I move to the next item on our agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister on Tata Steel, and I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Llywydd, this Assembly was recalled during the pre-election period, partly at my request, but essentially to recognise the intense concern of steel communities across Wales and, indeed, all of us in this Chamber about the future of Tata’s plants. Since then, I’ve had many discussions with Tata, the UK Government, trade unions and potential buyers and investors. Today, I wish to update the Chamber on the state of play and the progress that’s being made.

Members know that I went to Mumbai a couple of weeks ago to continue my dialogue with Tata about the sales process. Throughout this process, my primary concern has been for the Tata workforce, the steel communities and the need to secure a long-term and sustainable steel industry for the whole Tata operation in Wales. This is the case I’ve pressed consistently and directly with Tata’s senior leaders.

Members will understand very readily that commercial confidentiality limits what can be said in any detail, but I can confirm that our discussions have been constructive and significant, and Tata’s position remains that its priority is to conduct a sales process that secures a positive outcome. And Tata is now in the process of evaluating the offers it has received. Now, whatever decision is reached by Tata, we stand ready to support any bidders going through to the next stage that will see jobs and sustainable steel production remain in Wales.

Last Wednesday, we saw the launch of British Steel, following Greybull Capital’s purchase of Tata’s European long products division, primarily based in Scunthorpe. That offers some solid grounds for confidence that there is a viable future for steel making in Wales and the UK more widely, and that’s what the Welsh Government, and indeed this Assembly, has been saying all along.

This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure attended his first meeting of the UK Government’s Steel Council. The work of the Steel Council is being taken forward through four working groups that are considering not only how we respond to the current steel crisis, but the long-term sustainability of steel making. Our officials are in daily contact with the UK Government and also attend the Steel Council’s four work streams.

In the meantime, the work of our Tata Steel taskforce continues; it held its most recent meeting on 9 May. Support and advice is being provided by Jobcentre Plus, working closely with Tata, Careers Wales, the Welsh Government and other partners. There’s been a positive response to awareness sessions, with about 300 attending so far. A jobs fair was held on 28 April, attended by 38 high- calibre employees, and planning for a further jobs fair is under way. Union representatives were positive about the support provided to date.

The taskforce recognises there will be a need for continuing communication with former employees over the coming months, as some individuals may not want to immediately take up offers of support. Further advice sessions are planned for June and July, and these will be opened up to the supply chain as appropriate.

The taskforce’s work streams also continue their work actively. The health work stream is assessing evidence on what impact there will be on primary and community services. Community workshops are also planned to provide information about the support available to those affected by redundancy and wider family members. The training and skills, and business and supply chain work streams are also working closely together, also linking, of course, to the work of the health work stream. It’s helping to ensure full consideration is being given to support for individuals working in the supply chain, as well as Tata’s direct employees. Llywydd, Business Wales is currently working with 60 of Tata’s key supplier companies on a one-to-one basis, and is bringing in wider support, including skills and training support as necessary.

Could I turn to procurement? On procurement, we are continuing to analyse the Wales infrastructure investment plan, which provides visibility of our priority programme and projects, to establish a forecast of future steel requirements. This will be published shortly to provide clarity on those requirements. Work is also well progressed to strengthen our procurement policy, which will clarify the importance of opening up opportunities for UK steel suppliers.

In our transport contract documents, we’ve pushed matters still further where the use of UK steel is concerned. Not only do we state that the contractor must ensure that materials used by them and their subcontractors comply with the requirements of BES 6001, but we’ve also explicitly stated that there is an expectation from the Welsh Government that the contractor will not use dumped steel from overseas markets for any steel used on the project.

Moving to other areas of support, we’ve delivered the enterprise zone in Port Talbot. This follows helpful discussions with Neath Port Talbot council, the business community, and the taskforce, drawing on the expertise of the private sector through the enterprise zone board, chaired by Roger Maggs, whose special contribution I would like to note publicly.

Llywydd, steelworkers do their work in tough conditions, and a secure pension is a vital benefit. The UK Government launched a consultation on 26 May on options for providing security for the British Steel pension scheme. Pensions are not devolved, but I am absolutely clear that the integrity of the pension scheme must be protected, and the trustees, Tata, and the UK Government must work together to secure a fair and proper outcome for scheme members.

Llywydd, this Government remains absolutely committed to doing everything possible to secure a successful outcome to Tata’s sale process. This is a priority for all of us, and I’m grateful for the substantial cross-party support for our steel communities, and I will, of course, continue to keep Members updated.

Thank you, First Minister, for an advance copy of the statement. The UK Government is reportedly putting significant pressure on Tata to reverse its decision to sell its UK assets in return for the writing off of its pension deficit liability and a £900 million loan. Could the First Minister clarify and place on the record his understanding as to whether that is the case? And does he understand and possibly even share the natural scepticism of the workforce as to whether a company that has repeatedly favoured its plant in IJmuiden over Port Talbot—most recently in the outright rejection of the rescue plan only a few months ago—can have any credible long-term commitment to steel making in Wales? I have to say anyone who’s seen the McKinsey plan may be forced to conclude that the way in which Port Talbot was mismanaged by Tata Steel Europe at that level was a contributory factor in the severity of the problems it faced. Surely, handing back the keys to these same decision makers over the heads of local managers and workers is not something we in Wales should readily support, when there are other, better, locally owned alternatives.

