to take the view that we ought to get much more

:44:32. > :44:35.tough on this. We have seen some really positive steps forward, but

:44:36. > :44:46.it is simply unacceptable, to my mind, to any public bobby is not to

:44:47. > :44:51.be using British Steel at that time. -- any public bodies. You must make

:44:52. > :44:57.sure our procurement policy reflects this. The point about the integrity

:44:58. > :45:01.of the order book is also important. Also the integrity of supply chains

:45:02. > :45:06.is important. We need them to keep supplying and buyers to keep on

:45:07. > :45:10.buying. Business rates, at the time we are trying to find investment and

:45:11. > :45:16.someone to buy the Corby site and other sites that they own at the

:45:17. > :45:22.moment, it makes little sense to investors when they step up to the

:45:23. > :45:26.mark, before buying it can't or portfolio, but we are then asking

:45:27. > :45:32.them to invest and penalised but investment the moment it is made. It

:45:33. > :45:36.makes little sense. I advocate the business rates holiday before the

:45:37. > :45:40.budget, and others like them to have another look at that. It shows

:45:41. > :45:45.confidence the government is backing the industry and we are all coming

:45:46. > :45:49.together. It is a bizarre anomaly. I happen to take the view that, in

:45:50. > :45:53.relation to finding a buyer for these Tata Steel site, for these

:45:54. > :45:59.options being on the table, we should not rule anything out. I know

:46:00. > :46:02.people say I am a free-market conservative, but the fact is that

:46:03. > :46:06.our steel industry is not competing on a level playing field and that

:46:07. > :46:09.requires action that doesn't necessarily go along the normal

:46:10. > :46:14.grain. So we shouldn't rule anything out and I take the view that if a

:46:15. > :46:21.short period of public ownership is required in order to find a buyer,

:46:22. > :46:25.that is exactly what we should do. That's absolutely right. And I want

:46:26. > :46:30.to hear more later on to ascertain what ministers are thinking on that

:46:31. > :46:35.particular point. But along the way, in trying to reach that point, we

:46:36. > :46:40.mustn't let state aid rules get away. They get in the way, we should

:46:41. > :46:45.simply ignore them and get what is right by the steel industry. That is

:46:46. > :46:53.the message Corby expect me to convey. Thank you. Can I thank you

:46:54. > :46:57.for granting this very important debate, in particular because I do

:46:58. > :47:05.have 900 very good quality jobs on the line in stocks bridge. I support

:47:06. > :47:11.everything my friend on front bench said earlier and I'm not going to

:47:12. > :47:17.rehearse the usual issues that have been tabulated so far and so ably by

:47:18. > :47:25.so many speakers. Energy costs and business rates included. I will not

:47:26. > :47:30.talk about co-investment. I want to focus on the issue of confidence. In

:47:31. > :47:34.the future of the steel industry, because this is a really serious

:47:35. > :47:41.issue and we are at risk of seeing the industry undermined by people

:47:42. > :47:43.who are posing as an expert in the field, commentators in the print

:47:44. > :47:47.media for instance, who are giving the impression that the steel

:47:48. > :47:57.industry today is done. It is not done, it has got a great future. One

:47:58. > :48:06.said... This is not an ideological attack they said last week...

:48:07. > :48:11."Unlike German plants, UK plants have tended to produce a basic

:48:12. > :48:15.products, using out of date technology." I just want to put on

:48:16. > :48:21.the record that in every Formula 1 car in this country, apart from

:48:22. > :48:30.Ferrari, every Formula 1 car made has a bit of stocks bridge steel in

:48:31. > :48:39.it. Every aircraft in this guy has this stealing it. It is this steel

:48:40. > :48:42.that land the plane safely. They keep the aircraft in the sky and we

:48:43. > :48:49.should be very proud and we are incredibly proud in Stocksbridge and

:48:50. > :48:54.what we do. And that workforce is passionate about its future and

:48:55. > :48:59.intends to have a long-term future, but it needs the government to

:49:00. > :49:05.support it. -- Stocksbridge. I want to go on to illustrate the other

:49:06. > :49:12.thing is doing. We have just secured ?50 million worth of investment, so

:49:13. > :49:20.we can make the steel and we mounted in order to make even purer steel.

:49:21. > :49:27.So we can go further up the value chain. Also to correct, Stocksbridge

:49:28. > :49:33.is not a downstream operation. Tata Steel makes its own steel and remote

:49:34. > :49:41.set and makes some of the best in the world. One involves making

:49:42. > :49:44.powdered steel, which is worth 30,000 to ?40,000 per tonne. If we

:49:45. > :49:52.get investment for that, the plan that will go on the side of the

:49:53. > :49:57.other plan, our future is spectacular, so we must secure it. I

:49:58. > :50:06.make this point in relation to all the Tata Steel plant at risk. People

:50:07. > :50:11.say let's go specialised. Actually, Stocksbridge is very specialised,

:50:12. > :50:14.but the steel made at Port Talbot is specialised and high quality. It is

:50:15. > :50:21.a different type of steel, made according to a different progress

:50:22. > :50:25.Tabeen-macro process. But it is still fantastic and good quality. We

:50:26. > :50:31.make some of the best steel in the world. -- a different process. Too

:50:32. > :50:38.many commentators are focusing on steel as an industry of the past. It

:50:39. > :50:47.is an industry of the future. And I finish by looking at the reports

:50:48. > :50:53.recently published, which made it clear that manufacturing will be

:50:54. > :50:59.transformed by 2050, in the next 30 years. The future of our

:51:00. > :51:05.manufacturing industry is focused on adaptability, in terms of the

:51:06. > :51:09.rapidly changing infrastructure. The steel industry is very well placed

:51:10. > :51:14.to do that. Tata Steel has been completely focused on doing that. It

:51:15. > :51:19.just needs support to get there. Maybe the new owner will need

:51:20. > :51:23.support. It also made clear that we need shorter and more integrated

:51:24. > :51:30.supply chains. That is because of issues relating to quality and

:51:31. > :51:38.safety. Our steel industry delivers that, aerospace, Airbus and Boeing

:51:39. > :51:42.know they need those integrated short supply chains. They get

:51:43. > :51:46.nervous if they are disrupted. That's why we need to maintain

:51:47. > :51:56.confidence and I: the government to play its part by doing whatever it

:51:57. > :52:02.can, whatever it needs to do to save our steel. -- I call on the

:52:03. > :52:08.government. Steel is a huge part of the economy in my hometown Newport

:52:09. > :52:13.and my first job was in part of British Steel and I'm declaring an

:52:14. > :52:17.interest as British steel pensioner, but I'm not sure how much that will

:52:18. > :52:23.be worth after this. Other members have spoken well and I think it

:52:24. > :52:27.was... I've forgotten who was, it was the member for Hartlepool who

:52:28. > :52:31.made the point about the fundamental problem here, which is the vast

:52:32. > :52:35.amount of steel that has been coming into the marketplace since about

:52:36. > :52:39.2008 from China and the fact the demand for it isn't fair. In

:52:40. > :52:42.reality, I think the gentleman made the point that nobody can do

:52:43. > :52:47.anything about that problem, but there are certainly think the

:52:48. > :52:55.government could be doing to help. Tata Steel was losing around ?1

:52:56. > :52:58.million a day if you weeks ago. And there are things the government

:52:59. > :53:03.could be doing. And I'm you not think they are doing enough. I will

:53:04. > :53:07.not abandon my words today. One of the problems we have is that there

:53:08. > :53:13.has been a lack of consistency on all sides of the house. We need to

:53:14. > :53:17.ask ourselves whether or not we need to have heavy manufacturing

:53:18. > :53:22.industries in this country. -- we want to have. I think the answer is

:53:23. > :53:31.yes, but if that is the case, then we have to ask, why is it that over

:53:32. > :53:36.the last few years, governments have all enacted policies that have made

:53:37. > :53:40.it much harder for heavy industry to continue? They have swallowed the

:53:41. > :53:44.idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, which is causing runaway

:53:45. > :53:48.global warming and they have enacted a series of policies that have made

:53:49. > :53:54.it very expensive for any industry that emits CO2 and have made it very

:53:55. > :54:00.expensive for heavy manufacturers to buy energy. We have brought in new

:54:01. > :54:05.measures and we now have the highest energy costs within Europe. This is

:54:06. > :54:10.a point that was being made to us in the committee by both manufacturers

:54:11. > :54:15.and the unions. It may not resolve the fundamental question, but it

:54:16. > :54:18.could make the difference between a profitable industry or not. It may

:54:19. > :54:24.make the difference for a company like Tata Steel.

:54:25. > :54:33.It is very important that we think about things in a consistent

:54:34. > :54:36.fashion. I have two, to be quite honest, I do not buy the argument

:54:37. > :54:42.that carbon dioxide is causing runaway global warming. I have

:54:43. > :54:45.spoken about it before but the correlation between the very tiny

:54:46. > :54:49.increase in temperature that we have simply does not exist and therefore

:54:50. > :54:54.I think the Government needs to rethink their policy. What we have

:54:55. > :54:57.actually had is a situation where instead of deciding to get rid of

:54:58. > :55:01.the carbon taxes that have helped to create the problem in the first

:55:02. > :55:05.place, carbon taxes and energy taxes that have been supported by

:55:06. > :55:08.governments and MPs of all parties, may I say, instead of doing that,

:55:09. > :55:12.the Government have brought forward a compensation package. It is all

:55:13. > :55:14.right as far as it goes. It had to go through a bureaucratic

:55:15. > :55:19.steeplechase within the EU which members on all sides also support

:55:20. > :55:25.and which I certainly do not. Having got there in the end and with the

:55:26. > :55:29.first checks going out as we speak, what have we actually done? We have

:55:30. > :55:33.levied a huge tax on an industry and now we are going to give something

:55:34. > :55:36.back to them the taxes are having the exact impact that we thought it

:55:37. > :55:41.would have, which is to punish them. Surely it would be much more

:55:42. > :55:45.sensible and I put this to the honourable lady, to scrap the carbon

:55:46. > :55:48.taxes in the first place? There is not much point in having a tax if

:55:49. > :55:56.one is going to have to compensate people for the effect that that

:55:57. > :55:59.taxes having. I will give way. He is making a very powerful speech. Could

:56:00. > :56:05.he explain how our industry is supposed to compete with those on

:56:06. > :56:11.the continentals when the energy price is up to twice of what we --

:56:12. > :56:16.of what they pay? I think the honourable gentleman makes a very

:56:17. > :56:20.important point indeed but of course if people truly believe that carbon

:56:21. > :56:22.dioxide is a pollutant and is causing runaway global warming, then

:56:23. > :56:26.I suppose they should stand up and take a bow and explain to those

:56:27. > :56:31.steelworkers that's the price of losing their job is worse -- is

:56:32. > :56:36.worth paying in order to stop the minute amount of increase in

:56:37. > :56:39.temperatures that we have and we're not at any increase in temperature

:56:40. > :56:42.for about 17 years and I think the whole thing is absolute nonsense. I

:56:43. > :56:46.think what we should be saying is that of course we want heavy

:56:47. > :56:49.manufacturing industries in this country and it is not the steel that

:56:50. > :56:52.is threatened and it is not just Tata Steel because the honourable

:56:53. > :56:56.lady will be aware that another steel manufacturer in South Wales

:56:57. > :57:04.have said that they may face severe economic problems unless something

:57:05. > :57:08.is done about high energy prices. The head of liberty house has said

:57:09. > :57:13.that we had to scrap the high energy price. It is glass, it is chemicals,

:57:14. > :57:18.it is cement, it is all sorts heavy manufacturing industries. If people

:57:19. > :57:21.believe that these industries are polluting the atmosphere and causing

:57:22. > :57:25.a great increase in temperature that we have not seen any evidence of for

:57:26. > :57:28.17 years, then they are doing exactly the right thing. I think

:57:29. > :57:31.that all of them including the Government are doing the wrong thing

:57:32. > :57:35.and it is high time that we stop trying to tax our manufacturing

:57:36. > :57:39.industries, stop taking tax away from companies that could be

:57:40. > :57:42.profitable and handing them over to expensive wind farms generating

:57:43. > :57:45.validity at two or three times the cost of market rates, particularly

:57:46. > :57:49.when those same went for companies are not even willing to buy steel

:57:50. > :57:53.this country and import the whole thing. The honourable lady in

:57:54. > :57:56.committee described the policy as barmy, and I think she was right

:57:57. > :58:01.although I think she was probably been far too polite about it. I do

:58:02. > :58:04.not have any problem at all with carbon dioxide being emitted. I want

:58:05. > :58:12.to see a heavy Manufacturing industry in this company. I want to

:58:13. > :58:16.see lots of jobs, low taxation and I am personally relaxed about carbon

:58:17. > :58:23.dioxide emissions. This is not just about the obvious news stories

:58:24. > :58:35.running on Port Talbot or indeed the industry. It involves all of the

:58:36. > :58:39.various sites. It is a UK steel crisis and I want to reiterate today

:58:40. > :58:47.that Tata Steel has to behave like a responsible seller. We need to

:58:48. > :58:54.remind them that previous managers tried to use skulduggery. We don't

:58:55. > :58:59.solve that problem but it took over two years, to use where there was

:59:00. > :59:03.not one single redundancy, but we need to remind Tata Steel of that

:59:04. > :59:08.previous behaviour and not to see it happen again. British Steel is not a

:59:09. > :59:11.basket case. It is not a field industry. It is not a sunset

:59:12. > :59:20.industry. It is a very successful industry and the evidence recently

:59:21. > :59:35.shows that. Integral parts to any programme or Trident renewal. This

:59:36. > :59:43.many steel plants in France have been sold off to Greybull. This

:59:44. > :59:56.demonstrates the European aspect of this problem. British Steel has

:59:57. > :00:03.always relied on its quality, its research and development. Places

:00:04. > :00:12.like Teesside and Grangetown down in rather and Sheffield 's have

:00:13. > :00:15.capacity linked with blast furnaces which gives us the ability as a

:00:16. > :00:20.nation do have control over the destiny of the metallurgy in our

:00:21. > :00:24.nation which means that we can innovate new products and that has

:00:25. > :00:31.to be remembered and retained and what I am interested in is the

:00:32. > :00:36.notion of co-investment. Whether that be in cash terms, whether it be

:00:37. > :00:41.equity stake, whether it be a loan, or more importantly whether it be

:00:42. > :00:44.about Government policy or indeed research and development, and I

:00:45. > :00:47.think if we are going to have a real discussion in this place we have to

:00:48. > :00:53.look at the different options around co-investment. Not taking into

:00:54. > :00:56.account individual commercial parties that may be interested in

:00:57. > :00:59.purchasing but the ideas on the tables or that we can naturally plan

:01:00. > :01:02.and industrial strategy about forward planning and win it takes is

:01:03. > :01:07.because we have not done that in the last five years. In relation to

:01:08. > :01:11.Chinese dumping, this is a new phenomenon. It has been going on for

:01:12. > :01:17.four and a half years. Prior to that, it was not happening. That is

:01:18. > :01:21.why changes to how Government behaves in relation to lesser duty

:01:22. > :01:27.tariffs or other legislation has to happen now because the circumstances

:01:28. > :01:32.are now particular and have changed. They are completely new. There are

:01:33. > :01:36.no residents. This is why we cannot stick to rigid dogma or analytical

:01:37. > :01:40.argument around the rules. I also have to question in relation to

:01:41. > :01:44.co-investment whether we are properly looking at things like

:01:45. > :01:47.shale gas and whether parties are being honesty about the policy of

:01:48. > :02:00.shale gas because these are gas intensive industries. CCS pulled the

:02:01. > :02:07.rug from under me energy intensive industries. How are you going to

:02:08. > :02:11.maintain those industries, whether it be shale or light or class or

:02:12. > :02:16.cement or bricks, how are you going to do that without a proper strategy

:02:17. > :02:20.around carbon? If you're going to implement the taxes or unilaterally

:02:21. > :02:25.bring in the carbon price form in the budget and promise to give

:02:26. > :02:29.compensation for, that has to go to the EU because it needs to calculate

:02:30. > :02:32.the fact that if it wants to compensate for unilateral British

:02:33. > :02:38.tax it can only do so by the European Union. It has not done the

:02:39. > :02:43.requisite work. It just applied a rule and is now reaping the

:02:44. > :02:47.consequences. Ultimately, for Port Talbot and for every single site, we

:02:48. > :02:57.need time. Redcar in 2010 was saved over two years. Guess if I had six

:02:58. > :03:04.weeks and failed. You have to give those British Tata Steel sites time

:03:05. > :03:14.in order to be saved. -- SSI. On the issue of time. And co-investment.

