The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the name of Simon Thomas, amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendment 3 in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will fall. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will fall.

We move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on the impact of the EU referendum on Tata Steel, and I call on Caroline Jones to move the motion.

Motion NDM6058 Neil Hamilton, Caroline Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that following Brexit, Tata Steel in Port Talbot has a better chance of survival.

Motion moved.

Okay. Thank you—diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I formally move the motion tabled in the names of Neil Hamilton and myself.

The UKIP motion before you today reflects our belief that the European Union has shackled British business with masses of red tape and an industrial policy that has not been designed for our industrialists in the British manufacturing sector. The problems facing companies like Tata Steel in my region have been discussed here many times, but, until the British public voted to leave the EU, it seemed there was little we could do to save the steel industry, and every party represented in this Chamber today agrees that the UK has to maintain an independent production capacity.

When we joined the forerunner of the European Union in 1973, the UK was producing nearly 26 million tonnes of steel per year. Over the four decades of EU and EEC membership, this has fallen dramatically. Over the four decades of EU membership, our GDP per head grew by 71 per cent, the EU as a whole by just 62 per cent, whereas the GDP per capita in China grew by over 1,000 per cent and Singapore by over 500 per cent—a stark difference in the economic performance between east and west.

There are those who wish to continue to shackle the EU’s economy to the lacklustre economy of Europe, warning of dire consequences if we fail to remain part of the single market. We don’t need to be members of the single market in order to trade with the EU 27. We can still buy New Zealand lamb, Australian wine, Brazilian beef, American cars and Chinese electronics, despite none of those countries being members of the single market. In fact, the EU has monumentally failed to secure trade agreements with any of these countries.

In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals with the USA, Japan and India as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Mercosur trading blocs. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of those countries or blocs. The EU’s own figures show that this has cost the UK nearly 300,000 jobs. Members, far from being the saviour of British jobs, the EU has been a barrier to job creation, a stagnant economy dragging down the UK with it. Thankfully, the people of the UK voted to reject continued membership of the EU. They voted to reject increasing red tape. They voted to reject an institution unable to deal with the rest of the world. But, above all, they voted to reject an institution at odds with our national interest.

At a time when our exports to the rest of the world are growing, we should be pursuing trade agreements, not leaving it to the European Union. The future of our manufacturing sector depends on our ability to trade with the rest of the world, but, more importantly, our steel industry’s future is reliant upon us leaving the EU. The global recession left China with an estimated 200 million tonnes of excess steel, which they proceeded to dump on the world markets. The rest of the world put up tariffs to prevent their markets being flooded with cheap Chinese steel. The US introduced 522 per cent trade tariffs on Chinese steel. The EU introduced tariffs of just 16 per cent. As a result, Chinese steel imports to the EU—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you therefore regret the role UKIP MEPs took in 2014 when they didn’t support the modernisation and movement of trade tariff and trade defence mechanisms? The words were, by a UKIP representative:

‘UKIP does not vote for the EU doing things on our behalf.’

They did not care for the steel industry.

UKIP MEPs voted against a Labour group amendment that Labour claimed would result in higher anti-dumping measures. But there was little evidence of this and UKIP abstained—abstained—as part of principle. The EU tariffs of just 16 per cent—as a result, Chinese steel imports to the EU rose by over 50 per cent. This has had a devastating effect on UK and Welsh steel.

Three years ago the UK used not a single length of Chinese concrete reinforcing bar, and last year Chinese rebar accounted for nearly half of all the concrete reinforcing bars in the UK. According to UK Steel this level of growth is unprecedented and threatens the very existence of rebar production in the United Kingdom. Members, the future of the Welsh steel industry is under threat. It’s under threat because of cheap Chinese steel. It’s under threat because of high energy prices in the UK, and it’s under threat because of an under-performing European Union, more interested in bureaucracy than trade.

Now that the majority of the Welsh and British public voted to leave the EU we can save our steel industry. Following Brexit the new owners of Tata Steel, together with the Welsh and UK Governments, can look to the rest of the world for markets for what is undoubtedly the best steel in the world: Welsh steel. In future, we will be able to insist that all construction taking place in the UK uses British and Welsh steel without falling foul of EU tendering and procurement rules. Once we’re free of the shackles of the EU we will be able to assist our steel producers with their energy bills—the most expensive in Europe—without the restrictions of EU state-aid rules. As you know, we couldn’t intervene in any loans of any kind because of state-aid rules. [Interruption.] We couldn’t and we didn’t.

You don’t have to have a conversation across the Chamber. Just carry on with your speech, please.

Thank you. Members, following Brexit, Tata Steel in my region has a better chance of survival and I urge you to support the motion. Moving to the amendments, I urge Members to reject the Welsh Conservative amendment. We do not disagree with the points you are making and, if you had decided to add those points to our motion, we would have supported you. However, perhaps your group is still divided on the subject of Europe; you choose to delete our motion. We cannot, therefore, support you. We will also be rejecting the Welsh Labour amendment. Continued membership of the EU does not guarantee the future of Welsh steel and our decision to leave does not jeopardise a sustainable future for steel making in Wales.