Would the First Minister also accept that allowing an extremely well-resourced global conglomerate like Tata, which last year made some £4 billion in net profit, to walk away from its pension responsibilities would create a moral hazard in setting a precedent that would permit other transnational companies to do the same? Is he also concerned—as I am—that Downing Street’s apparent preference for a swift, deceptively simple back-room deal with Tata to a fair and transparent sale process may be driven by a desire for politically expedient news before 23 June rather than the long-term interests of the economy and steel communities? While he and I share the same desire for a similar outcome in terms of that referendum, will he agree that, in any case, as the consultation on the proposed changes to the indexation of the pension fund that he referred to does not close until 23 June, it would be premature for any final decision to be made in relation to Tata before that date?

Finally, seeing as Tata is now, curiously, it seems, in the position of adjudicating whether it or one of the bidders should receive substantial public investment being offered, when he meets with Tata next, could he ask, in the interests of a properly transparent process, if they will accept and allow the Steel Council that he referred to to commission a fully independent assessment of the options currently on the table in terms of their benefits and costs, not just for Tata, but for the public—taxpayer and steelworker alike?

Could I thank the Member for his questions? There is little with which I would disagree. What is absolutely crucial is that there is a long-term sustainable and secure future for our steel jobs. It’s right to say that Tata have said that they wish to sell; that remains their board’s position. I’m not sure that that is necessarily a position that will hold forever and a day, if I can put it that way. I can well imagine that the workers in Port Talbot and the other plants would be concerned if it were the case that Tata were to continue without there being guarantees put in place as to what Tata’s plans would be for the future. If the UK Government put financial help on the table, I would expect them—and I’ve not heard of any particular sum—to receive in return guarantees as to Tata’s future investment in the Welsh steel assets. To do otherwise would seem to me to be difficult to defend.

With regard to the pension scheme, he’s right: the pension protection fund is a fund that was set up to deal with pension funds that have, effectively, crashed because the sponsoring business had crashed. This is not the case here. We would not, in any event, support the British Steel pension fund going into the pension protection fund. The alternative that’s been put forward is still hugely difficult as far as beneficiaries are concerned, and the message that it will send. If, for example, there’s a deal where Tata remain, where there’s substantial financial support for Tata, and the pension liabilities are removed, the message to every other business in the UK is, ‘Well, let’s do the same thing’ and I don’t think that the public finances can deal with that. At the beginning of this process, the intention always was that the pensions issue would be dealt with in order to assist a new bidder and a new buyer. To do it for an existing company is fraught with hazard, as he rightly says.

I hope that the UK Government are not considering political considerations at this stage, but rather are considering the future of our jobs and our communities here in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK. It’s difficult at this stage to see if the Steel Council could conduct an independent assessment, given the scale of the non-disclosure agreements that are in place with regard to the seven bidders. It is hugely important, however, that the bidding process is examined in some detail. Tata have assured me that that will happen, that they will examine the bids very carefully, and, ultimately, of course, Tata have a global reputation that’s good. They surrender that reputation at some cost to themselves, and they know that. So, from my perspective, whatever the outcome is—and I want the outcome to be a sustainable and secure future—Tata will need to demonstrate that they’ve played fair by the workforce and they’ve created the conditions where the industry has a future. And, as I say, that reputation is worth something to them. They emphasised that to me in the meetings that they have had.

The fact that the timescale has stretched is encouraging to the extent that it means that Tata are looking, to my mind, at the bids very seriously, but there are, as he will know, a number of hurdles that have yet to be overcome. The support that we offer as a Government is still there. I have spoken on several occasions to two of the bidders and listened to their plans, and, to my mind, both those bidders are serious bidders. I say once again that it’s important that Tata give the bids full consideration, that they look to sell the assets at a fair price and provide a future for our steel communities, and it’s vital that the UK Government look to the long term, rather than thinking that a short-term solution is durable, because it’s not. We need to think not about the next few months, or indeed about the next two or three years, but about how we construct the future for our steel industry for the next decade and beyond.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, obviously, the previous statements that you’ve made to this house, both written and oral statements. I do commend you for going out to Mumbai, along with Sajid Javid, and standing there as two Governments, shoulder to shoulder, to seek assurances from Tata Steel. I would be grateful to understand exactly at what level those meetings were held between yourself and Tata Steel, so that, obviously, on the assurances that were given, can give us some clarity as to what level within the company they were passing those assurances back to you, because I think it is vital that we understand the structure that Tata are using, (a) to evaluate the bids and (b) to secure a successful outcome from this process.

