The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt, amendment 2 in the name of Caroline Jones, and amendment 3 in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

The next item on our agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on Tata Steel, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion. Adam Price.

Motion NDM6208 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Calls on the First Minister—in the absence of any intervention by the UK Government—to meet with the interim Chair of Tata Steel to improve the terms of the deal offered by the company’s UK division for steelworkers in Wales; and that such an amended proposal should consist of binding, written commitments on employment, investment and the protection of accrued pension rights.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government, Unions and interested parties to prepare an alternative strategy in the event of the current proposal being rejected by the Welsh steel workforce.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I rise to speak for steel once again in this Chamber—for steelworkers, for steel pensioners, for steel communities, for a sector that is the very foundational core of our economy. There are those who perhaps would prefer it if I were silent, but I’ve been told to shut up by Labour councillors ever since I was a boy in the miners welfare hall in Ammanford. And I didn’t take their advice then and I’m not going to start at this point either.

And really, actually, it’s partly because of that boyhood experience then—going through the anguish as a family facing the tribulation of redundancy and unemployment and everything that that represented and, indeed, a stolen pension scheme, by the way—it’s for that reason that I think we cannot remain silent. I remember meeting for the first time John Benson and his colleagues from Allied Steel and Wire in the building next door, 15 years ago—people who had lost their job and their pension, and 15 years later, they’re still fighting—still fighting—for justice that was denied them. When I think about people like John, what he looks for, I think, and what working people look for in political leaders, is leadership, actually being a voice for the voiceless, saying the things that are unsaid, asking the unanswered questions, even when it’s uncomfortable, and also being there to articulate what they’re unable to speak openly themselves.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

I would particularly like to thank those steelworkers, past and present, who have reached out to us to thank us for saying, on the record, what many of them privately feel. The question I think that is at the forefront of our minds at the moment in relation to Tata’s proposals is twofold: one, does it provide a sustainable, viable future for the steel industry in Wales going forward? And secondly, is it fair to all stakeholders, including, of course, steelworkers and steel pensioners? And we, certainly on these benches, have very real concerns, which I think are shared by many in the workforce, and it’s that that I will seek to address in my comments here this afternoon. I’ll cover the three main areas covered in the proposal—employment, investment and pension—and then say something about the deal overall and, crucially, what can be done. That’s the focus, really, surely, for us in the place: what can be done to improve this situation.

Now, as far as employment is concerned, the proposal, as has been reported in the public domain—I’m reliant on that information, and the information that I’ve garnered in speaking to steelworkers myself—states that there is the commitment to seek to avoid redundancies over a five-year period. The problem, of course, is immediately apparent: ‘seek to avoid’ actually is no clear concrete commitment at all. I’ve written a few manifestos in my time—I know this kind of language. It’s not a bankable promise, unfortunately, as it currently stands.

Now, the employment pact mechanism actually emerges from continental Europe—it’s been in place in Tata Steel in the Netherlands; in fact, it goes back to the days of Corus in 1999. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the new employment pact that has just recently been agreed for Tata Steel Netherlands for the next five-year period. But there are some detailed commitments there that have been reported, for example a 21-month retraining and redeployment right for all workers effected by restructuring. So, again, we see, certainly, a greater level of commitment in terms of the detail in that employment pact. The reason why the employment guarantee is crucial is because we know that there is an intention to move forward with a merger with ThyssenKrupp. Indeed, the chief executive officer of ThyssenKrupp, Heinrich Hiesinger, has said recently that those discussions are ongoing. And he is on the record as saying there’s only one reason, of course, for that merger, and that’s to take out capacity. What does capacity mean? That means jobs. Who is going to be on the front line of those cuts? Well, I’ll give you a clue: I don’t think it’s going to be ThyssenKrupp. I don’t think it’s going to be Tata Steel Netherlands. So, you can fill in the blanks. And, unfortunately, as currently constituted, that employment guarantee does not give us, and certainly doesn’t give the steelworkers, I think, the kind of confidence that they deserve.