With regard to Plaid’s amendments, we will be supporting amendments 2 and 3. Of course, the UK and Welsh Governments should already be doing all they can to support the steel industry. We should also be looking at all sources of funding to support the steel industry, whether that is money we have sent to the EU and get back or funding direct from the UK and Welsh Governments. We will be abstaining on Plaid’s amendment No. 4. We do not believe there will be the huge uncertainty and economic upheaval that is predicted by other parties that will come as a result of our vote to leave the EU. In fact, the stock market has already started recovering the losses that were seen on the news after we had secured a Brexit vote. Finally, on amendments 1 and 5, we will be voting against. The single market is not the be-all and end-all. We need to be able to trade freely with the EU 27 and not be shackled by the restrictions imposed by the single market. Amendment 5 is mischief making. Plaid Cymru know full well that a number of UKIP members vote against all EU Commission proposals on the basis that they want to see democratically elected parliamentarians, such as in Westminster, making laws and regulations and not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I commend this motion to the Chamber. Diolch yn fawr.

I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 tabled in the name of Simon Thomas.

Gwelliant 1—Simon Thomas

Delete all and replace with:

Notes the great importance of access to the Single Market for Tata UK.

Gwelliant 4—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Continues to press the Welsh and UK Governments to find ways to support all of the steel industry in Wales.

Gwelliant 5—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to exploit existing EU funding to promote Plaid Cymru proposals, specifically the European Fund for Strategic Investments so the new renewable energy plant can be built on the TATA site in Port Talbot to address the issue of high energy costs, and Horizon 2020, so that a steel research and development centre can be established at Swansea University’s Innovation Campus to increase TATA UK’s business opportunities.

Gwelliant 6—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh and UK Governments to provide additional funding to a Tata successor if this is necessary as a result of the uncertainty associated with the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

Gwelliant 7—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets UKIP’s decision to vote against the European Commission’s Modernisation proposals in the European Parliament—measures that would have led to far higher tariffs on Chinese steel being dumped on European markets.

Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 moved.

I stand to move Plaid Cymru’s amendments. There is premature and then there is this debate. Look at the chaos engulfing British politics. The Prime Minister gone. What was his most likely successor gone. A leadership battle in the Labour Party. And yet, even as their own party leader resigns, for now, and leaves his mess for the rest of us to sort, we have the UK Independence Party somehow trying to argue that Brexit would be better for the steel industry without even contemplating a plan for that realisation.

As abstract arguments go, this would be entertaining if it wasn’t so serious. That is why, on amendment 1, we decided to replace the motion rather than rewording it, because its premise is absurd. While the value of iron and steel imports is greater than exports for the whole of the UK, for Wales it is considerably higher. Last year, we imported 400 million tonnes of iron and steel but exported one billion—two and a half times as much. Of that amount, some 69 per cent—over two thirds—goes to the European market. Frankly, it is impossible to argue that the steel industry will benefit from losing its ability to trade on the open market. The EU has made this clear; there are no special deals to be had. You’re either in or you’re out. [Interruption.] No, sorry. The size of the economy and reciprocal markets don’t enter into it. So far, it’s been fine for UKIP and other ‘leave’ supporters to argue that this is not true, but we should only give that some credence once a single one of the ‘leave’ campaign’s predictions proves to be true.

I’ll address amendments 4 and 5 together. Plaid Cymru’s provided two very clear ideas on what we could be doing here in Wales to support Tata in Port Talbot to become more competitive and sustainable. It can be done without breaching EU competition rules, in spite of what has been previously said. How do I know this? Because the European Commission staff—those faceless bureaucrats that you keep talking about—told me so when I bothered to go and visit them. Regardless of what some Members of this Chamber might think of them, the ones I’ve met I hold in the highest regard. They are better placed than anyone else, I think, to know what constitutes unacceptable state aid.

So, let’s park that argument and talk positively about what can be done. Well, the Welsh Government already makes use of the European fund for strategic investments. We had a statement from the former Minister for finance in the last Assembly updating us on its progress, and that of Horizon 2020. The EFSI, I was also told in Brussels, is well suited to funding Tata’s plans for a new power station. These proposals are fully realised and have the requisite permissions. The new plant would reuse gases that are a by-product of steel making. This environmental aspect, which would reduce the site’s emissions, is a significant factor in deciding whether such a project should receive money. It will also, crucially, reduce Tata’s energy costs.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. Do you therefore agree that it’s important that we reuse that waste gas, and that it’s important therefore that we keep the heavy end in the steelworks to actually produce that waste gas, so that the integrated works stays as an integrated works?

Yes, of course, I would definitely agree with that. There have been a lot of myths peddled about the policy cost of energy. What we do know is that it constitutes a fraction of the price of utility bills, and we also know that there is a snowball’s chance in hell of seeing that market reformed. So, a renewable energy power station remains the best option—the only option.

Similarly, the EU has a pot it must spend in four years that is aimed at encouraging research and scientific advancement. We have a steel department based in Swansea University’s new innovation campus that is already working with Tata Steel. Indeed, a new department was established to support engineering and the foundation industries, and it wants to strengthen that relationship. Staff at the university believe they have an unrivalled advantage in having blast furnaces within sight of their campus, and for the cost of around £17 million spent over five years, we could establish a research and development institute that would lead the world in steel innovation. Both of these projects would sustain the plant and other sites across Wales. I want to get an update from the Welsh Government as to what they are doing with regard to the taskforce and with regard to what they’re doing to be proactive in this sense. With the Brexit vote, we must make sure that there is urgency behind this.