I do disagree with the previous speaker’s comments about the UK Government’s positions and back-room deals. I think that, from the Prime Minister down, each and every one has spoken about the long-term security and the importance to the UK economy of a steel industry here in the United Kingdom, rather than just shoring something up for three or four weeks. I think, given the commitment of the Prime Minister, Sajid Javid, and the UK Government, along with the First Minister’s own Government, there is a willingness to make sure that this is a long-term deal rather than something that will burn out after a very brief period. Indeed, many of the comments in previous statements were around those very issues, that we do not want a purchaser going into any of these sites—because it is not just Port Talbot, it’s many other sites in Wales and also across the UK—and dismantling those sites and lowering the output of those sites. I do hope that you’ve been given assurances from Tata that, in their bidding evaluation, they are looking to secure the long-term future of each and every one of the sites, and indeed the integrated nature of the operation that they do have here in the United Kingdom, because many of the satellite sites, shall we say, do depend on, obviously, the Port Talbot works staying and making sure that output continues at current and increased production levels going forward.

So, I would be grateful as well, if Tata shared any information with you as to the viability of the bids that have come forward—. You said that there are seven bids on the table and I appreciate that there are non-disclosure agreements there for confidentiality reasons, but are you in a position to give any more clarity around the strength of those bids and the dynamics of the bids, in particular about the whole-company approach, or are quite a few of those bids just looking at the various options in isolation?

I would also like to extract from the First Minister some understanding as to the work that his Government in particular has undertaken around business rates. You have said that the Welsh Government have been trying to re-evaluate the grounds that they might be able to work with—walk on, should I say—to present a more enhanced business rates package. Because your understanding, when you last addressed this house, was that it was a very minimal package that would have been able to have been offered by the Welsh Government, but I have seen in the press and have heard you previously saying that the Welsh Government have been undertaking work, and I presume that that work is discussing with the European Commission and discussing with the Westminster Government around what type of enhanced package you might be able to bring forward, and I’d be most interested to know whether there is any more progress on that business rates package that you might be able to bring forward.

I would also like to understand: what does the First Minister understand by the term ‘dumped steel’? Many Members in this house and in the press have speculated solely on the Chinese aspect of dumped steel, when, in fact, there’s Russian dumped steel on the market, and there’s South Korean dumped steel as well. Is there almost an understanding, when you’re dealing with contracts—because you talk in your statement about having it in the terminology of contracts and the expectation of Government contracts that dumped steel would not be used. Do you become country-specific? Is there a category that you focus on? I think that that is important to understand as well.

In respect of the pensions and the pension liabilities, I think everyone would agree with the sentiment that you have identified within your statement, First Minister. It is a challenging territory that has been brought forward, but we do understand that, obviously, the pension liabilities are a major obstacle—for any successful purchaser to take on that liability. I would be grateful if you could expand on the language that you’ve used in your statement to clearly understand where the Welsh Government stands around the proposals that are in the consultation and whether the Welsh Government does formally support a particular proposal to help assist some of those liabilities being alleviated for any future purchasers of the sites so that the sites can be taken over and the production and the job security guaranteed for the workers on the sites, whether they be just site-specific or indeed across the whole steel industry. As I understand it, the consultation was asked for by the trustees of the pension fund and the UK Government obviously have come forward with that consultation. I do think that we do need to know clearly where the Welsh Government stands on that consultation and what is the favoured option of the Welsh Government, because it is such an integral part to concluding a successful sale of the steel-making operations.

The one final point that I’d also like to make is that you do touch in your statement on the retraining opportunities. David Rees, the Member for Aberavon, touched on this. Regrettably, whatever the outcome of the sales process, there have been redundancies at the sites—in particular Port Talbot—and other steel sites—Llanwern in particular—have had redundancies announced. It is important to understand that the training packages that have been put in place are meeting the requirements of the redundancy notices that have been served and the workers that will require retaining and support. Are you confident that the packages that are in place are meeting the needs of those workers and, in particular, in a way that will get them back into employment in a timely manner? Thank you, First Minister.

I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his questions. The meeting that I had in Mumbai was with senior executives and one board member of Tata. The meeting did last for some time. We explored a number of issues, one of which, for example, is what further support might be offered on business rates and that is something that we’re looking at. The difficulty is, of course, how you tailor support for one particular enterprise without opening the door to others as well, and how you create a situation like that fairly and in an affordable manner. Those discussions are ongoing.

In terms of dumped steel, we usually define that as steel that’s quite often being sold on a market below the cost of production, sometimes through a revenue subsidy provided by the government where the steel is produced, outside the European Union, but then undercuts steel production in a particular market that doesn’t attract a revenue subsidy. That’s one of the definitions you can give for dumped steel. We know that the problem that’s occurred in the world market is because of the slowdown of the Chinese economy. The Chinese have produced steel that their own economy cannot absorb and so they’re selling it in other markets, and that’s caused the price of world steel to slump, meaning that those steel enterprises that have the most difficult and challenging conditions have found it most difficult. In the UK, we know energy prices are high, the pound, although it’s now falling quite quickly, has been historically high, which has made it difficult to export and, of course, the tariff regimes that have been put in place by other markets around the world.