:03:15. > :03:19.One form of co-investment would be the Government to provide a bridging

:03:20. > :03:23.loan that extends beyond the period that Tata Steel would be prepared to

:03:24. > :03:26.subsidise the steelworks until a future buyer would be found. Is that

:03:27. > :03:31.the sort of co-investment that he is considering? I thank the honourable

:03:32. > :03:40.gentleman his intervention and giving me more time. Another pillar

:03:41. > :03:44.of this in much the same way is continued production. If we are

:03:45. > :03:49.going to save the site is, production has to be held

:03:50. > :03:54.continuously throughout. Mainly around issues about losing skills

:03:55. > :03:59.and the Redcar example in 2010 when the then regional development agency

:04:00. > :04:03.of the North East alongside Government agencies in Whitehall but

:04:04. > :04:06.forward a ?60 million package which was actually from the budgeted for

:04:07. > :04:09.the regional development agency as well as central Government and

:04:10. > :04:16.actually retained people in the area on training courses whilst, as I was

:04:17. > :04:22.a union officer then worked trying to negotiate with other parties to

:04:23. > :04:30.get outside box and it is vitally important that continuous production

:04:31. > :04:35.and time but also other elements of co-investment not just the cash

:04:36. > :04:41.allowance. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very grateful for the

:04:42. > :04:44.opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate. Can I

:04:45. > :04:47.begin by thanking the Secretary of State and his team for keeping the

:04:48. > :04:52.house informed and in particular for continuous contact with myself and

:04:53. > :04:57.other members and for the extremely constructive way that the Government

:04:58. > :05:00.has worked this far? And quite rightly closely with the unions and

:05:01. > :05:07.other parties and certainly I have two congratulate the community union

:05:08. > :05:11.when they gave evidence to the Welsh committee it was very impressive

:05:12. > :05:14.indeed and those representatives that were here yesterday and I am

:05:15. > :05:18.pleased that the Government has kept in contact to ensure that everybody

:05:19. > :05:25.has been kept informed at every stage because this is about

:05:26. > :05:32.livelihoods and as someone who grew up in the area, I recognise the

:05:33. > :05:36.importance to the families in my constituency, not just the steel

:05:37. > :05:39.industry, also the supply chain and the stockholders and indeed the

:05:40. > :05:44.maintenance companies that look after the steelworks in Port Talbot.

:05:45. > :05:49.There was a very interesting announcement from the Government

:05:50. > :05:53.yesterday about the buyer which highlights the Government's

:05:54. > :05:56.commitment to the people who work at Port Talbot. This, however, was

:05:57. > :06:00.helping to ensure the survival of the steelworks demonstrates the need

:06:01. > :06:03.to work on a vast number of issues, many of which have been mentioned

:06:04. > :06:08.today and in the last week to ensure a viable, long-term future for the

:06:09. > :06:11.industry. It is crucial that we work here in this chamber as parties

:06:12. > :06:16.working alongside one another and going a lot beyond party politics to

:06:17. > :06:23.ensure the survival of steel at Port Talbot and I would like to discuss

:06:24. > :06:28.briefly this. These are areas that we need to look at as part of our

:06:29. > :06:31.long-term strategy will stop that is the use of British Steel and into

:06:32. > :06:33.such a project and I know there are rules and guidelines on this but we

:06:34. > :06:40.must think strategically about our use of steel. The increased

:06:41. > :06:42.investment in infrastructure by this Government means that British Steel

:06:43. > :06:47.has had more opportunities to be used and therefore support workers,

:06:48. > :06:52.their families, and our communities, and examples include the National

:06:53. > :07:01.rail which uses 90% of British Steel and Crossrail. Aircraft carriers

:07:02. > :07:08.procured by the Government, as we have heard, use something like 94%

:07:09. > :07:16.of British Steel and of course the electrocution of the real down to

:07:17. > :07:20.Swansea -- rail. We need to make sure that our investment - very

:07:21. > :07:25.closely with the use of British Steel and I was extremely pleased

:07:26. > :07:27.when this Government and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of

:07:28. > :07:29.the Exchequer said at the national infrastructure commission which

:07:30. > :07:35.gives this country the interest of two to support future economic

:07:36. > :07:40.growth. However, I do ask whether the commission will be looking to

:07:41. > :07:43.examine how projects could make use of British materials such as steel

:07:44. > :07:48.in supporting these vital industries. It is infrastructure

:07:49. > :07:51.projects that support local families, businesses and

:07:52. > :07:56.communities. From the copy shop to the hairdressers and the Bakers,

:07:57. > :07:58.businesses across South Wales and particularly the South Swansea Bay

:07:59. > :08:03.region are concerned about their future. We need to look at a

:08:04. > :08:06.long-term solution to keep this industry viable for South Wales. A

:08:07. > :08:10.joint strategy that supports the economic growth of the region could

:08:11. > :08:13.be looking at projects like the Swansea Bay lagoon which would not

:08:14. > :08:18.only add jobs but it would be the type of infrastructure project that

:08:19. > :08:21.would continue to support those workers and their families just

:08:22. > :08:27.across the bay in Port Talbot. We must work together. Political

:08:28. > :08:31.grandstanding will not provide a long-term, viable future for steel

:08:32. > :08:34.production in Port Talbot. Political grandstanding will not support

:08:35. > :08:38.businesses in the supply chain across South Wales. The history of

:08:39. > :08:43.steel in our communities runs deeper than a political point scoring. It

:08:44. > :08:47.causes confusion and only last week I spoke with a lady from Citylink

:08:48. > :08:52.who was a Tata Steel employee and as is her husband and both were

:08:53. > :08:56.disappointed by the political rhetoric from certain quarters.

:08:57. > :09:03.We have a shared history and experience. Our communities and

:09:04. > :09:08.social fabric have been built or touched by the steel industry. Only

:09:09. > :09:14.by working as one can we provide a future we all want. Politicians who

:09:15. > :09:22.grandstand, in attempting to ingratiate themselves will not help.

:09:23. > :09:26.We need action. I applaud the actions to date and I look forward

:09:27. > :09:31.to a very positive outcome for the people of Port Talbot and many

:09:32. > :09:39.employees who reside in my constituency. They came as no

:09:40. > :09:44.supplies to us on these benches. We have been warning the government for

:09:45. > :09:47.months this was coming, but they chose to do nothing. The Secretary

:09:48. > :09:51.of State was on the other side of the world when the announcement came

:09:52. > :09:55.and now clings to the announcement came and now clings to be claim that

:09:56. > :10:00.he somehow saved a plant from Australia. Too little, too late, as

:10:01. > :10:08.the workers at Redcar found out from this government and as my friend on

:10:09. > :10:12.the front bench has said, warm words and no actions. This now affects the

:10:13. > :10:20.whole of the industry, not only Port Talbot. The media has a habit of

:10:21. > :10:29.describing it all as "Loss-making. " For a loss of the plants, that is

:10:30. > :10:34.far from the truth. Shotton steel is a profitable business that employs

:10:35. > :10:41.800 people, quality jobs that are vital to the economy. Profitable

:10:42. > :10:46.though it may be, that does not ensures long-term survival. It

:10:47. > :10:50.relies on its steel from the Port Talbot operation. If it was to close

:10:51. > :10:55.sooner rather than later, then it would not be long before Shotton

:10:56. > :11:00.would have had to cease its operation, due to lack of supply.

:11:01. > :11:07.The idea that you can just pick up the phone and buy lots of cheap

:11:08. > :11:12.steel, from China or anywhere else, to the quality and quantity you

:11:13. > :11:18.would need for a plantlike Shotton is far from reality. So for the

:11:19. > :11:21.future, point I made yesterday was we need time and a lot of it and I

:11:22. > :11:26.think this is a common theme that colleagues on both sides of this

:11:27. > :11:31.house are saying. Time to either find a buyer for the whole of the UK

:11:32. > :11:38.business that will invest and commit to the future, but also to allow the

:11:39. > :11:42.downstream businesses to find an alternative supplier of steel,

:11:43. > :11:47.should the worst happen. I do not want to see that, but the government

:11:48. > :11:54.has to plan for all scenarios. And, as many other colleagues have said,

:11:55. > :12:00.we had to reassure the customer base as well. If that is not done, we

:12:01. > :12:04.have no business is to sell, because customers will leave and will walk

:12:05. > :12:08.away. They need assurances. Shotton probably more than anywhere else

:12:09. > :12:14.knows the impact of job losses in industry. In 1980, despite gallant

:12:15. > :12:20.efforts of my predecessors and the trade unions, it saw its steel

:12:21. > :12:26.making cease and over 6000 people lost their jobs. At the time, it was

:12:27. > :12:32.the largest job loss at a single plant in a single day anywhere in

:12:33. > :12:36.the history of western Europe. While the area has recovered and new

:12:37. > :12:42.employees have moved in and have grown, the scars of the events of

:12:43. > :12:47.1980 remain. On Deeside, nearly everybody has a family member or a

:12:48. > :12:54.friend who worked in the industry. Some people never worked again. The

:12:55. > :12:58.lessons are that such large-scale job losses do not only affect the

:12:59. > :13:03.individuals that work there, they affect their families and the whole

:13:04. > :13:07.area. They destroy whole communities. And that's for many

:13:08. > :13:12.years to come. The government has an opportunity to save the industry and

:13:13. > :13:25.ensure its long-term future, but he really needs to act and needs to act

:13:26. > :13:32.now. -- it needs to act. We happy to important debate on this afternoon.

:13:33. > :13:37.As a steel group member, I am pleased that my friend has been able

:13:38. > :13:47.to secure this debate is now. But I wanted to gently reassure anybody

:13:48. > :13:51.going to campaign for the latest debate, that it will be a very long

:13:52. > :13:58.day for those who have travelled to get here. -- you will get your say.

:13:59. > :14:05.I know this feels like groundhog day, coming back time and time

:14:06. > :14:12.again. I understand the focus has been an Port Talbot and I praise the

:14:13. > :14:21.efforts of members, but it has been said before. Steel-making have

:14:22. > :14:26.seized in 2001 in Llanwern. Our steelworkers are proud to make UK

:14:27. > :14:29.steel and they want to continue to do so and are looking to this

:14:30. > :14:35.government is now to ensure that will happen. It has taken a

:14:36. > :14:42.cumulative hit over the past few years, hundreds of jobs being lost,

:14:43. > :14:45.to the point where we have 700 left. Some have transferred to Port Talbot

:14:46. > :14:56.in the process and now have a certainty there. -- now face

:14:57. > :15:05.uncertainty. Steel could have a great future. In Llanwern, we have

:15:06. > :15:09.the Zodiac line. It is doing well and the electrical steel, which

:15:10. > :15:15.produces high-tech electrical steel, they are in profit following a

:15:16. > :15:20.period of restructuring. Steel is cyclical and all of this

:15:21. > :15:25.demonstrates that. We have had much in the way of warm words and phrases

:15:26. > :15:33.and that has been said today. But what does that mean, practically?

:15:34. > :15:44.The arguments from unions are well rehearsed. They want to protect the

:15:45. > :15:48.order book to make sure businesses are saleable. And they are not

:15:49. > :15:54.undermined by any businesses elsewhere. Time for the sale, as the

:15:55. > :15:59.member mentioned earlier on, it's important to know what the timescale

:16:00. > :16:11.is. Long projects took nine months. Tata Steel said for months. The --

:16:12. > :16:15.what is the news to make sure Tata Steel are a responsible seller? I

:16:16. > :16:19.have many workers in my constituency and also pensioners. Can the

:16:20. > :16:24.government give those pensioners and future ones some reassurance about

:16:25. > :16:36.the pension fund and can he outlined the action the government is taking?

:16:37. > :16:42.Also relating to Chinese dumping, it is ironic that whilst ours has been

:16:43. > :16:47.slow to react, the Chinese government has just enforced 46%

:16:48. > :16:56.tariffs on electrical steel. While all works no longer export to China,

:16:57. > :17:00.other ones do. This could have implications. We have asked for

:17:01. > :17:08.action on energy prices, that took two years to deliver. Too slow. Real

:17:09. > :17:12.action on procurement, not just an owned by this note, what specific

:17:13. > :17:18.projects does the Minister have in mind? Can he tell us that today? The

:17:19. > :17:26.Welsh government has done all it can with the leaflet it has had at its

:17:27. > :17:34.disposal. That includes setting up task forces. I know how valuable

:17:35. > :17:40.that relationship is. There was some kind of reference to grandstanding.

:17:41. > :17:44.Can I assure that many steel group members here have raised the issue

:17:45. > :17:48.to do with steel time and time again in this chamber. It is not

:17:49. > :17:53.grandstanding, it is actually personal. It is personal, because

:17:54. > :17:57.our constituents are loyal and they work hard and we understand what

:17:58. > :18:03.they are going through and it is a valued job. It is also personal

:18:04. > :18:14.because I look around this chamber and icy the member for Cardiff West

:18:15. > :18:20.and others who works in the industry. -- I see. And my parents

:18:21. > :18:24.who met in the steel industry and they were workers. We cannot let our

:18:25. > :18:34.current workers down and we make no apology for speaking up. Thank you.