Lastly, I’d like to reflect on the issue that has been mentioned already in relation to the voting on the dumping of steel. Nigel Farage did not turn up to the overall legislative vote on the dumping of Chinese steel. If UKIP really did care about the dumping of Chinese steel that makes Port Talbot less viable then you would have turned up to vote for that legislation in favour of higher tariffs on Chinese steel and shame on you for not doing so. [Interruption.]

Thank you, we won’t have—. I’ve said once before we won’t have conversations across the Chamber. If you wanted to intervene you should have stood up and intervened on the Member, but we’ve lost that one. I call on Russell George to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Gwelliant 2—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

1. Recognises the crucial role of the steelworks in Port Talbot, Llanwern, Shotton and Trostre to the economy of Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole.

2. Recognises the work of both the UK and Welsh Governments towards helping TATA secure a credible buyer for the Port Talbot steelworks.

3. Encourages the UK and Welsh Governments to work together to devise a strategy to maximise the long-term viability and potential for steel production in Wales.

4. Encourages the UK and Welsh Governments to work together with other countries in Europe and across the world to secure trade agreements that are advantageous to the Welsh steel industry.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to move the Welsh Conservative amendment in the name of Paul Davies. Now, the Welsh Conservatives and I welcome this debate on the future of the steel industry in Wales. Welsh steel production is of course of vital importance to the Welsh economy, to workers and their families, and to those communities that rely on steel making.

We will not be supporting the proposed motion without amendment as we don’t believe that the motion adequately reflects the complexity and uncertainty of the difficult situation facing steel communities across Wales. The steel industry across the UK and Europe is facing very challenging economic conditions with a global collapse in demand for steel and there is a major over-production going on across the world. This is a truly global issue and as such I believe that the situation facing Tata in Wales cannot be seen in isolation of a Brexit vote.

I acknowledge the fact that the result of the EU referendum means that it is all the more important for the UK Government to work with the Welsh Government to secure a strong future for steel making in Wales. The EU, of course, remains the most important market for steel, with over half of our exports going to the EU and more than two thirds of our imports coming from the EU. In that context, we are therefore happy to support the Government’s amendment in the name of Jane Hutt and amendment 4 in the name of Simon Thomas. I should say we also support the wording in amendment 1, in the name of Simon Thomas, but we can’t support that amendment in voting as it would delete, of course—our amendments would fall.

I suspect that all Members in this Chamber, Senedd, Parliament, recognise the importance of Welsh steel to our nation’s economic well-being and I’m pleased, to date, that there has been a significant amount of cross-party consensus to support our steel industry. Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation I was very keen that the Welsh Conservatives’ amendments were uncontentious, and I hope that Members will agree with that. I’m disappointed that UKIP can’t support our amendments in that spirit. But, you know, the steelworks play an important part in the Welsh economy and it’s important that the UK and Welsh Governments continue to work together to maximise the viability and the potential of Welsh steel production into the future.

Tata Steel contributes £200 million in wages to the Welsh economy and a further £3.2 billion in total economic impact to Wales as a whole—that’s according to the Members’ research brief that I read. It also employs 4,000 people at Port Talbot with many more, of course, in the region reliant on the steel industry for their livelihoods. We therefore believe it’s essential that the Welsh and UK Governments continue to work closely together to devise a strategy to help Tata secure a credible buyer for the steelworks that offers the best possible opportunities for future economic growth and safeguards jobs and the Welsh steelworkers.

I think, as well, that it’s critical that this strategy isn’t a knee-jerk approach, such as those calling for nationalisation, but is rather a long-term plan to secure the future of the Welsh steel industry within the private sector. We therefore support amendment 6, in the name of Simon Thomas, which looks to the Welsh and UK Governments to provide additional funding if that’s necessary. Of course, the UK Government has already taken action to create a competitive environment for steel making in Wales by providing a package of support worth hundreds of millions. Also, the Welsh Government has created a package for those threatened with redundancy, and the UK Government has also taken action on the high energy costs.

Other measures to offset the burden of high energy on steel manufacturing would also be welcome, and I am therefore interested in considering Plaid’s amendments and details in amendment 5 for a new renewable energy plant and further reducing energy costs, and how a new steel research and development centre would fit into Treasury support for an enterprise zone for Port Talbot. I also want to, myself, encourage the UK and Welsh Governments to work together with other nations—not just in Europe, but around the world—to secure the best possible trade agreements for the Welsh steel industry. In the light of the Brexit vote, there does remain a great deal of uncertainty—that’s got to be recognised—of how future trade deals will be formulated. That’s uncertain yet, and it is, of course, essential that future trade agreements are arranged with other nations and they don’t ignore the importance of the steel industry.

Now, I would say—

You’ve got to wind it up now.

Yes, I will, in that case, wind up, Deputy Presiding Officer. Just to say that, from my perspective, I hope the Welsh and UK Governments continue to work together towards a positive outcome.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to formally move amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. You can stand to do it; it’s very nice. [Laughter.]

Gwelliant 3—Jane Hutt

Delete all after ‘following’ and replace with:

‘the EU Referendum result it is more important than ever that the UK Government works with the Welsh Government to secure a sustainable future for steel making in Wales.’

Amendment 3 moved.

Move, formally.

Move formally, thank you. David Rees.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. As Members are fully aware, steel is the beating heart of my home town and I welcome another opportunity to debate the future of that industry here today. However, today, we should be debating how we secure a sustainable future through working together to build a stable economic environment and tackle the challenges facing steelworkers; not using the steel industry as an excuse for welcoming a Brexit vote, which is what this motion is.