On pensions, we’ve not yet offered our view on what would be our preferred option. Originally, the proposal that I made was that if a new buyer came in then the pension scheme would be dealt with in a similar way to the way in which the British Coal pension scheme was dealt with, in order to make coal more attractive for privatisation, in other words, taken out of the equation for a stake to be taken by the UK Government—and we know the UK Government is doing pretty well out of that pension at the moment—in order to guarantee the benefits of those in the pension scheme, but also to remove the pension scheme from the equation for a new buyer. It’s significantly more complicated if the operation continues under the same owner, I would argue. It’s right to say the trustees asked for the review—they have to, under law, do that and that’s why the process began.

I think I’ve given some detail on what’s been done to help people who are being made redundant. Although we don’t have exact figures yet, it seems that a substantial number will take early retirement, and will be of an age when they’re able to do that. So far, as I mentioned earlier on, there are some who have received help. But, in order to make sure that those who don’t come forward immediately do have access to help in the future, as I said earlier on the statement, over the course of this month and next month, that help will continue to be available.

I commend the First Minister on his statement. In particular I endorse warmly his remarks about Roger Maggs, the chairman of Excalibur and a school friend of mine from many, many years ago at Amman Valley. And I endorse all that Adam Price—another distinguished product of my old school—said in his response to your statement also about the pension fund at Tata.

You mentioned, a moment ago, that this could be dealt with in the same way that the British Coal pension fund was dealt with, but the difference between the two, of course, is that there is a deficit in the Tata pension fund and there’s a massive surplus in the British Coal pension fund, from which the Government has siphoned off a very large sum of money for its own purposes.

Tata just can’t be allowed to get away with walking away from their responsibilities to the steelworkers of Port Talbot and elsewhere. The pension fund is currently worth about £14.5 billion and there’s a deficit, I understand, of about £500 million. These are not the only assets that Tata owns in the United Kingdom. Of course, they own Jaguar Land Rover and the profit on Jaguar Land Rover for the last reported year was £3.6 billion. So, Tata can well afford to plug the hole in the steel pension fund in Port Talbot and elsewhere, and I think they should be held to their responsibilities. I certainly endorse the point on moral hazard that Adam Price made.

I warmly endorse the First Minister’s efforts, including going to Mumbai, to try to resolve this crisis, but, of course, he is constrained by the limits on his powers, as indeed is the Secretary of State at Westminster. The Minister said in his statement that his primary concern has been that steel communities need to secure a long-term sustainable steel industry for the whole Tata operation in Wales, but, unfortunately, of course, he’s not able to do that because energy prices in this country are 50 per cent higher than elsewhere in the EU and we have been unable to impose—[Interruption.] This is Unite’s own document that says this—the trade union—so you can take their word for it or take it up with them if you disagree. And we have, as regards tariffs on steel, had a pathetically inadequate response from the European Commission and an even more pathetically inadequate response from the UK Government because all that the EU Commissioners propose is a 24 per cent tariff, whereas the United States has put a 522 per cent tariff on cold-rolled steel, which is a vital ingredient in the production at Port Talbot.

There is also, of course, the possibility that a new buyer could be found for those steel assets. The British Government would be woefully restricted in the amount of aid that they could give to a new purchaser and even more restricted if Tata retains the ownership because of the EU’s state aid rules. Similarly, in the statement, the First Minister said that, as regards transport contract documents, the Welsh Government expects that any contractors would not use dumped steel from an overseas market. Well, an expectation, of course, is not worth the paper it’s printed on. There is no legal power in the UK Government or the British Government to require users of steel in this country to exclude dumped steel from what they do.

So, unfortunately, what we are faced with, because of our membership of the EU, is that Government either at Westminster or in Cardiff is powerless to take the decisions that are vital to the continued production of steel in south Wales. And I’m afraid that we’re just like ghosts at the feast. We’re talking here today as though we could do something about this problem but, in fact, we can’t. On 23 June, we have the opportunity to take the decision that puts the levers of power back into the hands of Ministers like the First Minister here in Cardiff and indeed the Prime Minister at Westminster.

First of all, I thank the leader of UKIP for some of his comments. He is right, indeed, on energy prices. We’ve been saying this for the past five years to the UK Government. It is right to say—I’ve spoken to Celsa, for example, who’ve said to me that energy prices in Germany are 20 per cent lower and in Spain 37 per cent lower. Why? It’s the nature of the UK’s energy market. That’s the problem; it’s nothing to do with the EU—it’s the way the UK has structured it. What they say to me is that, basically, they’re offered tariffs that would be offered to a domestic consumer. In Germany and Spain there are discounts for energy-intensive industries, but not in the UK. The UK energy market is arcane, opaque and not transparent because is quite clear that energy prices are more expensive here. It’s not just me; any energy-intensive industry is saying this: they are cheaper elsewhere in Europe. That needs to be dealt with. Some progress has been made in that regard but not enough, to my mind.