:18:35. > :18:43.And thank you to those who manage to get this permission. I am a member

:18:44. > :18:52.of... Or was a member of the Scottish steel task force, along

:18:53. > :18:57.with the member for Hamilton. He Scottish skill task force was a

:18:58. > :19:11.partnership of Tata Steel and trade unions and others. -- the Scottish

:19:12. > :19:20.scale task force. This task force was put together by the Scottish

:19:21. > :19:26.Government to help find a buyer for Scottish plants. It did a great job,

:19:27. > :19:31.as those of you may know. The handover took place on Friday. That

:19:32. > :19:35.was based on a back-to-back agreement, whereby the Scottish

:19:36. > :19:40.Government bought the plants from Tata Steel and sold them on to

:19:41. > :19:46.Liberty House. It was a wonderful day. We were surrounded by all the

:19:47. > :19:50.members of the task force and families and friends and

:19:51. > :19:54.steelworkers themselves. It was an emotional day. Steel is an iconic

:19:55. > :19:59.industry in my constituency. In fact, the industry in my

:20:00. > :20:04.constituency is responsible for some of the most specialised steel that

:20:05. > :20:10.is used in the defence industry, in the oil and gas industry as well. It

:20:11. > :20:16.couldn't be allowed to go under and the Scottish Government didn't allow

:20:17. > :20:21.that to happen. It took a very proactive approach to the threat.

:20:22. > :20:26.They did. They put forward legislation which introduced a

:20:27. > :20:31.one-year relief on business rates for prospective buyers. The assessor

:20:32. > :20:36.agreed to look at the state of the steel industry when revaluation

:20:37. > :20:40.takes place next year. The Scottish environment protection agency worked

:20:41. > :20:44.closely to make sure that any prospective buyer or anyone who is

:20:45. > :20:50.interested but the best possible advice. Sufficiently and quickly as

:20:51. > :20:55.well. The Scottish Government has also produced a new responsible

:20:56. > :21:03.procurement policy, echoing and better ring in some instances that

:21:04. > :21:11.has been done by the UK Government. -- in some circumstances. On energy

:21:12. > :21:19.costs, it is working to reduce consumption and cost. We were

:21:20. > :21:23.pleased that the EU cleared the energy package in December last

:21:24. > :21:32.year. That was after this government has prodded into action by the UK

:21:33. > :21:38.steel summit. Development Scotland developed a programme to retain key

:21:39. > :21:45.staff. Those were the very people who were there on Friday. Sanjeev

:21:46. > :21:49.Gupta of Liberty Steel said that the transfer of ownership couldn't have

:21:50. > :21:55.happened without the efforts of the Scottish Government. He has also

:21:56. > :21:59.indicated that 150 jobs will be created to get the plants back up

:22:00. > :22:05.and running again. Almost back to where we were. The UK Government

:22:06. > :22:11.cannot rely on helping workers after the event. It is their duty to be

:22:12. > :22:15.proactive, to be seen to be proactive in securing buyers for

:22:16. > :22:20.affected plants, following the Scottish Government model. Scottish

:22:21. > :22:28.Government phoned prospective buyers, kept in touch with the

:22:29. > :22:30.customer base and at the same time maintained business confidentiality.

:22:31. > :22:37.They can do it, you should be able to do it as well. The Scottish

:22:38. > :22:43.Government has also launched a manufacturing strategy only

:22:44. > :22:48.contemporary of this year. It proposes to boost the Scottish

:22:49. > :22:56.economy by investment and education in order for Scotland's business to

:22:57. > :23:01.compete globally. What are you doing in that regard? Finally, can I give

:23:02. > :23:06.a piece of advice to the Secretary of State? Speak to the Scottish

:23:07. > :23:11.Government to see how saving plants can be done, using actions, not

:23:12. > :23:15.words. As the First Minister said, the steps we have taken in

:23:16. > :23:22.Lanarkshire should give hope to those in other parts of the UK that,

:23:23. > :23:24.with the right support and a strong government, there can be a future

:23:25. > :23:34.for steel. There have always been the strongest

:23:35. > :23:41.links between my constituency and the steelworks at Newport and I

:23:42. > :23:45.speak today not only for the steelworkers but the many, many more

:23:46. > :23:55.steel pensioners including my father. But I echo what was said by

:23:56. > :23:58.my honourable friend the member for stocks bridge that the steel

:23:59. > :24:03.industry can and should have a great future. There are so many great

:24:04. > :24:07.things about our steel industry. It has always been an industry of

:24:08. > :24:11.working together, of working together between workers,

:24:12. > :24:17.management, unions, and owners. It is an industry that has some of the

:24:18. > :24:24.most skilled and committed workers you will find in any industry

:24:25. > :24:30.anywhere you go in the world. Mr Speaker, it is also an industry that

:24:31. > :24:34.I believe is vital to our national security. We cannot have a country

:24:35. > :24:39.that is secure unless it has a native steel industry available to

:24:40. > :24:45.us. We should not forget either that over many, many years of change, the

:24:46. > :24:49.steelworkers have been a constant. It is an industry that has gone

:24:50. > :24:54.through change. It was nationalised after World War II, most of it was

:24:55. > :24:58.re-privatised in the early 1950s, renationalise the game by the Wilson

:24:59. > :25:02.Government in the 60s, re-privatised again under the Thatcher Government,

:25:03. > :25:06.but the steelworkers have always shown their central commitment and

:25:07. > :25:13.demonstrated their skills during that time. It is unthinkable that

:25:14. > :25:17.there should be no steel-making at Port Talbot, just as it is

:25:18. > :25:23.unthinkable that we should not look at this as a UK wide problem. It

:25:24. > :25:28.seems to me that the Government has to look strategically at two things.

:25:29. > :25:32.First of all of what it is doing practically to support the sale

:25:33. > :25:38.process at Port Talbot. What it can do to support both aspects that we

:25:39. > :25:42.are now coming to, the expressions of interest and the due diligence

:25:43. > :25:48.period that will follow. But there are far wider questions about the

:25:49. > :25:54.Government being judged on its actions for what it actually does to

:25:55. > :26:00.help the steel industry. The lesser duty rule has been mentioned in

:26:01. > :26:05.number of times in this debate. Let's be clear. As long as it is in

:26:06. > :26:08.place, the duty that is going to be imposed is always going to be lower

:26:09. > :26:14.than the margin of the dumping. The European Commission wants to scrap

:26:15. > :26:20.the lesser duty rule. The World Trade Organisation rules do not even

:26:21. > :26:27.oblige the European Commission to apply the lesser duty rule. It is

:26:28. > :26:31.for the UK Government to make the case within the European Union for

:26:32. > :26:34.it to be scrapped, but of course the fact is that they are not doing it.

:26:35. > :26:41.The European steel Association spokesman said the fact is that the

:26:42. > :26:45.UK has been blocking us. They are not the only member state, but they

:26:46. > :26:50.are certainly the ringleader in blocking the lifting of the lesser

:26:51. > :26:55.duty rule. The ability to let this has actually been part of a proposal

:26:56. > :27:00.that the European Commission looked at in 2013. What has the Secretary

:27:01. > :27:04.of State done on this sense? The answer is absolutely nothing. There

:27:05. > :27:09.is then the issue of market economy status for China, and I thought that

:27:10. > :27:17.the chief executive of the biggest steel-maker in America put it best

:27:18. > :27:21.when he said this. But even the thinking of the granting of market

:27:22. > :27:26.economy status for China when you have all the evidence in place that

:27:27. > :27:29.denies them that right, it is just ridiculous. That is what the

:27:30. > :27:36.Secretary of State should be bearing in mind. Because he really does have

:27:37. > :27:39.a choice, Madam Deputy is bigger. Particularly when it comes to the

:27:40. > :27:45.lesser duty rule, when it comes to market economy status for China.

:27:46. > :27:50.Where do his loyalties lie? Do they lie with Beijing or do they lie with

:27:51. > :27:54.the steelworkers of this country? Wouldn't it be the most supreme

:27:55. > :27:57.irony if we had a Secretary of State supposedly wedded ideological 82

:27:58. > :28:02.free market who ends up granting market economy status to a country

:28:03. > :28:07.where 80% of its steel industry is owned by the state? Is that

:28:08. > :28:14.seriously what the Secretary of State is going to do? It is time he

:28:15. > :28:23.put aside the obsession with Beijing and acted for our steelworkers. I am

:28:24. > :28:26.grateful to my honourable friend for securing this debate. We on Teesside

:28:27. > :28:31.are still reeling from the Government standing by and allowing

:28:32. > :28:36.steel-making to die at the SSI plant at Redcar and people have very long

:28:37. > :28:40.memories and it will take more than six months to discover the concept

:28:41. > :28:45.of co-investment and it comes a little bit late but I do welcome the

:28:46. > :28:50.initiative in progressing those discussions from the unions to such

:28:51. > :28:53.a successful conclusion. This is the most bizarre set of circumstances

:28:54. > :28:58.when we are feeling the collapse of steel production in UK when we have

:28:59. > :29:02.the superb industry with a brilliantly skilled workforce, and

:29:03. > :29:04.excellent industrial relations history and it is therefore

:29:05. > :29:07.essential that we send the message up from here that we have a steel

:29:08. > :29:12.industry very much worth fighting for. We need to instil confidence in

:29:13. > :29:18.steel customers and suppliers like our steel operations are very much

:29:19. > :29:21.open for business. Steel had a bright future if we can get through

:29:22. > :29:29.these months. On that point of development goal -- I am grateful to

:29:30. > :29:35.the metals processing Institute for pointing out that two thirds of the

:29:36. > :29:40.steel being used today was not even invented 15 years ago and still

:29:41. > :29:44.remains a vital economic enabler for UK economic growth, without which

:29:45. > :29:48.our successful, high-value manufacturing sector simply could

:29:49. > :29:51.not exist. The automotive and aerospace defence, nuclear and real

:29:52. > :29:56.sectors all need the development of new steel in pursuit of ever

:29:57. > :29:59.improving productivity and our leading companies undoubtedly

:30:00. > :30:06.benefit from research partnerships with domestic steel producers. It

:30:07. > :30:09.goes on to say that the steel industry would disappear for ever

:30:10. > :30:13.and reliance on overseas producers would not only mean the loss of jobs

:30:14. > :30:26.but would also slow the pace of development and risk the offshore of

:30:27. > :30:30.the steel in history. The debate is more about Port Talbot. Even though

:30:31. > :30:33.that is very important. There is an overwhelmingly strong case for the

:30:34. > :30:38.continuation of steel-making at Port Talbot because they have advanced

:30:39. > :30:42.steel-making equipment, and experienced workforce and experience

:30:43. > :30:45.in making high-quality steel for Manufacturing applications. There is

:30:46. > :30:48.no doubt on these benches that the plant can compete and have a highly

:30:49. > :30:54.profitable future, but in addition there is a huge opportunity for new

:30:55. > :30:57.mini mill operations based around electric furnaces, utilising 100%

:30:58. > :31:04.recyclable materials and offering a change in improvement in carbon

:31:05. > :31:09.emissions are likely that the Government to consider all aspects

:31:10. > :31:12.of the future of UK steel. The exploitation and the commitment to

:31:13. > :31:17.innovation, research and development will undoubtedly pay rich dividends.

:31:18. > :31:21.There is a research and development proposal on the table and it will

:31:22. > :31:27.also average recently secured future investments would have been used to

:31:28. > :31:31.upgrade materials in Rotherham, set and Cambridge as well as the two

:31:32. > :31:34.sites in Tees Valley and I urge the Minister to look closely at it. The

:31:35. > :31:38.automated industry has been turned round to be an enormous success. We

:31:39. > :31:43.can do the same for the steel industry. So the timescale is

:31:44. > :31:49.crucial here. It is ridiculously tight. The kind of thing that could

:31:50. > :31:52.be said would be that the seller is being incredibly ambitious to think

:31:53. > :31:57.that such a process can be undertaken in such a short space of

:31:58. > :32:04.time. And crucially in the final analysis, the state would indeed

:32:05. > :32:08.step in and whether we call this temporary nationalisation or public

:32:09. > :32:12.sector stewardship or whatever you like, that would let the customers

:32:13. > :32:22.and suppliers and workers know that UK steel will sustain and not only

:32:23. > :32:27.will it sustain but it will thrive. In the middle of 2014, Tata Steel

:32:28. > :32:32.announced that it was going to dispose of its long products

:32:33. > :32:35.business. It has taken until this week for the conclusion of a process

:32:36. > :32:42.which has involved the interest of one buyer then pulling out and the

:32:43. > :32:46.work that everybody has done locally, trade unions, the

:32:47. > :32:49.management team, Tata Steel themselves, Greybull capital and

:32:50. > :32:53.suppliers. Suppliers have had to make a contribution in this as well.

:32:54. > :32:58.It is a tough direction forward. It is not completed yet and I welcome

:32:59. > :33:02.the Secretary of State's statement yesterday when he said that he would

:33:03. > :33:06.do everything possible to ensure that the matter is that still need

:33:07. > :33:09.to be resolved are resolved satisfactorily saw that this does go

:33:10. > :33:13.ahead and the future, which I believe will be a positive future,

:33:14. > :33:20.but will be different to the past, can happen which will be positive

:33:21. > :33:24.for all those communities across long products including those in

:33:25. > :33:28.Scunthorpe, the largest steelworks in England, which I am proud to

:33:29. > :33:31.represent. Of course, when the Secretary of State was first

:33:32. > :33:36.appointed to his rule, I wrote to him then because I knew the steel

:33:37. > :33:39.industry was facing a crisis, and I asked the meeting. Unfortunately, at

:33:40. > :33:43.that time, there were other pressures on his diary, though I did

:33:44. > :33:47.ask the Prime Minister back in September for a steel summit.

:33:48. > :33:52.Eyebrows raised on the benches opposite at that time, but to the

:33:53. > :33:56.credit of them, and the Secretary of State, we did get a steel summit in

:33:57. > :34:00.Rotherham and that did help in terms of focusing focusing on this issue

:34:01. > :34:06.but looking at the issues we have been arguing and I have been arguing

:34:07. > :34:09.for four or five years now on energy costs. Yes, the Government has

:34:10. > :34:14.moved, but it has been slow and laborious. And frankly, when you

:34:15. > :34:17.bring in the unilateral carbon for attacks and then find yourself in a

:34:18. > :34:21.mess in taking it off, and it has taken over three years and the money

:34:22. > :34:24.is only just getting in terms of mitigation into the coffers of

:34:25. > :34:29.steelworkers, that does not give the of message of confidence that we

:34:30. > :34:32.need to take this industry forward, but I welcome the Secretary of

:34:33. > :34:37.State's comments again today when he says he is looking at different ways

:34:38. > :34:41.of doing this by doing it by exemption rather than by the methods

:34:42. > :34:43.that are done at the moment so we are seeing movement and that

:34:44. > :34:49.movement needs to be welcomed. On business rates, it is deeply

:34:50. > :34:52.disappointing that the Chancellor was unable to bring us some good

:34:53. > :34:55.news in terms of movements on business rates and I believe that

:34:56. > :35:00.the Minister opposite has been fighting their corner on that by

:35:01. > :35:03.listening to the words that they have said many speeches, it is

:35:04. > :35:06.deeply disappointing that the Government at the highest level was

:35:07. > :35:11.unable to make a bit on that because that would have made a real

:35:12. > :35:15.difference. It is a difference when a larger plant in the Netherlands

:35:16. > :35:21.pays less business rates and the Scunthorpe plant days. That is not

:35:22. > :35:27.right. These are playing fields need to be levelled. On procurement, I

:35:28. > :35:30.very much welcome the Government producing these better guidelines,

:35:31. > :35:33.but as I have said all along, the proof of the pudding is in the

:35:34. > :35:42.eating. It is when these are tested. I point again to the issue of things

:35:43. > :35:45.like the energy developments of the Hornsey Project on the North Sea.