The steelworks in Port Talbot has been part of our skyline for over a century and I hope that it will continue to dominate that skyline for many, many more years to come. The steel industry in Wales—not only in Port Talbot, because there are other plants in Wales—is a vital part of the economy. But we can’t hide from the fact that there are pressures across Europe, which are resulting in the UK steel industry actually experiencing a greater uncertainty, leaving its employees with that feeling of having the sword of Damocles hanging over them. Many of my constituents, their families and the wider community in Aberavon are still unsure about the future of the plant at Port Talbot, and our commitment must be to work to secure that future and provide the much-needed reassurances. I know that there is a meeting in Mumbai of the Tata board this Friday, which will definitely have an impact upon what the future is there.

A range of factors has led to thousands of job losses in the sector across the UK and over a thousand have actually been lost in my own constituency—we cannot forget those contractors and the supply chain workers who are also affected by the steel crisis. One major factor has been the cheap imports, but not just from China, it’s also from Turkey and Russia. As we know, the EU has had levers to put tariffs on imported steel to tackle dumping, and they have done so in the past. It’s been mentioned that they’ve only got 16 per cent, but let’s remind ourselves that the UK Government actually didn’t push for the change in the lesser duty rate; they actually blocked it. That’s something we need to address. Perhaps the fact that we have a Brexit actually might remove the blocking of the lesser duty rate, but it won’t apply for us; it’ll apply against us, possibly, and that’s something we have got to watch. So, don’t blame the EU for that, blame the current UK Government.

As I said, as a consequence of Brexit, we may be subject to those tariffs in the future, particularly if the UK cannot agree on a deal for the single market, and that is something that is clearly in question at this moment in time. This will affect the price per tonne of steel and you’ll remember that Port Talbot actually exports a third of its market to the EU. So, that’s a huge amount of impact upon us if we have to pay additional costs.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Does the Member recognise that, since the Brexit vote, the level of the pound has now declined by some 10 per cent and will that not flow through into significantly improved competitiveness for the Welsh and UK steel industry?

Yes, I accept that point that the pound is down, therefore the exports are cheaper and possibly more enticing to buyers, but, of course, we are buying raw materials in dollars, and the pound has dropped like a rock to a 31-year low against the dollar, so the consequences are that we’ve probably got, perhaps, a worse situation, not necessarily a better situation.

Mark Reckless rose—

I won’t take a second one, no.

I actually welcome the amendment by the Welsh Conservatives, which encourages UK and Welsh Governments to actually work together to devise a strategy to maximise the long-term viability and potential of steel production in Wales. This is something I’ve been calling for for a long time. I actually marched alongside Port Talbot steelworkers in May as they lobbied the UK Government to bring forward an industrial strategy to strengthen our steel sector. I feel that the Welsh Government should have a part to play in those discussions as the majority of steel making now lies in Wales.

With regard to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 5, I agree with the sentiment behind it totally, highlighting the need to support the development of the power plant and the establishment of a research hub based in Swansea University, centred on Swansea University. The amendment, though, asks the Welsh Government to act when I don’t think it has the authority to do so, but we must stress the fantastic work that Swansea University has been undertaking in conjunction with Tata and emphasise that it should lead any research and development hub within the UK. I have visited the innovation campus at the university and specific projects also in Baglan bay on numerous occasions along with the First Minister and the Minister for Skills and Science. These are world-leading research facilities and should be supported in the years ahead. I agree with any call for Welsh Government to engage in support for these areas.

Finally, we must now ensure that any potential buyers of Tata Steel UK business are offered the support they were offered before the referendum result. We must also ensure that Tata continues to be a responsible employer and seller. Only a fortnight ago, I was assured that there would be when I met with Mr Jha, the chief executive officer of Tata Steel UK. Let’s hope that continues and that will continue to happen.

But, through all this huge uncertainty, the workers at Port Talbot have continued to demonstrate their commitment to steel making and have broken production records, despite having that cloud of uncertainty hovering over them. We must ensure that Welsh Government continues to pressure the UK Government to bring forward the tax breaks promised and the pension consultation, which closed on the twenty-third—strangely enough, the same day the UK voted on Brexit, but that’s when the pension consultation closed—and that it’s looked at very carefully, scrutinised properly, and we come to some conclusion. Because the last thing we want is the pensions going into the pension protection fund because that would be devastating for pensioners and the workers in the works now.

I continue to believe that steel making in Port Talbot has a future. We must all unite to ensure that we protect this foundation industry. I, for one, will continue to work with the trade union colleagues, management, workforce and all people in Port Talbot to secure that future.

The steel industry in Wales is facing a crisis, which threatens jobs and livelihoods. So, I feel it is right and proper that we do deliberate on this issue in the Assembly. My UKIP colleague Caroline Jones has already pointed to the issue of tariffs and the way in which membership of the EU has constrained the UK’s ability to respond to Chinese steel dumping. This point is, as ever, contentious in this Chamber. I personally endorse the point Caroline made, but I won’t go over it again now as it’s been argued several times in this Chamber. Obviously, we will never come—

Will you take an intervention?

Go on. Go ahead, then.

The point is the British Government also opposed those amendments.

Yes, I am coming to that.

Why is, therefore, better in the hands of the British Government if they also voted in that way?

Okay. That’s a good point, and I do address that later in my contribution.