He is right to say that Tata should not walk away from its responsibilities. It has not indicated that it should. It has indicated to me, of course, that its reputation is important around the world. The kind of aid we can offer is hugely attractive to any potential buyer—the money we can put on the table as the Welsh Government; the substantial resources the UK Government can put on the table as well. These are all perfectly compliant with state aid rules. What we can’t do is offer an ongoing revenue subsidy—that much is true—but we have to remember that, at the end of the day, steel needs a market. The UK isn’t big enough to provide a market on its own for British steel. If we were outside of the European market, the tariff barriers would go up and that would mean that steel from Britain would be more expensive as it entered the European market. I noted what Professor Patrick Minford—that’s the second time I’ve mentioned him today in this Chamber—said today when he said that his approach would be that there should be no barriers at all to goods coming into the UK. He would have no tariffs on anything coming into the UK, even if other countries put up tariff barriers themselves. I just don’t think that that’s a sensible—. He is somebody who is produced as an economist for the Leave campaign. That is his view; I don’t agree with that view. To my mind, you need to have access to as many large markets as possible, and leaving the EU, especially with steel, would put British steel at risk of having substantial tariffs put against British steel entering the European market. We’ll have that argument again. It’s not an argument, of course, that Tata have used; their view is that they are a European operation. Indeed, many of the assets in Wales, like Shotton, for example, are connected very closely with operations elsewhere in Europe, which would be quite difficult to untangle. What is right to say is that all the Welsh operations are connected to Port Talbot.

One of the concerns was that there would be an attempt to cherry-pick—that those operations like Orb, like Llanwern, like Shotton, like Trostre, the rolling mill in Port Talbot, which are making money, would be cherry-picked and the heavy end at Port Talbot would go. But the reality is, as I’ve said in this Chamber before, all those plants are supplied with steel from Port Talbot. It would take about six months for them to find a source of steel from somewhere else. In the meantime, they’re reliant on stocks, they’re going to be laying people off and they’re going to start losing customers. So, they are reliant on Port Talbot making steel to supply those plants. From our perspective, just to re-emphasise it, we take the view that all of Tata’s assets in Wales should be bought as a package and that there should be no cherry-picking.

Concise questions from now on and I may get through all nine speakers. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch. Thanks for the update, First Minister. Many of my constituents in communities across Flintshire are understandably concerned about the future of the Shotton site and fear that it often gets lost in all of the headlines.

Shotton has two successful, viable, profitable businesses that have risen, almost phoenix-like, from the ashes of the record mass redundancies of the 1980s. Shotton has a bright future with the right support, and on that note, I must pay credit to the leadership that you’ve shown on this and leadership that, I know, is recognised by the workforce there. I’ve co-ordinated meetings with management and trade unions at the Shotton site and know, first hand, the highly skilled, hardworking and flexible workforce. First Minister, can I ask that you will continue to ensure that Shotton is not forgotten and that the workforce there is kept fully informed?

I can give an absolute assurance that that’s true of Shotton, of Trostre and, indeed, of the works in Newport as well. I know that there’s been some fear amongst the workers that, whenever steel is talked about, it’s always Port Talbot. It is the biggest employer, of course, but we know that all of our steel plants in Wales are hugely important and we know that they’re interdependent. The Member will know that I visited Shotton very soon after the announcement; I did the same with all the plants across Wales and will continue to make sure that the steel industry in Wales is seen as one whole industry that must be bought as a whole, and developed and invested in in the future.

I’m grateful to the First Minister for bringing this statement and I agree with some of the comments that have been raised here today, although I would like to say, in relation to the dumping of steel, the UK Government has already previously refused higher measures on the dumping of steel, and so, if we did come out of the European Union, you would expect opposition on that level. So, I can’t understand the rationale that is being brought to the debate today in terms of the UK Government somehow being more supportive of putting higher tariffs on Chinese steel.

Particularly concerning to me is the precedent the UK Government could be setting with the pension fund, as has been mentioned earlier. The moral hazard argument is one that was well rehearsed with Ministers and their officials while dealing with ASW and Visteon cases, all to no avail—our warnings fell on deaf ears in Whitehall.

But, I just wanted to focus briefly on the internal dynamics at Tata as reported by steelworkers to myself. Has the First Minister heard that officials from Tata Europe attended a town hall meeting in Port Talbot in the past fortnight, at which they got up and severely criticised the workforce, causing the trade union delegation to get up and walk out? This seems to be the latest concern surrounding Tata Europe leadership and its conduct before and during this period.

You’ll know it was largely comprised of the Hoogovens management—the company that was effectively saved from bankruptcy through the Corus merger with British Steel. Since Tata brought Corus, steelworkers say the IJmuiden plant has received the bulk of investment, including the same kind of investment that Plaid Cymru have mooted in relation to a new power plant, predominantly because of the Dutch management and the influence that they have. Is that something that you have heard, First Minister?