Similarly on the investment plan: £1 billion over a 10-year period—by the way, that actually really only allows us to maintain the current level of capital investment. That’s not a transformational level of investment. That just allows us to keep the steelworks going at the current rate of efficiency. But, again, it’s contingent, we’re told, upon gross profits, an EBITDA, of £200 million a year from Tata Steel UK—I’ll give way to the honourable Member.

I thank the Member for giving way. Just for clarification purposes, the EBITDA actually is not gross profits—it’s operational costs profits, in the sense that it’s the net profits plus the interest, plus the taxation, plus the depreciation, plus amortisation. So, it’s not actually gross profit, is it?

Well, it’s operating profit. You could regard it as—. I mean, it doesn’t actually have a formal definition in that sense. But the point is, if that really is a hard contingency—that this investment plan is completely reliant upon that level of continual operating profit, in a context in which we know—. This is one of the most cyclical industries of all—. Let’s remember we’ve gone from a position where we were told at one point that Port Talbot was losing £1 million a day to a position now where it’s making a profit. And yet we have an investment plan that is contingent upon an annualised level of net earnings—call it what you will—it’s contingent upon a very, very exacting level of performance. I’m sure the honourable Member wouldn’t disagree with that. The investment plan should be based on a concrete commitment, because that’s the only long-term basis, actually, on which we can create the kind of framework of trust that is necessary on both sides to achieve the sustainable, successful future that we want to see. Are we saying, for example, that if they don’t meet that target, the investment doesn’t go in? You’re in a vicious circle then, aren’t you? Because if the investment goes in, you’re not going to make those targets in the second year as well.

Let’s turn finally to the proposal on the pension. This I find most curious of all. I struggle to understand what really is driving this, because the formal consultation is about moving the remaining members of the British Steel pension scheme among the employees—it’s closed to new entrants already, of course—over to a defined contribution scheme. But it isn’t about lowering the cost of pension contributions to the current workforce, is it? Because it merely cuts Tata Steel’s contribution from 11.5 per cent of salary to 10 per cent, so it has a negligible effect on their costs. It isn’t even about closing the current pension deficit, because we’re told it’s fallen; in the last actuarial valuation, it’s down to £50 million. So, it’s not about that.

So, what is it really about? Well, I think we’re forced to come to the conclusion what it’s really about is removing the charge that the British Steel pension scheme currently has over the IJmuiden plant, which Tata Steel, globally, have always seen as the jewel in the crown. That is a major impediment to their desire, of course, to move forward with the ThyssenKrupp merger that I have already referred to. That’s what, it seems to me, it is all about, to move forward with that plan, which is not necessarily, I would humbly suggest, in the interests of the Welsh and British steel industry. That charge—there’s no actuarial valuation that I can find in the British Steel pension fund documentation of that security that they have over the IJmuiden plant, but we’ve got a clue, I think, from the Government actuarial department analysis that said that if Tata Steel was to delink itself from the pension scheme so that it actually became, effectively, self-sufficient, you’d have to put about £3 billion or £4 billion in, not the couple of hundred million that has been reported in the press that Tata are offering in order to remove the connection with the pension fund.

These are very real concerns. They can be addressed. This deal can be strengthened. The employment guarantee can be made a firm guarantee. The investment plan can be made a concrete commitment, and we can have a clear commitment that Tata, the conglomerate, a profitable conglomerate—it makes 12.5 per cent return on capital overall and it makes billions of pounds of profit—actually will not walk away from its liabilities to the pension fund. These are reasonable demands that I hope Tata, as it is currently consulting, will listen to so that we can have the kind of trust and the kind of confidence that is the sure platform that we all need to see for a viable, sustainable and fair future for the steel industry.

Thank you very much. I have selected the three 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. So, I’ll call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the vital strategic importance of the steel industry to Wales and its economy.

2. Welcomes the significant support made available by the Welsh Government to keep steel production and steel jobs at all the TATA sites in Wales.

3. Notes the recent negotiations between trade unions and TATA on pensions and recognises that any changes to the pensions scheme are a decision for the workers through a democratic ballot and should be free of political interference.

4. Urges TATA to explain clearly and in full detail to workers impacted the implications of the agreement that has been reached.

5. Notes that the First Minister has led discussions with senior TATA management over recent months to ensure workers’ rights are protected and will continue those discussions in the coming weeks.