Right. The only addition I would make to the tariffs argument is this, and it goes along with what David Rees just raised: David rightly raised the important point—actually, it’s the same point that Bethan raised as well—that the Conservative Government in Westminster has itself acted and voted against taking retaliatory tariffs against China. So, in this aspect—you’re quite right, they have done that—the point I would make is that leaving the EU gives a UK Government a theoretical right to raise tariffs. It is up to the UK Government itself to decide whether or not to use that right. Unfortunately, at the moment, it has decided not to. It’s far better to have that theoretical right to act than not to have it at all. At least the UK electorate has the right to vote out the UK Government if it disagrees with its industrial policy. It had no such right to vote out the EU bureaucrats who hitherto controlled our industrial policy. Please note, Bethan, I didn’t call them faceless.

Once we have left the EU and regain the measure of control over our industry, what can we then do as a nation to support Welsh steel? Is there, indeed, a viable future for Welsh steel? Well, in fact, if we look at the market situation currently, world demand for steel is likely to rise as advanced economies gradually recover from the slump of 2008 and as more emerging economies raise living standards. As they do so, more people want and can afford cars, domestic appliances and other products with a steel content. In the UK itself, the Government has pledged to buy more British steel as part of UK public sector contracts. Several of the large infrastructure and equipment programmes have a substantial steel content.

However, another problem we have to overcome is the relatively high cost of energy for UK industry, compared with many of its European rivals. Much of this is due to carbon emissions penalties that were introduced, not by the EU, but by a previous UK Government. In 2008, Gordon Brown and his Labour Cabinet took the momentous decision to rename the Department of Energy as the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Under the stewardship of Ed Miliband—that man of wonderful foresight—this department then brought in the Climate Change Act 2008 and with it the stiff emissions taxes that the UK steel industry now faces. Many independently minded political pundits predicted at the time that this would lead to industrial disaster, and we may now be staring that disaster fully in the face. While the UK steel industry stands on the precipice, German and Dutch steelworkers face nowhere near such a menacing future. That is because, in part, but in large part—

Will you take an intervention?

I’m just coming to the end, so, sorry. Their energy costs are relatively much lower than ours. So, we must look to regain control of our steel industry from the tentacles of EU bureaucracy, but we also need to legislate sensibly at home. Thank you.

I’m pleased to be able to contribute to this debate because it is a very important matter, the Tata steelworks. Could I, in the first place, congratulate David Rees and Bethan Jenkins on their contributions? They’ve been excellent this afternoon. I won’t repeat their points, but it’s worth noting that the Tata steelworks is the source of thousands of local jobs with high salaries, with thousands of residents from Port Talbot, Neath and Swansea being employed directly and indirectly in this area.

Now, in February, the European Commission announced tariff payments to try to stop China from dumping cheap steel here in the UK, which is very relevant, as we’ve heard, to Port Talbot, of course. Now, this is the exact mechanism that the United States has used to set anti-dumping tariffs of 266 per cent, and 256 per cent tariffs on cold rolled steel from China—a total of 522 per cent, as we’ve heard already from Caroline Jones. The mechanism that has brought that tariff to the United States, the exact same mechanism, is available in Europe, but the UK Government voted against that, using the veto. That’s why the tariff is only 16 per cent on Chinese steel—because the UK Government voted against it. It’s very misleading to blame Europe for that. If you want to blame anyone, and someone should be blamed for this, the UK Government is to blame. It doesn’t make any sense, therefore, to blame Europe for a problem that the London, the UK Government, has caused.

We’re in a worse situation now, out of Europe. We depend on the decisions of the UK Government, and it has been against these tariffs. That’s why the payments are so low. The argument makes no sense at all, and all because the current UK Government wants to favour its new friends in China at the expense of industry in the UK, and Wales in particular.

We do regret, as Bethan and several others have mentioned, UKIP’s decision to vote against the Commission’s measures in the EU Parliament this year. They decided to vote against measures that would have raised tariffs, much higher tariffs, on Chinese steel. So, blame is also in your hands, and I can’t understand the kind of thinking that can bring this debate before us this afternoon when you are partly to blame for that problem.

Following the referendum, naturally, we accept the result, but we need to act in the interests of trade and business in Wales, and for steelworkers in Port Talbot. We’ve heard the history of the blow—.

Mark Isherwood rose—

Oh, here we go again.

Last November the UK Government Minister asked Brussels to convene a meeting to discuss the tariffs. They agreed to that, but the time delays after that led to the outgoing economy Minister here, Edwina Hart, saying two months ago the rules were ‘rather inflexible’ and had driven her mad. When I raised this with the First Minister and what discussions he had had with the European Commission when we were recalled at the beginning of April, all he said was,

‘we have been in correspondence with the Commission’.

Do you agree with me that we need to know what dialogue has been occurring between the Welsh Government and the European Commission over these months?

No, we don’t. I don’t agree with you there. Just accept the fact that, when it had the chance, the Government at British level opposed—vetoed—the increased tariff situation, otherwise we would be with the USA at 522 per cent, not at 16 per cent. Just accept that as fact. [Interruption.] Last November was last November. This was February when things were evolving and the chance was there and the UK Government vetoed it. Stop blaming Europe. And it’s time to grow up. Blame the UK Government. Now, you’ve left us at the mercy of the UK Government.