Also, it’s been claimed that Port Talbot’s financial position was effectively made to look worse than it was, because the cost of materials bound for both steelmaking sites were booked solely for Port Talbot. So, I heard of one example of a shipment of iron ore that stopped off in Wales first before going to the Netherlands, with the entire cost borne by the Port Talbot site. Is that something that you’ve heard about, First Minister?

Then, of course, my question comes to the order book. As far as we know, this has been centralised in the Netherlands. This is considerably worrying to my constituents who see it as an opportunity for Tata Europe to pick off the best contracts even though, as I hear, they are not capable of fulfilling some of them, leaving Port Talbot and the rest of the UK operation to fail. So, I would like to know whether the Welsh Government has enquired as to the whereabouts of the order book and questioned the rationale for moving it to the Netherlands, and whether efforts have been made by yourself or your officials to repatriate the order book ahead of any potential sale. Do we have reassurances from the company that it is happy to open its books to potential buyers for the diligence phase of any sale? I think these are questions that need answering, for the workforce especially, who have raised those points with me, but also for the wider steel industry here in the UK.

Many of the comments that the Member has made I’ve heard, like the issue of IJmuiden. I wasn’t aware of the town-hall meeting, although I’ve heard something about what had happened, but I wasn’t aware that it was in Port Talbot. I have heard it said to me that Port Talbot has been made to look worse than it is. I’ve got no evidence to back that up, but I’ve heard that said. I’ve heard, for example, that there are issues with regard to the port, and particularly fees charged by the company owning the port. Why on earth there is a separate business owning the port compared with the steelworks, only the Tories in the 1980s could explain to you, but that is, nevertheless, the situation there. There have been issues that have been said to me with regard to charges at the port. So, there are a number of issues that have been raised where there is no easy answer.

In terms of the order book, well, of course, due diligence would have to be carried out by any buyer in any event. Nobody’s going to buy assets or buy a business without looking at the books. It’s fair to say there has been investment in the steel industry in Wales, particularly in Port Talbot. We saw the blast furnace No. 5 being rebuilt. We have put an offer on the table with regard to the power plant. We worked with the company three years ago over looking at whether a mine could be sunk in the curtilage of the steelworks. So, all these things have been explored.

Research and development is another issue. We need to make sure that, as we look at the future of the steel industry over the next few years, that R&D capacity exist in Wales. I know that Swansea University have expressed an interest in that, and we’re keen to work to make sure that that R&D capacity does exist in Wales. We’ve been successful for the past few years in attracting more R&D into Wales to supplement the manufacturing that we do and the same will be important for steel in the future.

So, all this work is being done. I’ve heard many of the issues that she has raised being raised with me and with others. I hear that Port Talbot is now breaking even after three months ago losing £1 million a day, which is a substantial turnaround, but, of course, there will be a need, as the sale process continues, to make sure there is an understanding of what the true financial situation is with regard to the steel industry in Wales.

First Minister, can I thank you for your statement today? It’s clearly important to ensure that not just Members in the Assembly are updated on the progress of the discussion with Tata, but that my constituents and the steelworkers in my constituency are actually fully aware of what we’re trying to do. The Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr was quite right in some of his questions that some of those levers are actually in London, unfortunately, and some of those concerns we have—and they did come to the table late, I’m sorry to say—are laying with them and we need to address those, very much so.

Bethan Jenkins highlighted a couple of points, which I don’t want to repeat, so I’ll avoid that if I can. But the question comes as to the confidence of the workforce in Tata. At the moment, there is a total lack of confidence of the workforce in Tata. I think what we would want from the Welsh Government is reassurance that it will work with buyers who come in to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the steel industry, not just in Port Talbot, but in all the other plants across Wales, to make sure that steel becomes and remains a major factor in the UK industrial strategy.

Have you had discussions also with the UK Government on an industrial strategy? I walked with the steelworkers in London two weeks ago where they called for an industrial strategy for steel for the UK Government, and they still seem to be lacking in effort in the UK Government in that area.

You mentioned the ports. Have you had discussions with the Associated British Ports in relation to the use of the port and the association the port has with the steelworks? So, it’s how we can work with Tata steel or its buyers to ensure that the inputs coming through the docks can actually work in another very effective price?

First Minister, you also highlighted the losses. I’ve also been informed that the losses are far lower and are working towards break even, and the May figures may actually be break even. So, we are now in a mode of actually getting to a stage where the industry is becoming a viable, attractive proposition for any buyer, and I think that’s one of the reasons why Tata are now realising they made a big mistake in January when they made those announcements, and an even bigger one in March.

But let’s go back also to the question I asked in your First Minister’s questions in relation to the taskforce and the support given to those employees who have either lost their jobs at this point, or are about to lose their jobs in the next weeks. Can you give reassurances that not only are the training packages in place, but there will be opportunities for work? Because we can train as many people as we like, but if there aren’t opportunities for them to gain employment then all that will happen is, in a few weeks’ time, they’re going to be facing the challenges of just sitting at home. We need to ensure that the enterprise zone becomes a working, successful operation, that the packages and the work streams that we talked about with the taskforce for looking at businesses are actually attracting investment and jobs so that those people, once they’ve trained, can get employment. That’s crucial to them. The last thing they want to do is to get trained and then go back to their homes without a job. It’s crucial that they have that dignity in place.