:35:46. > :35:49.This is happening because of the contract, the very generous

:35:50. > :35:54.contract, which the UK Government has given to this private sector

:35:55. > :35:57.company will stop so there is public money invested in this and frankly

:35:58. > :36:01.the energy company -- the energy coming out of that development will

:36:02. > :36:08.be paid for by UK taxpayers and UK energy bill payers. It would be

:36:09. > :36:16.outrageous, Madam Deputy Speaker, if it is not UK steel that is in those

:36:17. > :36:21.turbines that go up in the North Sea and I urge the Secretary of State to

:36:22. > :36:28.work tirelessly with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that even where

:36:29. > :36:30.there are private companies who are delivering public projects, that

:36:31. > :36:35.they deliver for our steel industry in procurements. Finally, on Chinese

:36:36. > :36:41.dumping, much has been said. This is an area where I think the Secretary

:36:42. > :36:46.of State has moved and I welcome that. Again, it has been very slow.

:36:47. > :36:56.We have seen action and that action is to be approved. You'd hear from

:36:57. > :37:00.the whole steel community saying how important it is that the lesser duty

:37:01. > :37:04.rule is tackled and that would give a signal in terms of confidence.

:37:05. > :37:08.What this industry needs going forward more than anything else is

:37:09. > :37:12.confidence will stop not that we are just getting warm words but these

:37:13. > :37:21.warm words are supported by actions and actions that are prompts, not

:37:22. > :37:25.lacquered Lee. Save our steel. Whilst I thank the Shadow Business

:37:26. > :37:28.Secretary for securing this emergency debate today, I find

:37:29. > :37:34.myself asking how many times exactly are we going to have to debate the

:37:35. > :37:40.crisis facing the steel industry in the UK. Before the Government take

:37:41. > :37:44.it seriously. This crisis is not recently arrived unannounced. It has

:37:45. > :37:48.not sprung up overnight. The warning signs were there. There has been a

:37:49. > :37:52.constant siren of opposition voices for warning the Government that

:37:53. > :37:57.action was urgently needed. The steel industry has been collectively

:37:58. > :38:01.crying out for action to be taken. The all-party parliamentary group,

:38:02. > :38:04.of which I am a member, have made countless representations to the

:38:05. > :38:08.Government. We have been spelling out exactly what action needs to be

:38:09. > :38:13.taken. Whilst the Government have jumped into action recently it is

:38:14. > :38:19.unfortunately still not going far enough. We are yet to see meaningful

:38:20. > :38:22.action on dumping. The steadfast opposition to scrapping the lesser

:38:23. > :38:26.duty rule has meant that little can be done to stem the flow of cheap

:38:27. > :38:32.Chinese imports. The Government have not only been reticent, they have

:38:33. > :38:36.apparently been leading the charge on a European level, actively

:38:37. > :38:38.blocking this action being taken. The UK Government is guilty of

:38:39. > :38:42.negligence when it comes to the approach it has taken on the dumping

:38:43. > :38:51.of cheap steel on world markets by China. Whilst the UK is bending over

:38:52. > :38:55.backwards to accommodate beeswing's -- Beijing's request for market

:38:56. > :39:00.economy status, our industry is suffering. What has just happened in

:39:01. > :39:05.Scotland is testament to how a proactive governments, working

:39:06. > :39:08.closely with industry, unions and the workers themselves, can protect

:39:09. > :39:13.jobs and safeguard this vital industry. It is crucial now for the

:39:14. > :39:17.UK Government to follow that example. And make a similar

:39:18. > :39:23.concerted effort to save steel plants in England and Wales. They

:39:24. > :39:27.must work cooperatively with the EU on anti-dumping measures. We need to

:39:28. > :39:31.see a credible strategy, not just first deal, but for ceramics and all

:39:32. > :39:36.other energy intensive and heavy industry in the UK. Make no mistake,

:39:37. > :39:40.the industry in Scotland still faces challenges, but the diligence of the

:39:41. > :39:46.Government in Scotland in saving it has given a renewed confidence that

:39:47. > :39:49.still has a bright future there. On these benches, we stand in

:39:50. > :39:54.solidarity with steelworkers in England and Wales. Despite all of

:39:55. > :39:58.the warning signs, I want to see a bright future for steel right across

:39:59. > :40:02.Britain, not just north of the border. In order for that to happen,

:40:03. > :40:10.we need to see a complete change of tax on the Business Minister.

:40:11. > :40:12.Throughout the crisis, the SNP has consistently called for a

:40:13. > :40:13.comprehensive and advised industrial strategy for heavy industry in the

:40:14. > :40:28.UK. Within it, the SNP spelt out how

:40:29. > :40:33.steel is a vital and strategic asset in the Scottish economy. Although

:40:34. > :40:37.this might seem a common-sense approach, its visionary by

:40:38. > :40:42.comparison and to Westminster strategy or lack thereof. There are

:40:43. > :40:54.many workers who attended last Friday's handing over. As well as

:40:55. > :40:58.many of the union wraps, there was a sense of relief, optimism and

:40:59. > :41:03.renewed hope. It was palpable. Beneath all of that, there is a

:41:04. > :41:08.resilience. Call it a steely determination if you will. This is

:41:09. > :41:14.an old industry which has learned to adapt too many changes over the

:41:15. > :41:18.years. As Charles Stalin said, "It's not the strongest of the species

:41:19. > :41:24.that survives, nor the most intelligent, it is the one which is

:41:25. > :41:26.most adaptable to change." The steel industry is up to the challenge and

:41:27. > :41:33.the government needs to step forward. -- Charles Darwin said. I

:41:34. > :41:36.want to see a successful and productive future for all beastie

:41:37. > :41:42.workers throughout the UK and I really do hope the government is

:41:43. > :41:48.listening today and will leave no stone unturned to save our steel and

:41:49. > :41:57.highly skilled and are located steelworkers a positive future that

:41:58. > :42:08.they truly deserve. -- highly skilled steelworkers. Thank you. I

:42:09. > :42:13.want to praise the work of the First Minister Carwyn Jones, working to

:42:14. > :42:18.try to find a solution. He has been speaking out on that, alongside so

:42:19. > :42:25.many others and I am proud to have him as our First Minister. I really

:42:26. > :42:29.wanted to underline the point that the steel industry in this country

:42:30. > :42:32.has a future. And that it has a future at the heart of our

:42:33. > :42:40.construction projects and defence projects in the future. --

:42:41. > :42:45.infrastructure projects. I am proud that the steel produced in my

:42:46. > :42:48.constituency is at the heart of Crossrail and semi-construction and

:42:49. > :42:53.infrastructure projects. We must never lose sight of that. It is an

:42:54. > :42:58.industry of the future if the government gets behind it. I wanted

:42:59. > :43:07.to touch on three issues. Whatever the welcome announcements about

:43:08. > :43:11.Scunthorpe and maybe Port Talbot, we need to address the fundamental

:43:12. > :43:16.point that have brought us to this and will continue to affect the

:43:17. > :43:22.steel industry. I want to flag up some of the strategic risks we face

:43:23. > :43:26.and get rid of some of the myths that have been propagated about the

:43:27. > :43:31.European Union's role in this. Firstly, energy. It is at the heart

:43:32. > :43:38.of the debate. We see the highest prices across the UK. -- across the

:43:39. > :43:45.EU. And the fact is, whatever the nonsense we hear about the EU being

:43:46. > :43:49.to blame, for the main policies causing these prices have come from

:43:50. > :43:55.the UK Government. I welcome the steps that have been talked about,

:43:56. > :43:59.exemptions and compensation, but they have come from the UK

:44:00. > :44:03.Government. Unlike the member for Monmouth, who says we shouldn't be

:44:04. > :44:10.doing anything about climate change, that is not the issue. If we end up

:44:11. > :44:14.off shoring these issues, it would be an absolutely absurd situation. I

:44:15. > :44:21.would argue they continue to review and look at every aspect and to see

:44:22. > :44:27.what is the net result in the end. Are they paying more or less? If

:44:28. > :44:31.they are not paying less, we will face this problem again. It's all

:44:32. > :44:36.very well talking about the compensation, but the reality is

:44:37. > :44:41.that in my constituency a few days ago, they still haven't received the

:44:42. > :44:44.money. The government has been slow. We have heard some very powerful

:44:45. > :44:52.arguments made about the lesser duty rule. I would reiterate the question

:44:53. > :44:58.I made earlier on. We need to look, are those still high enough? I know

:44:59. > :45:05.he said it has gone down by 99% and we need to keep it under review. We

:45:06. > :45:12.have also heard about the market economy status. I agree we shouldn't

:45:13. > :45:15.be granting that to China. And also procurement, we have got to see

:45:16. > :45:21.concrete steps. I was pleased to hear what the secretary said, but

:45:22. > :45:27.this should have been coming a long time ago. We have produced products

:45:28. > :45:32.without using UK steel. What about the offshore patrol vessels and

:45:33. > :45:36.tankers? Those have not been produced using fully UK steel. We

:45:37. > :45:42.need to make sure it is UK steel being used. It's not just the role

:45:43. > :45:48.of the government, it's also about this construction companies. I have

:45:49. > :45:57.written to them, asking them, are they going to use UK steel? Are they

:45:58. > :46:03.going to be adhering to the standard, to use high-quality

:46:04. > :46:05.British steel? I do worry that, unless we address these issues,

:46:06. > :46:17.unless we maintain diversity of production, of different products,

:46:18. > :46:23.that we will lose capacity. Others will come then, like the Chinese,

:46:24. > :46:30.and put their prices up. Also on the EU, it is not the EU to blame. It

:46:31. > :46:37.would be absurd if we dealt it another body blow to leave the EU.

:46:38. > :46:42.Half of our exports go there. State aid rules apply as well. We have

:46:43. > :46:49.less capacity to act on dumping without others. The EU has brought

:46:50. > :46:54.in 37 measures, six of which have been on China. It is this government

:46:55. > :47:02.that hasn't done the work. We can save steel, but only if we work

:47:03. > :47:07.together to do it. Port Talbot has been an industrial jewel in the

:47:08. > :47:11.crown of Swansea Bay. Thousands of people and many more beyond in the

:47:12. > :47:15.communities rely on it. And we are looking towards the government to

:47:16. > :47:20.support the steel industry in the time of need. The Welsh government

:47:21. > :47:28.has come forward and taken leadership. We want to see some on

:47:29. > :47:34.the pensions. I am not here to criticise Tata Steel at all. They

:47:35. > :47:43.invested millions of pounds to buy it. And more to cover losses. They

:47:44. > :47:48.have spent 185 million on new blast furnace in 2013. The reality is that

:47:49. > :47:51.steel production has doubled because of Chinese production. And then

:47:52. > :47:57.world prices have halved, so we're now in a situation where they cannot

:47:58. > :48:01.sustain the competitive threat with China, which is 80% state owned and

:48:02. > :48:05.we need to hold on and do what we can to make sure there is a

:48:06. > :48:12.sustainable future. China are thinking strategically, through

:48:13. > :48:19.getting in with lower prices with HS2, nuclear and buying globally. We

:48:20. > :48:25.need to understand what they are trying to do and ensure that our

:48:26. > :48:29.long-term interests are sustained. At Swansea University, we are

:48:30. > :48:35.investing in new types of steel, multilayered steel, so it has a

:48:36. > :48:42.negative carbon footprint and it is clad over major public buildings. We

:48:43. > :48:47.have high quality coal as well. I want to see guarantees from the

:48:48. > :48:52.secretary of state who is talking their about co-investment. What are

:48:53. > :48:55.we going to have and we go to have an equity share from the government

:48:56. > :48:59.in the short term? What guarantees can we get about a more level

:49:00. > :49:07.playing field? Should it be the case... Yes, I will. Would he agree

:49:08. > :49:11.that the government could see the current threat to the UK steel

:49:12. > :49:16.industry also as an opportunity to change the way we do things, so the

:49:17. > :49:20.structure can be established to protect the steel industry for many

:49:21. > :49:24.years to come? Can they look to another sector like the care sector

:49:25. > :49:35.and other parts of the world to learn from other models of delivery,

:49:36. > :49:40.including private sector investment? I do need to look creatively

:49:41. > :49:45.accompany structure and how they engage with procurement. We also

:49:46. > :49:50.need to look at the process of displacing clean steel for dirty

:49:51. > :49:55.steel and that there is a case to look at carbon tariffs. -- we do

:49:56. > :50:00.need. We share common environments. In terms of procurement, one member

:50:01. > :50:04.made clear we do need to know who the government are talking to and

:50:05. > :50:08.what reassurances have been given. I they said it is commercially

:50:09. > :50:14.confidential, but what people consuming steels want to know is

:50:15. > :50:18.that if they make an order now, will it be delivered at that price in a

:50:19. > :50:25.year? We need to give those guarantees to secure futures. We

:50:26. > :50:35.need to hold our nerve. The reality is cash flow sustenance. The

:50:36. > :50:39.government need to look at financial packages, whereby the cash flow of

:50:40. > :50:45.the business can be sustained on the back of future orders at known

:50:46. > :50:51.prices. We have already mentioned that half of our exports go to

:50:52. > :50:56.Europe and it will be a complete disaster for us to believe, in terms

:50:57. > :51:00.of extra tariffs, and it's important that we do move forward through the

:51:01. > :51:05.referendum period so that there is security for prospective buyers, if

:51:06. > :51:14.we are still in the single market without tariffs imposed. Our first

:51:15. > :51:18.duty is to secure the livelihoods of our communities, as well as our

:51:19. > :51:21.strategic interests. It is important that the government comes forward

:51:22. > :51:29.and doesn't simply give the impression it has given that it

:51:30. > :51:37.wants a buyer, but once any benefits . Once any benefits. If there will

:51:38. > :51:43.be any pension buyouts, if there is going to be co-investment, that

:51:44. > :51:48.should be available for Tata as well as others. They did show they were

:51:49. > :51:52.there for the long run. As the government has shown they are not,

:51:53. > :51:56.they have pulled out. We want a sustainable future and it is

:51:57. > :52:00.important that Tata Steel are brought back around the table, as

:52:01. > :52:05.well as other prospective buyers. I am sorry. We are running out of

:52:06. > :52:13.time. I had to reduce the limit to four minutes. Yesterday, the

:52:14. > :52:16.secretary of state pledged his commitment to the steel industry. I

:52:17. > :52:22.would like to ask him to spell out why the government is willing to