Ac i orffen, felly, rwyf yn gobeithio y bydd yna gydweithio rhwng Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol a’r Llywodraeth yma yng Nghymru. Mae yna sialens anferthol o’n blaenau ni. Mae gyda ni filoedd o bobl yn fy rhanbarth i yn wynebu dyfodol ansicr, ansicr iawn. Nid oes angen chwarae rhagor o gemau. Wrth gwrs, mae’r sefyllfa nawr mewn stad o barlysiad—mae’r holl system wleidyddol wedi’i pharlysu, ond mae’n rhaid gweithredu nawr. Diolch yn fawr.

I want to start by noting the amended title of this debate and I welcome the realisation that our steel industry in Wales is much more than simply one site. Whilst I recognise the importance of our foundation industry, not just to our economy but to society as a whole in Wales, it won’t surprise Members that I wish to focus my contribution today on Shotton.

I cannot emphasise enough the success of Shotton steel. Not one but two profitable, viable, innovative businesses with a highly skilled and motivated and loyal workforce committed to the future. A bright future, as I said before and I’ll say again, with the right support. On that I must credit our Government and the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and my colleagues in Flintshire for the support and the collective working that’s gone in to support Shotton going into the future. But like our steel industry across Wales and the UK, we need certain external factors and actions in order not just for it to survive but to thrive.

Firstly, we need a proactive or even an active UK Government that prioritise the future of our steel industry rather than the future Prime Minister. We also need, as my colleague from Aberavon said, a deal to access the single market. Now, the UKIP spokesperson said, ‘It’s all right; we’ll get trade agreements instead’, but trade agreements do not happen overnight. Our steel industry needs action right now, right away, to support its future. It’s more important than ever that the UK Government works with the Welsh Government to secure a sustainable future for our steel industry.

Finally, as an Assembly Member in Flintshire and a political product of that steel industry, now more than ever I’ll give the workforce there my reassurance that, post the EU referendum, I will be fighting for their future to make sure they are successful into the future.

Similarly to Hannah, I will stress the wider picture in Wales regarding steel and the need to support the steel industry moving forward, Dirprwy Lywydd, because, obviously, in my area of Newport we have the Llanwern Tata works, we have the Orb works, which is part of Tata Steel, and also Liberty and a number of smaller operators as well. So, steel is still very important to Newport and the surrounding regional economy. I think it’s clear from the debate already here today that the effects of Brexit in the majority view does make life more difficult, more stressful and more worrying for the steel industry and steelworkers in Wales. That’s why I’m pleased that the Welsh Government amendment recognises that and puts it in the context of, following Brexit, the need for UK Government and Welsh Government to work ever more closely together to address the needs of the steel industry in Wales. So, although the wording of this motion concentrates on Port Talbot, we know very well that Port Talbot is integrated with the other Tata steelworks in Wales, and we do have to look at the holistic picture if we’re going to do the job for steel in Wales that the people of Wales, and steelworkers especially, would expect of us.

As far as Newport is concerned, then, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have had, I think, a very productive working relationship with Welsh Government over a period of time. I recently visited the Llanwern steelworks, along with the First Minister. It was quite clear that there is a good working relationship. There is a very good quality of product there at Llanwern, exemplified by the Zodiac plant, for example, which produces very high-quality steel for the car industry. And, similarly, in a recent visit to the Orb works, they were absolutely crystal clear that they have a good working relationship with Welsh Government. It’s about support for investment, support for new processes, and, indeed, skills development, and they want to see that relationship strengthened and taken forward in the light of the new situation and the new concerns. And particularly with Liberty, having visited there just the other week, they, of course, are part of the bidding process for Tata Steel, but they also have independent operations in Newport that incorporate energy development as well as steel. They are ambitious; they’re a multinational company with real resource. They have the current coal-fired power station at Uskmouth, which they would like to convert to biomass. They are part of the consortium that wishes to take forward tidal lagoons in Swansea, of course, and in Newport and Cardiff, and the energy that those lagoons produce could be an important part of their overall plans. They term it ‘green steel’, Dirprwy Llywydd, and it is about energy production to meet the great energy needs of steel. It’s about recycling scrap and perhaps bringing electric arc furnaces to that Newport site to provide the facility to process that scrap metal.

So, putting all of that together, their requirement—and this was their plea to me, really—was to work with Welsh Government to get the message across to the UK administration that they require important decisions to be taken in a timely fashion, for example, with regard to those energy needs, with regard to the conversion to biomass for that Uskmouth power plant, and with regard to decisions on the tidal lagoons. They are impatient to see progress with these decisions and I very much understand that impatience. I would like to say today, Dirprwy Llywydd, that in the current context, with all the uncertainty that’s around, we could have greater certainty on the way ahead if we had timely and, you know, the right decisions on those energy questions. I hope very much that the UK Government is listening and will act in very short order.

I must confess that when I first read the motion, that, following Brexit, Tata Steel in Port Talbot has a better chance of survival, I thought it was a sick joke. I don’t want to begrudge those who campaigned to leave the EU their moment to enjoy their victory, but I would ask them not to be flippant. I have constituents working in Port Talbot, and hundreds of families reliant on the Trostre works in Llanelli who are deeply worried about the fallout from the decision to leave the EU, and today’s motion is insensitive to their concerns.

The early signs, I must say, are not encouraging. The downgrading of the UK’s credit rating has already led to a halt in business investment in Wales. Just yesterday, I was told that a major pension fund had pulled out of a development in south Wales because they cannot put money into an economy that does not have a AAA rating. Grand claims about the benefits that will flow to us from being outside the EU already appear hollow, and the backtracking on the promise of extra money for the NHS is not encouraging.