And have you had discussions with our MEPs and the European elements? Because the European Parliament actually did throw out the market economy status argument, very much so, and I was disappointed to hear the negativity from the UKIP leader regarding true steel. There’s a lot of positivity in our town, a lot of ambition and hope in our town, and we don’t want to see the negative visions being produced by that party.

Now, the other question about Roger Maggs—you praised him, but, of course, he is also chair of the enterprise zone. Can you give us clarification as to the separation of the two roles he has, with Excalibur and the enterprise zone, to ensure that we go forward collectively and in a positive manner?

The final point, First Minister: I want to praise you for the leadership you’ve shown over this time. Given the election campaign, when we required it, you definitely showed the leadership and strong leadership we needed in our town and constituency. You demonstrated to the rest of the UK what can be done. I just hope that others follow your suit.

Well, can I thank the Member for those kind words and could I reciprocate by saying that he has been a doughty and avid campaigner for those people whom he represents? I know this myself through the late-night phone calls that I’ve had from him, and he is somebody who has been very concerned to protect their interests.

I think he’s absolutely right to say there’s a lack of confidence amongst Tata workers—how could there not be—because the future is yet uncertain. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, and people are bound to feel insecurity, not knowing what the future holds.

In terms of an industrial strategy, that’s not something that the UK Government have come forward with. They have focused on the matter in hand. I think it’s right to say that they might have been quicker in realising the situation that was occurring. That said, I think it is fair to say that they are looking to find a solution and, certainly, Sajid Javid has been in regular contact with me in order to explain what he has been doing, so I have to acknowledge that. I mean, it was quite remarkable, all the way through an election campaign, no political capital was made of the issue in any way, and I think that’s a reflection of what the people of Port Talbot would want—the political parties working together in order to find a solution for everybody.

With regard to ABP, the ports, of course, are not devolved yet, but they will be. It is curious that we have a port in Port Talbot that, effectively, only exists for the steelworks that, in any rational world, would be owned by the company owning the steelworks. That’s not the case. So, effectively, there’s not a huge amount of choice other than the coal and iron ore coming in through the port. It can’t go, realistically, anywhere else. It has been said to me, certainly by one of the bidders, that there is concern about the cost of using the port. It’s not helpful as far as the future is concerned, and that is something that the UK Government themselves have said, and they were having discussions with ABP to make sure that the port was reasonable in terms of what it was charging for raw materials to come through it.

I have, of course, been in contact with Derek Vaughan. The Member is right to say that market economy status has not been agreed as far as China is concerned for any number of reasons. He asked, of course, about the people who are affected by this—support particularly. I’ve outlined already what is available. It is right to say that the enterprise zone needs to be taken forward quickly—we acknowledge that—and it’s right to say that the skills are important, but also the jobs that are appropriate to those skills are also important. That’s what the enterprise zone is designed to deliver. Thus far, the numbers coming forward have been quite low, reflecting, I think, the situation that a lot of those who have taken voluntary redundancy are looking to retire, but what we don’t know is whether there are still people who have not yet come forward to get the support and help that they need. We will stand ready to help the people who work in Port Talbot and in other parts of the industry in Wales to help them to retrain and get the jobs that they need.

Thank you for your statement, First Minister, particularly your comments regarding procurement. In your statement you mentioned a commitment to the long-term sustainable steel industry and confirmed to Neil Hamilton, later in the debate today, that that included what you called the heavy end of works at Port Talbot. Yet, it was reported a few days ago in ‘The Guardian’ that none of the bidders were guaranteeing a long-term future for Port Talbot and were seeking cash from Tata as well as from both Governments. Is it your view, then, that any bid that does not include a future for the blast furnaces should not survive the bidding process assessment being conducted by Tata at the moment?

You also said in your statement that Tata’s priority is to conduct a sale. It does worry me that they confirmed to you, and as you mentioned in the debate we held during recess, that Tata told you that they had a strong preference not to sell. They told the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, almost back as far as Christmas, I think, that they were intending to sell and now, even this week, Tata’s indicating that they may not want to sell Port Talbot after all. I do share the views of other Members in this Chamber regarding the disingenuousness of Tata, perhaps, if I can call it that. So, in your constructive and significant discussions, as you call them, and your indication that you stand ready to support any bidder, which of course could include Tata, bearing in mind that they’ve indicated they might want to hang on to part of the work here in Wales, what clarity and guarantees have you secured, or are likely to secure, in view of the fact that you’re willing to commit £60 million or more of money that could be spent elsewhere by the Welsh Government, when you’ve been speaking to those bodies?