:52:23. > :52:29.consider co-investment for Port Talbot, when it ruled it out for

:52:30. > :52:32.Redcar. At the time, it said state aid rules prevented it. And then

:52:33. > :52:42.they said it was because they refused to put British tax money

:52:43. > :52:47.into Thai banks. Why was that? It could have enabled mothballing or a

:52:48. > :52:54.sale. I would like to ask for a full explanation. S S I asked for a loan

:52:55. > :53:01.to enable a restructure. They were refused. I sat down with ministers

:53:02. > :53:10.and potential investors. The company were willing to run or mothball, but

:53:11. > :53:17.didn't want government money. What has changed and does he now regrets

:53:18. > :53:22.not listening to us? We have seen the cost of hearts closure has been

:53:23. > :53:24.far greater than intervention would have been. I want to say something

:53:25. > :53:35.about that cost. Firstly, the economic cost. 2000

:53:36. > :53:41.jobs lost at SSI. Over 900 jobs lost in the immediate supply chain. From

:53:42. > :53:44.those who provided the parts and the maintenance to those who cleaned the

:53:45. > :53:49.overalls and fed the workforce, plus there is no way of measuring the

:53:50. > :53:53.knock-on impact on the local shops, hairdressers, builders, nurses,

:53:54. > :54:02.childminders. We know they are all feeling the pain but unemployment

:54:03. > :54:05.has jumped 162%. We now have the 10th highest unemployment rate in

:54:06. > :54:20.the country. Secondly, I want to say something

:54:21. > :54:24.about the cost to the Exchequer and the state. It is currently

:54:25. > :54:27.understood that the Government is paying over ?200,000 per week to

:54:28. > :54:33.maintain the site in it's on the cover of the coma status. Recovery

:54:34. > :54:39.of the lands is expected to cost the state well over ?1 billion. For the

:54:40. > :54:48.British steel industry, we have lost your's second largest blast furnace

:54:49. > :55:01.-- Europe's. Will she agree with me that the lands of the one point ?1

:55:02. > :55:08.billion issue and the remuneration of it. I want to hear further

:55:09. > :55:16.commitment from the Government that they come -- they are committed to

:55:17. > :55:24.maintaining that site. For the British steel industry itself, we

:55:25. > :55:28.have lost our blast furnace, expensive national assets belonging

:55:29. > :55:37.to the rigid steel industry now laid to waste. Add to this the ?50

:55:38. > :55:41.million that has been paid into retraining. A further ?30 million

:55:42. > :55:46.for redundancies and other costs and bear in mind the majority of workers

:55:47. > :55:51.are still awaiting the award of their protective award and I will be

:55:52. > :55:55.grateful for an update on this. A loss to the council who are already

:55:56. > :56:05.suffered ?90 million losses after years of Tory austerity. Thirdly, I

:56:06. > :56:10.want to speak about the human cost. 600 workers are back in work or

:56:11. > :56:15.full-time training according to DWP figures and I pay tribute to them

:56:16. > :56:20.and to all of those who are working so hard to achieve that but 600 out

:56:21. > :56:25.of 3000 workers six months after closure still leaves a lot of work

:56:26. > :56:28.to do. What about the thousands of others? They are signing on, many

:56:29. > :56:34.for the first time in their lives. Many are coming up to the six months

:56:35. > :56:38.cut off rate so those who have a partner with an income of more than

:56:39. > :56:41.?114 per week will soon be losing their job seekers allowance

:56:42. > :56:46.completely. People are moving out of their homes and reliant on hardship

:56:47. > :56:51.funds to pay their bills. One worker who can no longer to look after his

:56:52. > :56:55.house can no longer have his children to stay with him. There has

:56:56. > :56:58.been a huge effect on families and relationships. A loss of identity,

:56:59. > :57:04.of comradeship, and a pride in a skilled trade. Redcar has seen an

:57:05. > :57:08.increase in 91% in mental health referrals in the past year. They are

:57:09. > :57:12.doing a fantastic job and we have many of those who are under the

:57:13. > :57:17.radar, one who has not even left the house since he lost his job last

:57:18. > :57:21.September. Families destroyed and lies shattered. Our town has been to

:57:22. > :57:25.a tragedy. The cost is far higher than intervention would have been. I

:57:26. > :57:40.say to this today, you let us last year. -- you let us down last year.

:57:41. > :57:46.I would like to thank for being allowed to speak in this debate and

:57:47. > :57:51.Adam was also like -- and I would also like to thank my honourable

:57:52. > :57:55.friend for securing such a debate because indeed the steel industry is

:57:56. > :58:00.in crisis and it is important that it gets a serious discussion and

:58:01. > :58:06.consideration. I am sure everyone in this house is keen to do all steps

:58:07. > :58:13.necessary to secure the steel industry in our country. Today, we

:58:14. > :58:19.have herds a number of options put forward on energy, business tariffs

:58:20. > :58:25.and various other options, but what I would like to talk about is

:58:26. > :58:30.defence. The last Labour Government had an industrial defence strategy.

:58:31. > :58:39.Right in the heart of that strategy was British jobs and the first

:58:40. > :58:43.priority in all decisions was that the MOD. Perhaps that is something

:58:44. > :58:51.the Government should consider implementing in this time of crisis

:58:52. > :58:56.in the steel industry. I believe that whenever and wherever possible,

:58:57. > :59:02.British steel should be used to build equipment, weapons, vehicles

:59:03. > :59:13.and things that our Armed Forces need to keep us safe. Sadly, the

:59:14. > :59:17.Government abandoned the industrial defence strategy. And of course, we

:59:18. > :59:26.can see the implications of that decision today. Because we have

:59:27. > :59:31.three new ships for the Royal Navy being built in Glasgow. 60% of steel

:59:32. > :59:38.from Sweden, 20% from other countries, and only 20% from the UK.

:59:39. > :59:46.We have a 3.4 billion contract to build 590 armoured vehicles, also

:59:47. > :59:53.using Swedish imports for the majority of the steel requirements.

:59:54. > :59:58.The Minister has also refused to guarantee that the Navy's new

:59:59. > :00:05.frigate will be built using British Steel. The defence minister will

:00:06. > :00:09.only say they have an opportunity. Madam Deputy Speaker, this paints a

:00:10. > :00:19.picture of a Government that is willing to talk the talk but not

:00:20. > :00:22.walk the walk. The MOD has a budget of ?178 billion for defence

:00:23. > :00:27.equipment over the next ten years and Labour will continue to press

:00:28. > :00:39.that that money is spent where possible securing British jobs and

:00:40. > :00:45.for British steel. Perhaps the Minister would like to listen

:00:46. > :00:49.because two avoid a fire sale, Government must demonstrate to all

:00:50. > :00:55.stakeholders within the industry that it is taking a proactive

:00:56. > :01:01.approach to ensuring the continued observations. -- operations. You

:01:02. > :01:04.must look at reversing the decision to scrap the defence industrial

:01:05. > :01:13.strategy. You must make a public statement with haste to say that

:01:14. > :01:21.this Government believe it is supporting British Steel and British

:01:22. > :01:24.jobs. I am pleased to take part in this important debate. I am

:01:25. > :01:31.delighted that the speaker was granted its application. As a son of

:01:32. > :01:37.a Teesside, I am a regular visitor to seaside and to Redcar. I was

:01:38. > :01:45.there only a few weeks ago and to see the sight of that plant, now

:01:46. > :01:55.empty and derelict after 175 years of steel-making is shocking and my

:01:56. > :02:01.thoughts are with the constituents in Redcar and the surrounding

:02:02. > :02:04.constituencies in Teesside but of course the 3000 jobs as people have

:02:05. > :02:11.said and many more thousands of jobs, lives were affected and what a

:02:12. > :02:15.shame that we have not seen the kind of very slow action from the

:02:16. > :02:19.Government then to try to prevent that that we are at least finally

:02:20. > :02:24.seen today but what a contrast that has already been raised by the

:02:25. > :02:27.honourable gentleman, the member for Hartlepool just down the road,

:02:28. > :02:33.between the industrial strategy of the previous Business Secretary, the

:02:34. > :02:40.internationally respected Vince Cable, who was seeking to ensure

:02:41. > :02:43.that we could maintain our existing industry and also seeking to

:02:44. > :02:48.transition to new technologies, something that is entirely lacking

:02:49. > :02:51.from this Business Secretary and he was so proud to say that there is

:02:52. > :02:55.now a conservative Business Secretary but he simply does not

:02:56. > :03:00.have an industrial strategy for the UK at all. And what an extraordinary

:03:01. > :03:05.situation. We have a Conservative Party preaching free trade and yet

:03:06. > :03:10.rolling out the red carpet and seeking to do sweetheart deals with

:03:11. > :03:16.the communist nation with a subsidised basket case of our

:03:17. > :03:19.industry that is producing steel that no one in the world needs or

:03:20. > :03:24.wants that is wrecking a perfectly viable situation. Now, I quote. This

:03:25. > :03:31.is an interesting quote and it says Redcar has already paid the price

:03:32. > :03:35.for its free-trade ideology and Port Talbot is about to follow. There

:03:36. > :03:40.will eventually be little left if the current drift in trade policy is

:03:41. > :03:46.allowed to continue. Who said that? Was it Jerry make organ? Was it the

:03:47. > :03:49.leader of the Liberal Democrats or the SNP? No, it was the

:03:50. > :03:56.international business editor of the Daily Telegraph. -- was it Jeremy

:03:57. > :04:02.Corbyn? That is the mark of a Government that has turned its back

:04:03. > :04:08.on steel. All he is prepared to do is say, can you make a little bit

:04:09. > :04:14.less steel, please? That is because of his desperation to call the

:04:15. > :04:21.Chinese over the Hinckley power plant. They will still be producing

:04:22. > :04:25.far more than the world needs and will do devastation. Only six months

:04:26. > :04:29.ago, at the same time as we had in action from this Government, the

:04:30. > :04:35.Liberal Democrats called for ministers to set up a Minister led

:04:36. > :04:38.group looking across the whole of the steel industry so we could have

:04:39. > :04:43.a strategy to save this great British industry, and yet the

:04:44. > :04:47.Government ignored that and failed to act and now what we are seeing

:04:48. > :04:52.today is not leadership, it is panic and it is acting too little, too

:04:53. > :04:57.late. So ministers must now do at least what they can to reverse this.

:04:58. > :05:02.They must keep the Port Talbot plant operational while a buyer is found.

:05:03. > :05:06.They must be a little less arrogant and listen and learn some of the

:05:07. > :05:11.lessons from the past including what Vince Cable did when he went to GM

:05:12. > :05:18.motors and that was to make sure we do have the steel industry going

:05:19. > :05:21.forward to support the UK economy. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker and

:05:22. > :05:24.yet again we have had another very good debate on the steel industry

:05:25. > :05:28.with lots of contributions from the backbenches. I think I counted 21

:05:29. > :05:45.contributions in our short debate from the backbenches.

:05:46. > :05:52.I think it has been an excellent debate. I would also like to pay

:05:53. > :05:58.tribute to the community trade union and also to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh

:05:59. > :06:03.First Minister, who has been mentioned during the course of the

:06:04. > :06:06.debate and my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales

:06:07. > :06:10.on our side to do for her efforts on this issue. Madam Deputy Speaker,

:06:11. > :06:14.our role as Her Majesty's opposition is to hold the Government was likely

:06:15. > :06:17.to be fire on this issue. Let's be clear about that because our

:06:18. > :06:20.industry has to have a future. We have to make sure that the UK steel

:06:21. > :06:29.industry has a future at all and we are having to do this because the

:06:30. > :06:30.new Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, straight

:06:31. > :06:33.after the general election, signalled quite clearly and quite

:06:34. > :06:35.overtly that he was not going to continue the consensus that we have

:06:36. > :06:45.had for the last decade that has been emerging and growing about the

:06:46. > :06:50.need for a UK industrial strategy. The UK industrial strategy. I wonder

:06:51. > :06:53.if the new Secretary of State for Wales wants to learn that his job is

:06:54. > :07:04.to sit there and shut up and listen during this debate? The UK... Order,

:07:05. > :07:13.order! Let us stay calm. The honourable gentleman may wish to

:07:14. > :07:16.rephrase what he has just said. I think the new Secretary of State

:07:17. > :07:20.needs to sit there in silence and listen on this very important issue

:07:21. > :07:25.that affects Wales in particular which is his responsibility. The UK

:07:26. > :07:29.needs an active industrial, modern strategy which understands the

:07:30. > :07:36.importance of foundation industries like the steel industry to rebalance

:07:37. > :07:41.our economy. I understand that the Secretary of State for business,

:07:42. > :07:51.coming from a city backgrounds and with a professed laissez faire

:07:52. > :07:59.policy does not want to use this strategy, but he is wrong about

:08:00. > :08:04.that. I worked in steel for six months, my father worked there for

:08:05. > :08:07.over 20 years, so I do not need questions about my background from

:08:08. > :08:10.the Secretary of State for Wales who cannot sit there and shut up and

:08:11. > :08:16.listen to the debate as he should be doing on part of his constituents

:08:17. > :08:18.for Wales. I understand why the Secretary of State for Business,

:08:19. > :08:23.Innovation and Skills does not want to use the term industrial strategy,

:08:24. > :08:26.but I am afraid he is wrong not to do so because unless the Government

:08:27. > :08:36.is prepared to strategically support British industry, the Chancellor

:08:37. > :08:39.when he says March of the makers will suddenly become a death of the

:08:40. > :08:42.makers in this country. We're not going to stand by and let that

:08:43. > :08:46.happen which is why we believe there is a future for the steel industry

:08:47. > :08:50.in this country. Not to steel recycling in the United Kingdom, can

:08:51. > :08:54.I say that? We need to hear a commitment that he is committed to

:08:55. > :08:56.steel-making in this country and not just the recycling of steel,

:08:57. > :09:02.important as that is, and we have been asking for months for a clear

:09:03. > :09:09.commitment from the Secretary of State to make clear its view as a

:09:10. > :09:12.Government as to what is the minimum strategic steel-making capacity that

:09:13. > :09:26.it believes must be maintained in the UK's national interest.

:09:27. > :09:34.That doubt at the heart of government is like an impurity in

:09:35. > :09:39.steel if you are pouring it in a steel plant in this country. If you

:09:40. > :09:43.do not get rid of it, it can lead to a disaster and it will be a disaster

:09:44. > :09:50.if the doubt at the heart of the policy will not be got rid of. We

:09:51. > :09:59.need to make sure Port Talbot remains is the opportunity to make

:10:00. > :10:05.use steel remains, not just reuse old steel. That is why it is

:10:06. > :10:09.important is to make an industrial strategy, not an approach, not just

:10:10. > :10:18.a vague warm words. We need leadership and not laxity that is

:10:19. > :10:23.undermining everything. Thank you. Can I begin by paying tribute to all

:10:24. > :10:30.those who have spoken in this debate and make it very clear that

:10:31. > :10:34.everybody that has spoken has spoken quite rightly, with passion in their

:10:35. > :10:38.hearts on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of our

:10:39. > :10:41.great British steel industry. And I just want to make this very

:10:42. > :10:46.important point. It is so important that we do indeed look to the future

:10:47. > :10:52.and make sure that the message alert is sent out from this place is one

:10:53. > :10:57.of confidence in the continuing success of our British steel

:10:58. > :11:05.industry. -- that is sent out. One of the things I have noticed and can

:11:06. > :11:12.I pay tribute to the wise words of the Honourable Lady there, but when

:11:13. > :11:16.I went to Rotherham, I understood speciality steels, which are

:11:17. > :11:22.separate from the great work at Port Talbot. Then I went to Corby,

:11:23. > :11:27.another great day in Corby, meeting excellent workers and management.