6. Recognises that the Welsh Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect workers, their jobs and ensure a sustainable steel industry in Wales.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Formally. Thank you. I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 2 tabled in her own name. Caroline.

Amendment 2 appeared on the agenda as follows.

Amendment 2—Caroline Jones

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Agrees with workers and unions from Tata’s Port Talbot steel plant that politicians should not be trying to influence workers over the proposed deal to keep the plant open.

2. Believes it is vital that workers are given the time and the necessary information to arrive at an informed choice about the proposals.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. It is UKIP’s belief that we should not be debating this motion before us today. I will simply outline our position. On 16 February, workers at Port Talbot will make one of the most important decisions about the future of steel production in Wales. The unions have worked hard and negotiated the best possible outcome for employees. It is a decision that employees alone have to make, and we should not be trying to influence that process. Half a year ago, Tata employees were facing the prospect of losing their jobs. They are now being asked to make changes to their pension arrangements in exchange for significant reinvestment in the steelworks at Port Talbot—

Will you take an intervention?

Not at the moment, Suzy, thanks. We all want to see Port Talbot steelworks survive and thrive, but our job as politicians is not to dictate to workers what the best deal is for them. It doesn’t matter if anyone thinks it’s a good deal or a bad deal in our situation; the only opinions that count in this matter are those of the workforce and their families. They are negotiating on all of the information; they’re talking to their work mates; they’re talking for advice from the unions, and it’s not up to us to influence their decisions. Our job, as politicians, is to step back, allow the workers to make an informed choice on the information given and what is best for them and their families, and then to be ready to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the ballot, we do all that we can to secure the long-term future of steel production in Wales.

I urge Plaid Cymru to stop trying to influence the opinions of the workforce and, instead, focus on trying to persuade the world to buy the best steel in the world, which is Welsh steel. They could start with their friends in Scotland, who decided to buy cheap Chinese steel for the Forth road bridge rather than top-quality Welsh steel.

Would the Member give way?

No. But then we all know that being a nationalist doesn’t practice always what they preach. They care about political expedience. I urge Members—

Seeing as you’re attacking me, would you give way?

No, thank you. I urge Members to reject Plaid Cymru’s motion today and support one of the amendments.

UKIP, Welsh Labour and the Welsh Conservatives are united in the belief that we should not be interfering with a democratic consultation between Tata and its workforce. It is in this spirit—[Interruption.] It is in this spirit that I will not be—[Interruption.]

Yes, okay. Can we just listen?

It is in this spirit that I will not be proceeding with amendment 2, tabled in my name. Instead, UKIP will be supporting the amendment put forward by the Welsh Government, and I urge Members to do likewise.

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 3—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the First Minister’s comments on the deal offered to Tata Steel workers and its impact on the long-term future of the steel industry in Wales.

2. Recognises the UK Government’s role in supporting the steel industry through the introduction of new public procurement rules and increased support with energy costs, saving the industry £400 million by the end of the current UK Parliament.

3. Acknowledges that this is the only proposal currently available to the Tata Steel workforce and calls on the Welsh Government to be prepared to work with the UK Government, Unions and interested parties to develop an alternative strategy in the event of the current proposal being rejected.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to move amendment 3 in the name of Paul Davies, in what is a very challenging time, to say the least at the moment, and a sensitive time as well. It was only this time last year that, obviously, this Chamber was reflecting on the news of the first tranche of announcements around redundancies at the Port Talbot site—and the other sites, obviously. Let’s not forget, it’s not just Port Talbot. There’s Trostre, there’s Llanwern, there’s Shotton in the north, many ancillary industries as well that depend on those sites to work, and many off-site sub-contractors who depend on those sites remaining open. It is with that in mind that, obviously, we have put forward the amendment today to today’s motion. I do think it is not right at all to say that the UK Government hasn’t been proactively working, along with the Welsh Government, along with the steel sector, to try and carve out a future for the steel industry here, not just in Wales but across the UK. The improvements made in public procurement, for example, the improvements over energy pricing, which will see £400 million returned to high energy users over the lifetime of this Parliament—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I thank you for taking the intervention. Are you therefore disappointed, as I am, that the UK Government dawdled over the application to the EU for state aid in relation to the extension of the intensive energy industries? But are you also disappointed that the UK Government has actually rejected an application to come down to us to talk to Members in the cross-party group on steel on the issues and whether the UK Government is actually dealing with them? Because, from what I’m seeing, they’re doing nothing.