Then, thirdly, if you have time to answer this, in targeting the job support, what specific conversations have you been having with the Swansea bay city region board about identifying the targeted nature of the offer that the taskforce engagement has been able to provide so far? Because, obviously, it’s not just any job we’d be looking for for these steelworkers, but jobs that have a future as well.

In terms of the questions that have been asked, in terms of the heavy end, the two bidders that I have had contact with wish to preserve the heavy end. They have different approaches to it, and this is public—it’s known that one of the bidders wants to look at the use of scrap in the future, rather than iron ore. The other bidder would keep the process as it is. But, nevertheless, the heavy end at Port Talbot would remain. It’s a more difficult question, I think, if bidders are asked to guarantee that every single job will remain in place. I don’t think that bidders can offer that assurance at this stage, but they can offer the assurance—the two that I have spoken to—that the heavy end will continue, and that’s hugely important. Because once the heavy end goes, it will never be reinstated. Now, when market conditions continue to improve, it’s possible then to employ more people, and that’s important. So, the protection of the heavy end is there.

We would not support, in any way, a bid that included the closure of steel making in Port Talbot because that’s where the substantial chunk of the employment is, and then there will be a detrimental effect on the rest of the operations around Wales in terms of tinplate, Tata Steel Colors and specialists like Orb in Llanwern.

Before Christmas, in a meeting that I had, it was made clear to me that a sale was not on the cards—that it was either carry on or close. After Christmas, the situation changed. Better that than closure, that much is true, but it’s right to say that there was a change in thinking in Tata at that time. Now we find ourselves in a position where a sale is on the cards. Before Christmas, the indications were that the McKinsey report was being taken seriously and that a turnaround would be looked at seriously. It wasn’t suggested before Christmas that closure was on the cards, if I can put it that way, but certainly a sale wasn’t on the cards at any time before that time. We know that that’s what’s happening now.

Of course, the package that we’ve put on the table has been intended primarily for new bidders. That was at a time when it wasn’t believed that Tata would want to stay in any event. There’s no doubt that there will be a need to give certain guarantees as far as any Government help is concerned, whether it’s the UK Government or whether it’s Welsh Government. We can’t put money on the table to find that, in a year or two’s time, that money has effectively disappeared because the assets are being reduced in terms of job numbers and in terms of production, and that applies to the UK Government as much as it applies to us. And we recognise that, in fairness, because that would need to be done.

If a new bidder comes in who is an established steel maker, it’s a reasonable assumption to make that they will want to continue with steel making in any event. If you have asset strippers come in, then obviously there’s a very different thought process. It’s never clear, of course, where you have an existing operator, what their intention in the future might be, and, yes, there will be a need, as far as the workforce is concerned and as far as the public purse is concerned, to obtain certain guarantees as to future investment and a plan for the future for the Welsh steel industry.

In terms of job support, again, that is something that the city region will be looking at. The Member will know that we have an established process for dealing with situations like this, which involve a number of organisations that have come together to offer that support. It’s absolutely crucial, of course, that the skills that are on offer are the skills that are required in the local economy and, of course, the city region board will have a very useful input in terms of being able to make that assessment as to what skills need to be provided in order for people to get the secure jobs that they need.

And finally, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you, First Minister, for your recognition of the position and situation of Newport in the overall steel picture in Wales. You will know from your recent visit to Llanwern what top-quality steel is produced in the Zodiac plant, for example, for the car industry in the UK and beyond. Recently, I also visited the Orb steelworks, where their electrical steels are world-class and exported across the globe. It’s key that Orb very much value their partnership with Welsh Government. They told me about the relationship that had been built and the support that they have in terms of their production and processes and skills training, and that they are very keen to build on that and engage further.

Recently, I met, along with Jayne Bryant as AM for Newport West and the two Newport MPs, Liberty Steel, and, similarly, they are very keen to engage and, as you would know, they have very ambitious plans not just on the steel front, but also in terms of renewable energy, tidal lagoon, and converting the coal-fired power station to biomass. So, they are very ambitious indeed, and all of these steel producers in Newport, First Minister, have said to me and the other political representatives how keen they are to build on the existing relationship with Welsh Government and ensure that, through support and partnership and investment, we make sure that steel in Newport not only has the great history that is widely recognised, but also a very strong future. So, I’d just like your further reassurance today that Welsh Government is very much of a similar mind and will work with all of us as local political representatives to ensure that we go forward in partnership with those steel firms.

Absolutely, and I know the Member has been vocal in terms of advocating the steel industry in his particular city. Of course, we know that Newport has a substantial export market as well—some 30 per cent of the steel produced is exported and they are successful and profitable. It’s hugely important that the future prosperity and sustainability of all the sites in Wales is addressed. But, again, they are all linked to Port Talbot and the steel that is made in Port Talbot that feeds the operations that they carry out. So, I can give the assurance to those workers in Shotton, in Trostre, in Newport and, of course, in Port Talbot that we see the steel industry as integrated within Wales, as profitable in Wales, as having a future in Wales, and, of course, we will continue to speak up for all of those workers.

Thank you, First Minister.