:11:28. > :11:30.Very proud of the superb quality of the products, but it was really

:11:31. > :11:36.important that this message of continuing confidence not just for

:11:37. > :11:40.customers, but also for suppliers is something that unites us. And

:11:41. > :11:44.despite the unfortunate remarks of the gentleman, there is much that

:11:45. > :11:51.brings us together on this important matter. We all agree that steel is a

:11:52. > :11:56.vital industry. We agree that this crisis is not confined to the United

:11:57. > :12:01.Kingdom but we'll see should agree that no government, unfortunately,

:12:02. > :12:07.has a magic wand and can control the price of steel. We agree it is a

:12:08. > :12:11.vital industry, not just for the national economy, but because of the

:12:12. > :12:16.important role it plays in local communities for the workers it

:12:17. > :12:23.directly employs and through the supply chain. That is where it is a

:12:24. > :12:28.vital component to the continuing success of that part of our United

:12:29. > :12:34.Kingdom, particularly in Wales. I want to pay tribute to my Secretary

:12:35. > :12:38.of State for his tireless work and his outstanding leadership

:12:39. > :12:43.throughout this crisis. One of the problems that we have has,

:12:44. > :12:50.throughout all the time that we have been in the position is that we have

:12:51. > :12:53.been in, is that so much has been so commercially sensitive and I'm

:12:54. > :12:58.looking forward to the day when it comes that we will actually be

:12:59. > :13:03.able... I will be the first to stand up and say about the sort of work

:13:04. > :13:07.that the Secretary of State has been leading quietly and privately. And I

:13:08. > :13:11.have to say that that work began as soon as we were appointed and, in

:13:12. > :13:19.particular, even before the terrible events in Redcar. The reason why we

:13:20. > :13:24.get on the side of the house so agitated when we have these debates

:13:25. > :13:31.is because we started delivering on the very things that steel

:13:32. > :13:36.industries... Even before we had the tragedy of Redcar. That is why it

:13:37. > :13:41.minister who ignored the advice of her officials and said that this

:13:42. > :13:45.country would vote in favour of tariffs on dumped steel. That is

:13:46. > :13:52.what we did in July and we continue to do that into November. And I want

:13:53. > :13:57.to say about Redcar, the situation was there was very different. Loss

:13:58. > :14:03.and debts, tens of millions of pounds of debt. A company that went

:14:04. > :14:11.bust locally and its parent company in Thailand. The stark contrasts

:14:12. > :14:14.between SSI and Tata Steel. Tata Steel is an excellent and

:14:15. > :14:19.responsible employer. We look forward now to supporting them in

:14:20. > :14:24.all we do to make sure there is a successful sale and successful

:14:25. > :14:31.future for our steel industry. This house has considered the decision to

:14:32. > :14:36.sell its UK operations and the government has taken to secure the

:14:37. > :14:50.future of the UK's steel industry. Vote now. The ayes have it. The ayes

:14:51. > :14:55.have it. We now come to the debate recommended by the backbench

:14:56. > :15:01.business committee on the reform of support arrangements for people

:15:02. > :15:06.infected with contaminated blood. Diana Johnson to move. Thank you.

:15:07. > :15:10.And I rise to move the motion standing in my name and the names of

:15:11. > :15:14.my right honourable and honourable friends. And I first of all thank

:15:15. > :15:18.the backbench business committee for granting the time for this debate

:15:19. > :15:23.today. And this topic was actually the first debate that the backbench

:15:24. > :15:27.business committee scheduled after they had been established in 2010.

:15:28. > :15:32.And it is a very sad fact that six years on we are still fighting for

:15:33. > :15:37.justice for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. And it

:15:38. > :15:40.was in 2010 and well during the General Election campaign, that my

:15:41. > :15:45.constituent Glenn Wilkinson, with his wife Alison came to see me. And

:15:46. > :15:51.they told me about Glenn having been given infected blood during dental

:15:52. > :15:55.treatment and how it had affected his life and health and his

:15:56. > :15:58.opportunities for work and impacted on his family. And from then on I

:15:59. > :16:04.began to find out about the biggest treatment disaster in the history of

:16:05. > :16:17.the NHS. Very happy to. I'm grateful. Last year, my constituent

:16:18. > :16:23.came to see me in my office. Sadly, he has since passed away and I would

:16:24. > :16:28.like to sincerely thank the lady for her persistence in bringing forward

:16:29. > :16:36.these debates on behalf of his son, James, and his widow, Sally, for

:16:37. > :16:42.Hearst persistence in ensuring this is properly discussed. -- her

:16:43. > :16:45.persistence. I am grateful. I have received many letters from all over

:16:46. > :16:52.the country from families that have been affected. But I do want to just

:16:53. > :16:54.set the scene and comment on the government's proposals we are

:16:55. > :17:01.discussing and I will try and do so fairly briefly to allow many others

:17:02. > :17:06.to speak and talk about their constituents and views. We know that

:17:07. > :17:10.governments of both colours have introduced a patchwork of schemes

:17:11. > :17:13.and assistance over the years, but there has never been a complete

:17:14. > :17:20.package of support for those affected. And this is in marked

:17:21. > :17:24.contrast to other disasters, such as thalidomide, where full support and

:17:25. > :17:31.compensation was put in place. And I am sure the whole house wants to pay

:17:32. > :17:34.tribute to all those who have fought for justice over many years and

:17:35. > :17:40.their families and loved ones who have supported them in doing that.

:17:41. > :17:43.Very happy to. She has mentioned the various schemes that have been put

:17:44. > :17:48.in place, but would she agree with me that the actual process of

:17:49. > :17:52.applying and getting through that is very difficult, particularly for

:17:53. > :17:57.people who are so L? Absolutely. A very important point and I will come

:17:58. > :18:01.onto that. I'm just going to make a bit of progress and then I will take

:18:02. > :18:06.an intervention. I just was paying tribute to those who fought for many

:18:07. > :18:13.years and I think we would agree they have been fighting for too many

:18:14. > :18:15.years to get a fair settlement for what happened to them. And they are

:18:16. > :18:19.weary from fighting. They want to resolve this once and for all and to

:18:20. > :18:23.get on with their lives and, very sadly, more and more people are

:18:24. > :18:30.dying without seeing that justice. And each individual affected has

:18:31. > :18:34.been robbed of many of the opportunities that we all take for

:18:35. > :18:39.granted, to work, to have a career, to buy a home, to grow old with the

:18:40. > :18:43.person that they love. And also family members who have had to care

:18:44. > :18:49.for their loved ones, perhaps giving up careers to do so, and then to

:18:50. > :18:54.watch their loved ones deteriorate. I am happy to take an intervention.

:18:55. > :18:58.She has been tenacious in her pursuit of this issue and this is an

:18:59. > :19:01.issue that has been going on for many years. I have got constituents

:19:02. > :19:07.that have been affected by this and it is about time this was brought

:19:08. > :19:11.out. You mentioned the thalidomide situation, that took many years.

:19:12. > :19:14.That took a determined minister to introduce that. If he could have

:19:15. > :19:20.done that, I cannot see why this minister cannot. I am grateful. I'm

:19:21. > :19:28.just going to make a little bit of progress. I think it is important to

:19:29. > :19:33.recognise that there is never -- has never been an admission by the

:19:34. > :19:37.Department of Health or the NHS for the liability. They have always

:19:38. > :19:41.taken the view that no one could have known about the problem with

:19:42. > :19:46.the infected blood. But I want to make the point that this is not a

:19:47. > :19:50.court of law. This is Parliament and we are being asked to deal with a

:19:51. > :19:56.clear wrong that has been done to our constituents and we know that

:19:57. > :20:00.these people were damaged and harmed by the treatment they received from

:20:01. > :20:06.the NHS by the state. And what we need to do now is put together a

:20:07. > :20:10.proper support package to ensure that those affected and their

:20:11. > :20:15.families are at the heart of what we do and whatever scheme is proposed.

:20:16. > :20:21.I am happy to give way. Thank you. Not least because I have to leave

:20:22. > :20:30.shortly. I commend her for her Stirling work. In my constituent's

:20:31. > :20:35.case, the situation was exactly what she said. The complexity of all the

:20:36. > :20:40.schemes. In his case, because his father died in 1986, before the

:20:41. > :20:44.trust was set up, his mother never received any money at all. That

:20:45. > :20:49.still remains the case today after what has been proposed. That seems

:20:50. > :20:59.very unfair to me. -- Stirling work. I will give way. She has made such

:21:00. > :21:03.great in -- inroads. Will she agree with me that it is completely

:21:04. > :21:09.unacceptable that any reform should make sick people even worse off. One

:21:10. > :21:15.of my constituents will lose ?500 a month. Another one will need to see

:21:16. > :21:20.that justice is being done and he is in the gallery. I agree. Going back

:21:21. > :21:25.to my point about liability and about the need to set in place a

:21:26. > :21:29.proper support package, recognising the wrong that has been done. I

:21:30. > :21:34.think the Department of Health haven't done that for far too long

:21:35. > :21:36.and it appears they are far more interested in protecting the

:21:37. > :21:41.institutional reputation of the Department of Health and the NHS,

:21:42. > :21:46.rather than looking to right a wrong. In the last parliament, there

:21:47. > :21:56.was a concerted effort from all parties to seek a lasting

:21:57. > :22:04.settlement. There was a report produced that showed services were

:22:05. > :22:09.not fit for purpose and another minister worked to finally get an

:22:10. > :22:13.apology made in Parliament and an agreement that the government would

:22:14. > :22:18.consult on a proper support package for those affected and I think the

:22:19. > :22:22.Prime Minister's apology a year ago and the announcement the ?25 million

:22:23. > :22:27.would be made available for transitional support is very

:22:28. > :22:32.welcome. As was the full consultation promise on a package.

:22:33. > :22:40.But I have to say not one penny of that ?25 million has been spent yet.

:22:41. > :22:44.Money that is badly needed by the people affected and the consultation

:22:45. > :22:52.on the new support scheme was only announced on the 21st of January

:22:53. > :22:57.this year, some nine months later after the Prime Minister's

:22:58. > :23:03.statement. I have a constituent here today, like many here, who is in the

:23:04. > :23:07.gallery. Isn't the issue that that consultation doesn't seem to China

:23:08. > :23:12.at all with the apology and that what is on offer in no way seems to

:23:13. > :23:13.reflect what I'm sure was meant as a sincere apology by the Prime

:23:14. > :23:21.Minister? That is an important point and we

:23:22. > :23:26.are now just a feud is away from the end of the consultation period. I

:23:27. > :23:29.understand that the minister was advised, I think wrongly, by

:23:30. > :23:33.officials in the Department of Health, that she could not meet with

:23:34. > :23:37.the all-party group during the consultation period. I know in

:23:38. > :23:41.Scotland that was not the case during their consultation. In fact,

:23:42. > :23:45.the minister met with MS peas and individuals and that is partly why

:23:46. > :23:48.we are here today and why we have called for this debate so that the

:23:49. > :23:52.minister can listen to what her fellow parliamentarians have to say

:23:53. > :23:57.about the Government's proposals and feed this in Sue the consultation. I

:23:58. > :24:02.give way. I thank the honourable member to give way. I have many

:24:03. > :24:06.constituents in Taunton Deane whose lives are blighted by this issue of

:24:07. > :24:09.contaminated blood and whilst I do applaud this consultation that the

:24:10. > :24:12.Government has brought forward, there are many that believe it is

:24:13. > :24:18.only making the situation worse and causing more pain. Not least the

:24:19. > :24:21.fact that in Scotland, people suffering there may get a better

:24:22. > :24:24.deal than those in England so I would urge the Minister to look very

:24:25. > :24:29.carefully at the consultation again so as not to penalise people already

:24:30. > :24:34.badly suffering. I would like to move on to highlight a view of the

:24:35. > :24:39.problems with the consultation that has been set out by the Government.

:24:40. > :24:43.First of all, as has already been said, it seems that many of the

:24:44. > :24:49.existing recipients will receive lower payments from the new revised

:24:50. > :24:53.scheme. The Government's proposals would end all discretionary support

:24:54. > :24:56.such as winter fuel allowance, child supplements, and low income top ups,

:24:57. > :25:04.meaning that many people will potentially lose out by thousands of

:25:05. > :25:09.pounds each year. Secondly, most of the current beneficiaries have

:25:10. > :25:16.hepatitis C stage one and currently gets no support and are left begging

:25:17. > :25:19.for individual payments. The Government's proposal will provide

:25:20. > :25:23.annual payments for people in stage one which I think are welcomed all

:25:24. > :25:31.stop however, they will be subject to regular individual assessments

:25:32. > :25:34.and this could result in fluctuating payments and produce financial

:25:35. > :25:38.uncertainty for individuals. Assessment will only take into

:25:39. > :25:42.account clinical factors. They won't, for example, look at the loss

:25:43. > :25:47.of education or employment or decades of loss of amenity,

:25:48. > :25:52.ill-health and loss of earnings and it seems to me from the information

:25:53. > :25:58.the Government had provided, those assessments are going to cost

:25:59. > :26:04.?500,000 a year to actually undertake. I say wouldn't that money

:26:05. > :26:07.money be better spent to support people financially themselves and to

:26:08. > :26:14.pay for that amount of assessments? I give way. I thank the honourable

:26:15. > :26:17.lady for giving way and thank her on her determination in championing

:26:18. > :26:19.this issue. Would you agree that a further problem with the

:26:20. > :26:25.consultation and she highlighted the decades of ill-health and for many

:26:26. > :26:28.it is emotional distress and trauma, but the consultation process itself

:26:29. > :26:31.has actually for some of those people added to that burden and that

:26:32. > :26:35.is certainly the method I have heard loud and clear from my constituent

:26:36. > :26:40.Mark Webster who came to see me on this issue. I think that is a valid

:26:41. > :26:43.point there. I will proceed with the concerns that I have with the

:26:44. > :26:47.consultation because I do want other members to speak as well in the

:26:48. > :26:52.debate. The third point I want to make is about the inadequate

:26:53. > :26:56.provision for the affected community that is the widows, the partners,

:26:57. > :27:01.and the dependence of those effected. The proposals for windows

:27:02. > :27:05.appear to be extremely complex. The Government's proposals create six

:27:06. > :27:09.categories of window with big variations in what is offered within

:27:10. > :27:15.each category and Department of Health officials could not explain

:27:16. > :27:18.how this will work when they met with the secretariat and have not

:27:19. > :27:21.provided an explanation of these proposals as promised and there

:27:22. > :27:32.appears to be nothing for dependent children. Forcefully,... I have

:27:33. > :27:37.constituents who are infected and I also like constituent's partners who

:27:38. > :27:41.are infected and who now cannot get insurance for themselves and are

:27:42. > :27:48.very worried about the long-term medications. That adds extra stress

:27:49. > :27:54.to what is already a very stressful situation. I think that is a very

:27:55. > :27:59.important point there. So there are concerns that under the plans, money

:28:00. > :28:04.is going to be used to pay for new drugs to treat hepatitis C which

:28:05. > :28:10.will be bought separately from the NHS budget and therefore cost more.