Of course, the truth is we don’t know what the trade and tariff arrangements will be. It is possible they might be better. I doubt it, but let’s be generous and optimistic; they might be. But the fact is that it’s uncertain and is likely to be uncertain for several years to come. That uncertainty poses a significant risk to the future of the steelworks in the short term.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

I’m surprised by his comment about pension funds. France and the US have been downgraded from AAA—there are very few AAA economies out there. Surely, the one thing we do know is that exports from these plants are now 10 per cent cheaper than they were two weeks ago. We heard from Bethan that there are two and a half times more exports than imports. Surely, that’s already improved competitiveness, and that’s why our motion is a very serious motion—it should be addressed as such.

I’m simply reflecting the views of business, and he’s taking a very selective view of the economic picture to justify the hell that has been unleashed on the markets. An economic policy based simply on the cheap exchange rate is a very short-sighted one, I would argue.

A few weeks ago, as David Rees, the Member for Aberavon, has already said, he and I met with the chief executive of Tata Steel in the UK, Mr Bimlendra Jha, here in the Assembly. It was clear from his conversation that if he was able to put a deal together to persuade the board of Tata in India to retain ownership of the UK plants, he would do his best, but he was worried about the liabilities of the pension fund and he was worried about the UK pulling out of the EU. Indeed, it is rumoured that a rescue deal was on the cards, but was pulled the morning after the vote. It is now harder to raise investment, so we cannot know whether the other bidders can proceed.

The future of all the works in Wales and the workers’ pensions is in doubt. So much for a better chance of survival being outside the EU. The Welsh Government, we know, has put money on the table, and Mr Jha made clear to us that Tata warmly welcomed that, in contrast to the lack of forthcoming information from the UK Government, who’ve yet to make good on their promises of help. But, the Brexiteers now need to deliver, and UKIP would do well to stop treating people’s fears as a political plaything.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Members for their contributions today? I do know that everyone will be concerned about the impact that the referendum has had on the UK’s steel industry, and there is no doubt that the referendum result has created considerable uncertainty, but also a deep sense of anxiety. I endorse the contribution made by Lee Waters, who I think captured the degree of anxiety that steelworkers and their families now face.

I’m not at all convinced by UKIP’s strategy that killing the national currency is the best way to grow an economy. I don’t recall the Member who currently sits here today, but was in another place for many years, celebrating the devaluation of the pound back in the 1990s.

Will you give way?

Yes, of course I will.

On the contrary, I think it was the most extraordinary moment, which I’ve always called ‘White Wednesday’ rather than ‘Black Wednesday’. However, unlike then, on the latest data, we have a current account deficit of 7 per cent of gross domestic product. His boss has gone on about how the high pound has handicapped steel production. Surely, in order to become more competitive, we need a lower currency.

The Member has repeatedly ignored the fact that raw materials imported from abroad are now even more expensive and will stifle growth in this sector. There is no doubt about it; there is no net benefit. There is also, as Members have already pointed out—Bethan Jenkins, Dai Lloyd and others—a tragic Shakespearian irony in what UKIP Members have said today and what they’ve actually done in previous times, where they have today claimed that protective tariffs will be great for the steel industry, but in the past, when they had an opportunity to introduce tariffs that would favour our steel industry, they did precisely the opposite. A cynic might suspect that UKIP in the past have deliberately sabotaged the steel industry in order to make political gain from the uncertainty that it led to.

I think members of the public would rightly suspect any politician who stands up now and says, definitively, ‘This is great’ or ‘This is dire.’ Let’s leave it to the experts. Just in the final few days, UK Steel have published their manifesto, which opens with a pretty clear statement. I quote:

‘The result of the EU Referendum was a blow to the steel industry.’

It’s my belief that Brexit is still not the best course for Britain’s steel industry to be taken on, but I can assure you of this: the people have spoken and, as a Welsh Government, we will do all we can to deliver a secure future. We are working relentlessly to support the sales process and the communities involved, and we will continue to put every resource we have as a Government to that purpose. The First Minister has consistently and directly pressed this message with Tata’s senior leaders in Europe and in Mumbai, as well as at the highest levels of the Westminster Government. We will continue to press this message. Indeed, the deputy permanent secretary, my most senior official, is flying out to the board meeting on Friday to convey in the strongest possible terms our position.

Nevertheless, both the referendum result and the UK Government changes do pose important questions about the future. It is essential that leadership uncertainty at a UK Government level does not impact on their stated commitment to do all they can to secure the future of our steel industry. I do hope that attention at Whitehall on the future of our steel plants here in Wales has not slipped as a result of recent events, will not waver and will not cease. One of our key priorities is keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot operating, but, of equal importance is ensuring that Port Talbot continues to be the primary supplier of steel to other Welsh sites, as well as to Hartlepool and to Corby.

Hannah Blythyn raised the important issue of securing all of our steel sites, and I’d like to commend her for the work she has done in representing workers at the Shotton site. Hannah Blythyn also, rightly, pointed to the fact that considerable uncertainty would be caused during the course of negotiating a new framework agreement, which could take a decade or more—uncertainty and, of course, as I’ve said already, anxiety for those employed in the steel industry.

We are waiting for updates from Tata on how it is progressing with the sale process, and we remain ready to support any bidders that will see jobs and sustainable steel production remain in Wales. Our offer of support remains on the table, but we can only consider the detail of any particular proposal when we get to the next stage and have greater clarity about a bidder’s plans. [Interruption.] I’d like to, but I’m sorry.