Well, I reject that rather bleak assessment. I appreciate why you’re making that assessment, David—

It’s true.

[Continues.]—because, obviously, you represent Aberavon and you’re a Labour Member in this Assembly. But it is worth reflecting that the Secretary of State for Wales is the son of a former steelworker with, I think, some 30 years’ service at the Port Talbot site, and is very proud. Very proud. [Interruption.] Well, if the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs would like to intervene as well, I’ll gladly sit down and listen to her as well, but I doubt whether I’d learn much. But the issue being is that we do have a Secretary of State for Wales who ultimately is fighting on behalf of the steel community that he himself hails from. The Prime Minister—. Both Prime Ministers have worked—

Lee Waters rose—

I’ll take the intervention in a minute, Lee, but let me make a little progress, if I may. They are both working on this tirelessly with the Government to make sure that there is a future, as has been committed to by the UK Government, for the British steel industry, which is identified as integral to the manufacturing strategy and the industrial strategy that Theresa May has put at the heart of UK Government policy. I’ll take the intervention.

Thank you very much for giving way. I hear what the Member says about the pride that Alun Cairns has in his steel-making heritage, but what has he delivered? When David Rees and John Griffiths and I met the chief exec of Tata Steel UK before Christmas, he was very clear: the Welsh Government had delivered, and had delivered practical help, and the UK Government so far have delivered nothing. His words, not mine.

Well, you keep talking about what the UK Government have delivered. I have highlighted the £400 million back to high energy users. I have talked about help and assistance from going to Europe and looking for tariffs to be placed on steel. But it’s not just as simple as placing tariffs on steel. You have to look at the whole strategy to make sure that another sector, such as airlines, for example, doesn’t get penalised as well. That has been part of a joined-up approach to making sure that the protection is put in place to stop the dumping of steel. There have been high-energy rebates put back into the steel sector, but I will make this point: I had this written question back from the First Minister only this week. I asked a relatively simple question after First Minister’s questions last week, because he was making the point that the Prime Minister does not seem to be doing anything. I made the point:

Will the First Minister confirm how many meetings have been requested with Theresa May since her appointment as Prime Minister relating specifically to developments with the Tata Steel crisis in Wales?’

The answer comes back:

The future of steel making by Tata in Wales has been secured largely through partnership between the Welsh Government and the management and staff at Tata Steel. We have also, of course, worked with the UK Government.’

I deduce from that: zero. I asked how many meetings he had requested. He hasn’t requested a single meeting—not a single meeting. That’s the First Minister of Wales. We had a joined-up, cross-party approach to actually supporting the steel sector here in Wales, and that worked very successfully, I would suggest, at the end of the last Assembly and at the beginning of this Assembly. We are at a very, very delicate time in the negotiations, and it is important that the workforce, as Caroline Jones highlighted, are allowed the space to debate, deliberate and actually digest the consequences of the deal that is on the table. I do not accept that it is not for us to debate and discuss this. I do believe that it is important for politicians because, ultimately, if the deal does not go through, politicians will be at the forefront of trying to work through an alternative or putting solutions in place. But it is wrong for politicians to actually scaremonger or put sensational stories out there. I am not saying I have seen that, I have to say; I haven’t seen that. But it can easily descend into that.

The point that we need to reflect on here is that the steel-making industry has been a volatile industry for decades. It was only this time last year that it was correct to point out that the plant at Port Talbot was losing £1 million a day. Ultimately, the currency changes have actually made it a far more competitive environment to sell that steel on the world market. But unless we secure that investment from Tata Steel, which is a global conglomerate—and it is only global conglomerates that can put that type of money into operations at Port Talbot, Shotton, Trostre and Llanwern—we will have a very bleak future.