:28:11. > :28:14.Under nice guidelines, everyone with hepatitis C should be eligible for

:28:15. > :28:19.treatment with a new generation of drugs from the end of February 2016,

:28:20. > :28:23.so in allocating funding for treatment, this will gain mean that

:28:24. > :28:31.money is not going directly to those who need financial support. Happy to

:28:32. > :28:34.give way. I wonder if my honourable friend, who is making an excellent

:28:35. > :28:39.speech, will agree with my constituent who is affected, and it

:28:40. > :28:42.really feels that those changes are deliberately punitive and

:28:43. > :28:45.exceedingly cruel in that they are using changes and requests for

:28:46. > :28:52.changes to support schemes to effect people in this way that the person

:28:53. > :28:58.has two years the extra payment to fund the treatment refused by the

:28:59. > :29:01.NHS and many people have had to do that and they will see their annual

:29:02. > :29:05.payment decrease over time and lose the additional support currently

:29:06. > :29:11.provided. People like my constituent are hit again and again and again.

:29:12. > :29:20.How can the reform go-ahead is given that? I'm going to move on and

:29:21. > :29:23.complete what I want to say. A real concern is about the possibility

:29:24. > :29:27.that beneficiaries in England will be worse off than those in Scotland.

:29:28. > :29:34.The Scottish proposals are far more generous to hepatitis C stage two

:29:35. > :29:42.and HIV sufferers, who will receive ?27,000 per annum or ?37,000 if they

:29:43. > :29:44.are currently infected and that is welcome. Their proposals are much

:29:45. > :29:47.less generous for those who have hepatitis C stage one who will

:29:48. > :29:52.receive an additional stage one payment but no ongoing support.

:29:53. > :29:55.However, it is important to note that the Scottish proposals have

:29:56. > :29:57.been broadly welcomed and I think this is partly because of the of the

:29:58. > :30:00.way the consultation has been conducted in Scotland and the clear

:30:01. > :30:06.acknowledgement for example that the existing structure will be scrapped.

:30:07. > :30:11.I am very conscious of time. I think I am already probably getting to my

:30:12. > :30:17.allocated 50 minutes so if members don't mind I'm going to complete

:30:18. > :30:20.this. The other thing I wanted to raise my point about the

:30:21. > :30:24.acknowledgements around the existing cost structures being scrapped,

:30:25. > :30:28.which the Scottish model will do, I want to seek reassurance from the

:30:29. > :30:32.Minister that she intends to scrap the trust structures that exist in

:30:33. > :30:35.England, Wales and Northern Ireland, because they have been subject to

:30:36. > :30:39.much criticism. There is also no mention in the consultation about

:30:40. > :30:44.any proposals around lump-sum payments which would enable those

:30:45. > :30:48.affected to make real choices about their own lives such as paying off a

:30:49. > :30:53.mortgage or clearing debts are helping their children. I want to

:30:54. > :30:56.reiterate my belief that the ?230 million that the Government are set

:30:57. > :31:03.to receive over the next few years from the of plasma resources UK Ltd

:31:04. > :31:09.should be earmarked for lump-sum payments for these people. This is

:31:10. > :31:13.money from the Department of Health creating blood products and it would

:31:14. > :31:17.be fitting to use the money in this way. I am also disappointed with the

:31:18. > :31:21.Government's proposals that there is no mention of those infected to be

:31:22. > :31:27.automatically password it through to the new benefits which are being

:31:28. > :31:31.introduced, for example moving from DLA to PIP. And there is no

:31:32. > :31:35.consideration at all about using the Irish style medical card to ensure

:31:36. > :31:39.that access to health is as speedy as possible. In conclusion, I think

:31:40. > :31:44.we have now had a chance to consider the details of the Government's

:31:45. > :31:47.proposals. I am disappointed and I do not think they deliver what we

:31:48. > :31:50.want them to deliver to get people dignity and to allow them to get on

:31:51. > :31:54.with their lives rather than constantly having to battle to get

:31:55. > :31:58.support. Currently, this means campaigning to ensure their lives do

:31:59. > :32:02.not get any worse let alone see any improvement. They needs and they

:32:03. > :32:08.deserve action in a timely manner. They do not want to end their lives

:32:09. > :32:11.as campaigners. Many of those infected have told me that they

:32:12. > :32:15.believe the Government is just a delay in making a proper settlement

:32:16. > :32:19.and that there are more and more of these people dying and after their

:32:20. > :32:32.long and bitter experience, who can blame them? As the former co-chair

:32:33. > :32:35.of the APPG I will give way. I would like to thank the member for having

:32:36. > :32:40.called chaired the committee. Does she agree with me that the ministry

:32:41. > :32:43.should see that we have a framework with the settlement in Scotland

:32:44. > :32:47.which does need some tweaking and also a very, hence the all-party

:32:48. > :32:50.group report which looked at the way the trust and the funds didn't

:32:51. > :32:57.operate in supporting the victims of this and that if they heed that,

:32:58. > :33:01.experiences in Scotland's, then we can start helping the victims. I

:33:02. > :33:05.think the gentleman speaks with wisdom in this matter. I think it is

:33:06. > :33:10.now time for the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS

:33:11. > :33:15.to be settled once and for all and I hope the Minister will look again at

:33:16. > :33:17.these proposals which he has put out in her consultation and think

:33:18. > :33:20.actually what is in the best interests of this group, who have

:33:21. > :33:32.been so badly treated for so many years. The question is as on the

:33:33. > :33:40.order paper. It is a privilege and an honour to follow the member and

:33:41. > :33:48.may I commend her for her leadership in bringing parliament together on

:33:49. > :33:50.this very important subject. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for

:33:51. > :33:57.allowing me to speak during this important debate about this summer

:33:58. > :34:00.and saddening topic. I speak as a representative of the number of

:34:01. > :34:04.individuals in my constituency whose lives and the lives of those they

:34:05. > :34:07.love have been previously, unfairly, and irreversibly impacted by the

:34:08. > :34:13.terrible injustice we address this afternoon. The infection of

:34:14. > :34:18.individuals with contaminated blood has been apologised for by the Prime

:34:19. > :34:22.Minister on behalf of the Government, an apology which is now

:34:23. > :34:27.more than a -year-olds, Tory scandal that is more than 20 years old. --

:34:28. > :34:30.for a scandal. When he rightly addressed the matter last year, the

:34:31. > :34:36.Prime Minister said that it was difficult to imagine the feeling of

:34:37. > :34:39.unfairness that those who have been effected must feel. My constituents

:34:40. > :34:45.and others around the country were let down. When they or their family

:34:46. > :34:49.members were at their most vulnerable, they were let down by

:34:50. > :34:58.the health service that was supposed to be there to keep them safe. It

:34:59. > :35:02.truly is difficult to imagine, but I am sorry to say that the feeling of

:35:03. > :35:08.unfairness has not been lessened by the proposals in this consultation.

:35:09. > :35:13.If anything, it has been made worse. Lives have been changed and lives

:35:14. > :35:17.had been taken. So much has been lost that the Government must now

:35:18. > :35:25.focus on lessening and mitigating this loss as much as it can ever do.

:35:26. > :35:29.I will give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

:35:30. > :35:35.On the subject of mitigating this loss, I am here to represent several

:35:36. > :35:37.constituents who have an issue with this but one particular one, Andy

:35:38. > :35:44.Gunn, he was extremely concerned by the comments by the Health Secretary

:35:45. > :35:48.that the funding for this might come from the NHS budget. Do you agree

:35:49. > :35:52.that would be highly inappropriate? I thank the honourable member for

:35:53. > :35:56.his intervention. I have had similar representations from my constituents

:35:57. > :36:00.and I hope that the French edge and the Treasury bench actually take on

:36:01. > :36:06.board those comments. -- the front bench. The vastness of this loss we

:36:07. > :36:10.are addressing today is such that even the ideal solution cannot do

:36:11. > :36:18.much to address it. But what has been proposed does so much less. The

:36:19. > :36:21.proposals contained in the consultation are far from what the

:36:22. > :36:26.victims of this injustice is expected were led to believe they

:36:27. > :36:29.would receive. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know many of my colleagues on all

:36:30. > :36:33.sides of the house have similar stories to tell. I have had

:36:34. > :36:39.constituents visit my surgeries who have always been so incredibly

:36:40. > :36:42.strong about what has happened to them and hopeful for the potential

:36:43. > :36:46.of a good settlement from the Government. But have now been left

:36:47. > :36:51.in tears. They feel let down and fear that these proposals will make

:36:52. > :36:59.life even harder for them. These are people whose lives have been tyrant

:37:00. > :37:03.-- have turned out to be radically different than how they had planned

:37:04. > :37:08.them through absolutely no fault of their own. They struggled to get

:37:09. > :37:16.insurance or pensions and have had their careers curtailed. Things we

:37:17. > :37:22.take for granted in this place. Even worse, they have been unable to have

:37:23. > :37:26.children or have seen loved ones die tragically soon. These people should

:37:27. > :37:29.be helped and need to be provided with a full and final settlement

:37:30. > :37:37.that allows them to move on without being worse off. There remains much

:37:38. > :37:40.misunderstanding about the medical conditions of the victims and the

:37:41. > :37:47.treatments available. The improvements in care for those with

:37:48. > :37:52.HIV has been a blessing for many. However, the disease remains in

:37:53. > :37:54.durable and if you are a haemophiliac or have other

:37:55. > :38:01.conditions such as hepatitis C, then you cannot take the medication that

:38:02. > :38:06.could help you. We must also public consider that those infected by more

:38:07. > :38:13.than one disease, those with both HIV and HCV have a threefold greater

:38:14. > :38:19.risk of progression to sclerosis or liver disease than those just

:38:20. > :38:23.infected with one. We must not miss understand the dangers of these

:38:24. > :38:27.diseases. My constituents and the constituents of so many of us here

:38:28. > :38:30.today have suffered a grave injustice. It is an injustice they

:38:31. > :38:35.never expected to supper. Would never have been able to prepare for

:38:36. > :38:39.and for which the blame rests entirely elsewhere and because of

:38:40. > :38:41.this, they or their loved ones have experienced terrible illness and

:38:42. > :38:45.their lives have been changed or ended. Unfairness does not seem a

:38:46. > :38:58.strong enough word to describe it. That word is the best we can do. The

:38:59. > :39:02.Prime Minister was correct to apologise, but this consultation

:39:03. > :39:09.does not go far enough, constituents only have to look north of the

:39:10. > :39:16.border to see a better deal, even talk about monuments, and that could

:39:17. > :39:24.leave them in a worse position, that anger and resentment,

:39:25. > :39:30.understandable. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Does he agree,

:39:31. > :39:38.you could have a danger that the consultation could undo the quality,

:39:39. > :39:42.the intention of the policy, to safeguard the interests, of those,

:39:43. > :39:52.chronically infected, and receiving annual payments. But is that annual

:39:53. > :40:02.payment is not longer index linked, some of my constituents have had to

:40:03. > :40:06.take early retirement because of Hep C, making financial assumptions, if

:40:07. > :40:18.this is not going to the index linked, I'm doing -- undoing the

:40:19. > :40:25.sincerity of the apology. I have had similar representations from my

:40:26. > :40:29.constituents, and when we met, representations were some more. I

:40:30. > :40:39.sincerely hope the front bench is listening. The Prime Minister said

:40:40. > :40:43.last year, as a wealthy, successful country, we should be helping people

:40:44. > :40:50.more, I support that, and I hope that the Minister and the Department

:40:51. > :40:53.for health, make sure that the settlements meet the intentions of

:40:54. > :40:59.what was said last year. Thank you very much. I hope we can get through

:41:00. > :41:08.this debate, without having a formal time limit. It is not a contentious

:41:09. > :41:18.debate, on one side or the other. I trust that members are going to

:41:19. > :41:22.become tears, -- be courteous, keeping speeches to seven minutes,

:41:23. > :41:27.everybody who wants to contribute has an opportunity to do so. Thank

:41:28. > :41:37.you Madam Deputy Speaker. And all credit, to the member, my honourable

:41:38. > :41:40.friend, for securing the debate, and the backbench business committee,

:41:41. > :41:47.for granting that. And the members of the campaign who have travelled,

:41:48. > :41:51.to be at the gallery today. Many of them, not able to stay because of

:41:52. > :41:55.the emergency debate, about steel, but many of them have been able to

:41:56. > :42:06.stay and I want to thank them for the patience. I am speaking on

:42:07. > :42:14.behalf of my constituents, the Smith family, who lost their son aged

:42:15. > :42:22.seven. And earlier, Lyn lost her husband. High have spoken about

:42:23. > :42:31.Colin, to describe what has been the greatest treatment disaster. Colin

:42:32. > :42:35.was at hospital, eight months old, ear infection. He received factor

:42:36. > :42:39.eight. Following a Freedom of Information Act quest, it was

:42:40. > :42:46.revealed that it came from a batch, from present. The family, not

:42:47. > :42:53.finding out that it was hepatitis C, until after his death. Now parent

:42:54. > :43:01.should have to go through that. They want justice, so that their son can

:43:02. > :43:07.rest in peace. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. That story,

:43:08. > :43:12.is just many that we have had from constituents, my constituent, David,

:43:13. > :43:18.has told me passionately about his circumstances, clearly, this is a

:43:19. > :43:22.United Kingdom legacy issue, historical injustice. We have heard

:43:23. > :43:25.about the differences between Scotland, and elsewhere. We need to

:43:26. > :43:30.make sure that the United Kingdom works with evolved administrations,

:43:31. > :43:34.and the Wales Office, to make sure we do not have a postcode lottery,

:43:35. > :43:43.with worse situations, some people not getting the same justice as our

:43:44. > :43:51.bus. I thank my honourable friend, for that intervention. I know that

:43:52. > :43:58.is going to be heard from a large contingent of campaigners from

:43:59. > :44:05.Wales. My other constituent, Laim Ashcroft, was one of the first, if

:44:06. > :44:19.contracting HIV, and lost his job, after telling them about his status.