Whilst Tata is continuing to give the matter due consideration, it is more vital than ever before, as Russell George said and as John Griffiths said, that the UK Government continues to work with us, the steel industry, steel trade unions and other partners to instil confidence that we are all working together to create the right business environment that will support a sustainable steel industry in the United Kingdom. Last month, I attended the UK Government’s steel council. The council has four industry-led working groups that are considering not only how we respond to the current steel crisis, but also how to enable the long-term sustainability of steel making in the future. Of course, we also have our own steel taskforce. I will be chairing future meetings of the taskforce to ensure we keep up the momentum and maintain the positive partnership that is being developed to support workers. And, I would be pleased to update Member in the coming weeks on the progress that has been made.

Work is also advancing well to strengthen our procurement policy, which will clarify the importance of opening up opportunities for UK steel suppliers. There has been progress, too, on the newly established Port Talbot waterfront enterprise zone, which held its first meeting last month. The board will develop its strategy by building on the world-class advanced manufacturing skills and strong manufacturing heritage. It will focus on research and development, innovation-driven entrepreneurship, including opportunities related to the university and Swansea bay city region, as outlined by my friend and colleague, Dai Rees.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we will continue to work with the UK Government, Tata Steel and representatives of the steel industry in Wales and the UK to reiterate that Wales, as a country, is committed to doing all we are able to to ensure a sustainable steel industry. We expect all those we are engaging with to do their utmost to ensure this is achieved. Despite the referendum result, Wales is—and I am determined to keep it—open for business, and I am equally determined to build a bright future for our steel industry, too.

Thank you very much. I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate. David Rowlands.

Diolch yn fawr. Well, I have to say that much has been said in this Chamber about the necessity to keep confidence in both the Welsh and the British economy. Well, over the last two weeks since Brexit, anybody who had been listening to the comments in this Chamber would have no confidence whatsoever in our ability as a nation to run a good, confident, expanding economy.

It goes without saying that we all regret the instability with regard to the Tata Steel plant in Port Talbot and the consequences that would arise were it to close, not only for employees and their families, but for the wider economy of Port Talbot as a whole. But I feel a point has to be made here that the Labour Party are coming very late to the table in the fight to save jobs in the steel industry, both here in Wales and in the UK as a whole. Under the Labour Government and, of course, whilst we were in the UK—the EU—the UK lost around—[Interruption.] The UK lost around 33,000 jobs in the steel industry, falling from 68,000 when Labour came to office in 1997 to around 35,000 when they left in 2010, including falling from 17,000 to 7,000 in Wales in the same period. [Interruption.] No, I’m sorry. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh.’] I put it to you that, far from helping the British steel industry, our presence in the European political project has been a massive disadvantage to the industry.

Under EU procurement rules, for instance, 100 of the British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles will be built in Spain using Swedish steel. This was at the request of Brussels, who used EU grants in order to support Spanish jobs. [Interruption.] I could enumerate—[Interruption.] I could enumerate many such instances. Since joining the European Union we have all but lost vast areas of our manufacturing industries—shipbuilding, train and rolling stock construction, the chemical industry in terminal decline, textiles in crisis, the fishing industry and farming all but decimated.

The First Minister has cited several times, if I recall, how clean our rivers and beaches are as a result of EU environmental legislation. Well, I’m sorry to inform the First Minister that it’s got nothing to do with EU regulations; it’s because we no longer have the industries to pollute them. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh’.] We have heard ad infinitum from Members of this Assembly of the catastrophe that will befall the Welsh economy if we do not receive grant money.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Are your proposals then—? Are you therefore prepared to scrap all industry in Wales so you can have a clean environment, because that’s what you’ve just said?

Well, that’s what’s happening. [Interruption.] That’s what’s happening. [Interruption.] It’s a consequence of not having the industry. The answer lies in the fact that, after 17 years of Labour rule in this institution, and for many years with a Labour Government in Westminster, we qualified for those grants—. I’m sorry, I’ll just repeat this, because I was interrupted.

We have heard ad infinitum from Members of this Assembly of the catastrophe that will befall the Welsh economy if we do not receive EU grant money or, of course, the equivalent money from the UK Government following Brexit. If this is true we must ask the question ‘why?’ The answer lies in the fact that, after 17 years of Labour rule in this institution, and for many years with a Labour Government in Westminster, we qualified for those grants because we are still one of the poorest regions of Europe. Many of the Members of this Assembly act as if this European money is the lifeblood of this nation. They ignore the fact that all the moneys we receive from Europe are dwarfed by the sums we get from the Barnett formula, even with its evident deficiencies. [Interruption.] We in UKIP are confident that if the parties of the house act in concert with the other parties, as we have all pledged to do, we will get funding from the UK Government that will match—no, exceed—that which we receive from Europe.

We in UKIP, unlike most of the opposition in the Assembly, believe we can trust our own Welsh and British politicians in Westminster rather than a collection of unaccountable, undemocratic foreign commissioners in Brussels, and it is through our own auspices that Tata Steel will have the prospect of surviving for many years to come. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. There has been an objection, therefore we—[Interruption.] Thank you. I know everybody’s getting excited about an event that may happen tonight but, if we don’t calm down, we’ll still be here voting before the start of that event, so can we do the voting in quiet, please? I will defer the voting now until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

We’ve agreed that voting time will take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Does anybody wish the bell to be rung? No.