:44:20. > :44:26.No life cover. Following his death, Lyn had to grieve. Eventually,

:44:27. > :44:35.receiving some support, but found the process is brutal. She thought

:44:36. > :44:37.that she was jumping through hoops. We have to keep telling these

:44:38. > :44:42.stories because we have to remember that many people need settlement. It

:44:43. > :44:50.helps to draw line under this period. They have lost loved ones,

:44:51. > :44:55.friends, and as they have told me before, in the end it becomes too

:44:56. > :45:03.difficult to attend constant funerals as members of the community

:45:04. > :45:13.pass away. They want proper support. The Prime Minister's apology, did my

:45:14. > :45:19.constituent Sandra, some hope that the wrong done to her family would

:45:20. > :45:26.right it. But subsequent developments, fly in the face of it,

:45:27. > :45:32.do not tell us you're sorry, show it. I think my honourable friend

:45:33. > :45:38.makes a fantastic, and well-received point. I was going to come onto

:45:39. > :45:46.that. Some hope, last year, when the Prime Minister made the apology, for

:45:47. > :45:50.contaminated disaster, he promised to improve financial support, for

:45:51. > :45:55.the victims and families. As the Prime Minister himself has said, we

:45:56. > :46:00.are wealthy and successful country, we should be helping these people

:46:01. > :46:04.more. Some hope, the consultation was launched to sure what the

:46:05. > :46:12.support should be looking great. But one year on, victims have been let

:46:13. > :46:18.down again. Despite two 125 million, support, not a penny spent, the

:46:19. > :46:23.majority of people are going to be financially worse off, under this

:46:24. > :46:30.scheme. Removing discretionary payments, many people are going to

:46:31. > :46:42.lose out, to the tune of thousands. Significantly for soft, compared to

:46:43. > :46:50.those in Scotland. -- worse off. And the proposed reforms, not delivering

:46:51. > :46:55.the sustainability and security, that the affected communities need.

:46:56. > :46:59.It is not the package needed. It is also not clear, if payments from the

:47:00. > :47:03.new proposals are going to be exempt from tax. What has been proposed is

:47:04. > :47:09.going to be different from what has been offered by the Scottish

:47:10. > :47:12.Government, for widows, the difference is stark. I am going to

:47:13. > :47:18.leave that to the Scottish National Party, but the difference is

:47:19. > :47:22.pointed. Thank you for giving way. Does she not accept, this is one

:47:23. > :47:30.occasion, we should have close working across administrations, one

:47:31. > :47:35.of my constituents, affected 35 years ago, Staffordshire. Although

:47:36. > :47:39.that he has been living in Scotland, he will get compensation, under the

:47:40. > :47:47.scheme that was devised by the Department of him, for England.

:47:48. > :47:51.Where is the sense in that? I thank the honourable member format

:47:52. > :48:05.integration. -- for that intervention. For parents, losing a

:48:06. > :48:09.child, nothing at all. On treatments, Nigel Mills, is here,

:48:10. > :48:16.talking about treatment for Hep C. All those, across Wales, who have

:48:17. > :48:21.developed Hep C, and who could benefit, and the society, hope that

:48:22. > :48:26.everybody should have access to that, and the community should not

:48:27. > :48:30.be diverted, to cover existing treatments. How many times do we

:48:31. > :48:34.keep have to telling these personal stories? And how many times do we

:48:35. > :48:41.keep having to have these debates? How many times the victims have to

:48:42. > :48:45.come to London, to lobby MPs? The society have highlighted weaknesses,

:48:46. > :48:51.and how the consultation should be withdrawn. I ask the Minister, to

:48:52. > :48:55.reflect on this, because what he has proposed, does not meet the needs,

:48:56. > :49:02.of widows, those affected. But this has been an ongoing make me, -- make

:49:03. > :49:10.me, since the 1970s. The government cannot bring back the dead, but it

:49:11. > :49:16.can't ever package, to ensure that survivors prosper. We do not want

:49:17. > :49:19.more agony, for those who have suffered, please listen to this

:49:20. > :49:25.campaign, give the campaign is what they deserve. Thank you very much

:49:26. > :49:30.Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome this important topic, by the backbench

:49:31. > :49:40.business committee, and I want to congratulate my honourable friend,

:49:41. > :49:49.Norwich and Hull, for efforts to secure this debate. I want to

:49:50. > :49:54.recognise the tremendous campaign work, about the contaminated blood,

:49:55. > :50:00.the efforts have paved the way for the current consultation, securing

:50:01. > :50:07.financial settlements, for the thousands of people, infected, with

:50:08. > :50:18.HIV, and Hep C, because of contaminated blood from the 1970s.

:50:19. > :50:21.From the outset, my heart goes out to those people affected, in my

:50:22. > :50:28.constituency and across the country. The devastating impact, on them,

:50:29. > :50:35.family and friends, lasts for lighting. We must do what we to

:50:36. > :50:39.ensure that those affected have secure future. I have personal

:50:40. > :50:48.experience, trying to kill one constituent, who has sadly been

:50:49. > :50:56.impacted -- help one, my constituent was infected, in 1995, at the age of

:50:57. > :51:03.45. Subsequently, contracting Hep C, which has developed, into cirrhosis

:51:04. > :51:13.of the liver. My constituent, who has asked not to be identified, has

:51:14. > :51:20.undergone three courses of treatment, the last course caused a

:51:21. > :51:26.life-threatening infection, causing one month in hospital, and sundry.

:51:27. > :51:34.My constituent suffers from fatigue, physical weakness, brain fog, unable

:51:35. > :51:44.to read anything vaguely complicated, itching, depression,

:51:45. > :51:47.and the stress of living with these conditions must be immeasurable. The

:51:48. > :51:53.government has to do all that it can, to support patients and

:51:54. > :51:59.families. My constituent wanted this case highlighted, as an example,

:52:00. > :52:05.when support for patients, suffering from cirrhosis of the liver, have

:52:06. > :52:12.got financial hardship, and difficult and distressing times. She

:52:13. > :52:22.was grateful, of an income of 14,000, per annum, however, that

:52:23. > :52:30.figure would be 26,000 in Scotland. Almost double. That is an equal. I

:52:31. > :52:36.have a constituent, who wrote to me about this. Tragic case. What I

:52:37. > :52:41.struggle to do, on this point, as explained to her, why constituents

:52:42. > :52:44.across the United Kingdom should be getting such different arrangements,

:52:45. > :52:56.Devon that this arose, under the UK Government. I concur. Particularly

:52:57. > :53:02.concerned, with proposals, two West raw index linking, and refusing to

:53:03. > :53:07.increase out. I understand, currently a recommendation to fix

:53:08. > :53:11.annual payments, at a flat rate of ?15,000, every year, leaving my

:53:12. > :53:18.constituent with a nominal increase, of about 200 and also proposals to

:53:19. > :53:22.withdraw back-up services, for emergencies, and support that will

:53:23. > :53:27.also certainly be required given the severity of the conversion. Could I

:53:28. > :53:32.ask my honourable friend, the minister, to clarify the position,

:53:33. > :53:38.and take my constituent and concerns, into account when final

:53:39. > :53:46.proposals. She previously enjoyed a successful career, in the legal

:53:47. > :53:53.profession, but became too ill to continue following the infection.

:53:54. > :53:58.Career was cut short. As was the considerable earning potential, and

:53:59. > :54:01.professional development. Patients must be treated, with fairness,

:54:02. > :54:10.assist and supported. I am glad the Prime Minister

:54:11. > :54:12.acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and apologised on behalf of

:54:13. > :54:17.the UK Government and I welcome the additional funding for England

:54:18. > :54:22.announced in 2015 to ease the transition to a reform scheme and

:54:23. > :54:28.ensure its sustainable operation. This scheme must provide a robust

:54:29. > :54:33.and fairer system which both supports and compensate those

:54:34. > :54:39.affected and removes any unnecessary complexities and unfairness. I would

:54:40. > :54:46.like to thank the honourable lady for giving way. She mentioned the

:54:47. > :54:48.APPG at the start of her speech and I think it is right that that is

:54:49. > :54:55.highlighted because a lot of light onto this issue.

:54:56. > :54:59.There is a heartbreaking story in every single constituency. I had to

:55:00. > :55:01.constituents who through no fault of their own received contaminated

:55:02. > :55:06.blood products and one of them feels that he has a death sentence hanging

:55:07. > :55:11.over his head. Would she agree with me that we should not add quite

:55:12. > :55:15.literally add insult to injury and adjust the first settlement most

:55:16. > :55:21.people sought and found as soon as possible? I know it is not

:55:22. > :55:24.necessarily our Government that was responsible for the blood products

:55:25. > :55:30.but it is this Government who has two sorted out once and for all. I

:55:31. > :55:35.sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to what the gentleman had

:55:36. > :55:39.to say and we will see the Minister and the Government take action to

:55:40. > :55:47.perhaps write or make it easy for these people to live as good in life

:55:48. > :55:53.as they can expect to. For example, there are currently five different

:55:54. > :55:56.organisations funded by UK health departments to which infected

:55:57. > :55:59.individuals can apply for support. On this aspect, it is encouraging

:56:00. > :56:05.that south of the schemes have said it would be even more efficient and

:56:06. > :56:09.consistent if they were combined. -- staff. Other concerns that have been

:56:10. > :56:15.made should be addressed through the consultation and subsequent

:56:16. > :56:19.proposals. That includes the fact that beneficiaries are not assessed

:56:20. > :56:23.on an individual basis and that bodies operate a different payment

:56:24. > :56:28.policies. The APPG is quite correct in stating that the current system

:56:29. > :56:31.is not fit for purpose. The current consultation being conducted by the

:56:32. > :56:35.Department of Health which concludes this week is a healthy step and I am

:56:36. > :56:40.pleased that it has sought to reach out and seek views of infected

:56:41. > :56:44.patients and their beneficiaries and I would like to congratulate the

:56:45. > :56:51.Minister on that. The outcome must lead to a fair and sustainable

:56:52. > :56:54.solution for my constituents and impacted individuals and families

:56:55. > :57:02.across the country. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank

:57:03. > :57:07.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to show my admiration for my

:57:08. > :57:14.honourable friend for the sterling work in raising these points and I

:57:15. > :57:18.know from personal experience that the member is a formidable

:57:19. > :57:21.campaigner on this issue. There is no greater responsibility that an MP

:57:22. > :57:24.has done to give a voice to those that feel as though they are not

:57:25. > :57:31.being heard. I want to use this as an opportunity to tell the story of

:57:32. > :57:34.my constituent Alex Smith. Quite a lot of this debate has been about

:57:35. > :57:38.finance and I think that is important and it is quite evident

:57:39. > :57:41.from the consultation and from Government that the drive from their

:57:42. > :57:47.point of view is to squeeze this for every penny that they can do, that I

:57:48. > :57:52.want to talk about the real human cost, the everyday cost shock to

:57:53. > :57:57.those who are effected. Alex is ill. He struggles to get out and about.

:57:58. > :58:00.He often feels worn out, unable to live a fulfilling life that you and

:58:01. > :58:07.I might take for granted. Despite his physical difficulties, he is too

:58:08. > :58:11.many, including me, and inspiring man. He has shown a great strength

:58:12. > :58:17.of character, resilience, and pride. A pride which is the culture of many

:58:18. > :58:22.in our town. But his story is not just heartbreaking. It is unjust.

:58:23. > :58:27.And any fairer society, those who are wrong it should have fairness

:58:28. > :58:34.and the wrong should be put right. Alex and his wife Brenda celebrated

:58:35. > :58:39.the arrival of their son in 1980. And just to put on record how long

:58:40. > :58:43.this family have been waiting for a real justice, in the time since

:58:44. > :58:48.that's blood contamination took place to get answers, to get proper

:58:49. > :58:53.compensation, and now to fight for enough money just to pay the bills,

:58:54. > :58:57.I was born in a hospital down the road. I have been to nursery, a bean

:58:58. > :59:01.to primary school, I've been to secondary school, I've been to

:59:02. > :59:04.college, and I have been to work and I have two sons of my own, the

:59:05. > :59:08.eldest of whom will be leaving school in two years' time and in the

:59:09. > :59:12.time that Alex has had to wait to get justice, I have lived my life

:59:13. > :59:16.and have lived it without many of the difficulties that Alex has had

:59:17. > :59:24.that period and that just is no justice at all. A year after 1980,

:59:25. > :59:29.Brenda was diagnosed with cervical cancer and she received treatment

:59:30. > :59:34.because of that including a blood transfusion. Separate, Alex, being a

:59:35. > :59:38.good citizen, in 1995, whence to give blood, like hundreds of

:59:39. > :59:43.thousands of others, and during that sample test, it was discovered that

:59:44. > :59:48.Alex had hepatitis C. To be honest, he did not really know what it was

:59:49. > :59:51.and he was told that with treatment, it should clear up, so he went to

:59:52. > :59:54.receive treatment and he received the majority of that treatment but

:59:55. > :00:00.it stopped early for other reasons and he thought that was it. But over

:00:01. > :00:04.three years, Alex noticed he was becoming forgetful. He put it down

:00:05. > :00:08.to getting older, some senior moments, but it got worse and

:00:09. > :00:11.increasingly he became worn out, he became tired and lethargic and he

:00:12. > :00:17.struggled but he had the support of his wife and his family by his side.

:00:18. > :00:22.Fast forward ten years and the family received another tragedy when

:00:23. > :00:27.his wife Brenda passes away. The coroner ruled that the case was

:00:28. > :00:30.inconclusive and it was recorded is as an ascertained. We can imagine

:00:31. > :00:34.the grief the family went through and throughout this time, Alex

:00:35. > :00:38.continued to struggle with each and every day. Things you and I would

:00:39. > :00:45.take for granted. In 2011, Alex visited the doctor again and

:00:46. > :00:48.underwent a routine blood test. He discovered the hepatitis C had not

:00:49. > :00:51.gone away at all and it was still there. He went through further

:00:52. > :00:57.treatment but instead of making him feel better, it made him feel much,

:00:58. > :01:02.much worse. He was determined not just to get treatment but to get

:01:03. > :01:07.answers to. So his quest started at the hospital where he felt it began.

:01:08. > :01:11.The records had been destroyed so he realised that to get real justice

:01:12. > :01:15.and to get answers, he would have to track down the people who were there

:01:16. > :01:19.at that time. His quest, his mission, led him to Bangor North

:01:20. > :01:23.Wales where a retired surgeon was living who confirmed that Alex had

:01:24. > :01:30.had a blood transfusion with what was likely to be contaminated blood.

:01:31. > :01:32.And that made Alex think if I in the same hospital had received

:01:33. > :01:39.contaminated blood, could it be that his wife Brenda received treatment

:01:40. > :01:44.in the same hospital had also had contaminated blood and potentially

:01:45. > :01:49.hepatitis C as well? So we went to the hospital to find the records and

:01:50. > :01:55.the record said Brenda did have hepatitis C. Now, cruelly,

:01:56. > :01:59.unexplainable, the hospital did not tell Brenda and they did not tell

:02:00. > :02:02.Alex that this had been discovered. It was only years later when he went

:02:03. > :02:07.back for the medical record that that was discovered. He applied to

:02:08. > :02:11.the Skipton fund and he did receive compensation for himself and his