So, I do hope the workforce are given the time and space to develop and debate the proposals before them and vote accordingly. I do hope the consensus that did exist both at this end of the M4 and at the other end of the M4 continues to develop the strategy to secure steel making here in the United Kingdom and that, above all, politicians do rise to the challenge as we go forward. Whatever the outcome of that deal, steel will remain a very volatile market as we go forward in the next decade.

Thank you very much. Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you. I have considered the arguments that some politicians have made, and others in the political sphere, that we should keep our noses out of this deal currently being offered by Tata to its workforce. I can see what they say, but then I was considering when it has ever been the case that politicians have not taken a view on such issues. Adam Price referred to miners’ pensions. ASW workers—Adam again mentioned John Benson, who was here in the Assembly today, lobbying people as they came in. Visteon, Tata. Politicians in Port Talbot were on the platform, if I recall, when we first had this debate over pensions, taking a view on the way forward. I think there is a moral obligation on us as politicians to lead in this regard, and to show that we have an opinion and a way forward. I am not saying that we should dictate to workers how they should vote, but I am saying that we need to be part of the discussion on how that process takes place. And I do believe—and I do firmly believe—that the trade unions have not taken on that responsibility. I am speaking to workers almost on a daily basis, who are saying, ‘I want them to tell me. I want them to take a view, so that I can have all the information to hand in a cohesive and constructive way. We go to the Tata Steel roadshows—that is good, the workforce needs to have that information from Tata Steel. But we need to therefore have guidance from the trade unions as to how we should vote’.

I think it’s not taking the responsibility that they should be taking, and they’re not representing their workers as they should be doing so. David Rees.

I thank the Member for allowing me an intervention. Do you accept the fact that—you talk about the roadshows—there are trade union representatives also at those roadshows, presenting information to the attendees as well? So, the trade unions are actually presenting information to members if they attend the roadshows as well.

Yes, they are, but they’re not taking a view on this deal, and I think they should be taking a view. If they think that it’s the right deal to take, then they should be saying that, and I haven’t heard them going that far.

Generally, I’ve found the steelworkers I’ve spoken to divided into two camps. It isn’t ageist to say that the older staff are more entrenched, more likely to vote ‘no’ to any proposal that closes the BSPS—and who can blame them? Since the 1980s, successive Governments have sought to redefine pensions as benefits. This painfully remains the case with former workers from ASW. Pensions are wages deferred—that is a fact. The workforce should have the right, then, to have that pension when they do retire.

The company, I think, can count its lucky stars that it’s been given such an easy ride in the media. Those much-advertised losses, it transpires, were against plan—what the company hoped to earn—not real losses. We’ve also seen, as Adam mentioned earlier, the pension scheme deficit go up and down, like a pleasure cruiser on hurricane-lashed high seas. It’s been £2.5 billion, £2 billion, £700 million, £480 million, and, most recently, £50 million. And now I’m reading it’s heading back to £2 billion. The reasons given are many and varied, but here’s what I don’t understand: if Tata is so exercised about the BSPS, then why is it running into the arms of ThyssenKrupp, whose €9.7 billion pension fund was two thirds wholly underfunded six months ago? Maybe it will make the same kind of miraculous recovery we saw with the BSPS.

The younger steelworkers, I know, are more concerned with how the commitments, not guarantees, will actually work out—whether they will have a working life in steel. To that end, there are all kinds of questions about the promised £1 billion investment. Again, this comes with strings attached. [Interruption.] I don’t have time, sorry, David.

Reading between what Tata and the multi-union have said, not only will the current UK operation fund this investment, but it is dependent upon UK sites making twice that amount each year. The figure of £200 million a year is a target in the transformation plan that began with over 1,000 job losses at the start of this year. Although this proposal was examined and endorsed by consultants for the union, it remains a big ask in a global market where overcapacity and cheap imports remain abiding problems, regardless of energy cost reductions.

I’ve mentioned the Tata roadshows, and I’ve mentioned the fact that many people still cannot make their minds up in relation to how they should go on this particular deal. I’ll finish with a quote that I’ve had from one of those steelworkers. He says, ‘I’ve given the works over 30 years of my working life. In that time, I’ve seen a lot of change, and a lot of good boys come and go. I remember British Steel, Corus, and now Tata. In that time, we’ve got better and better at making steel, smashing production records, one after the other, and the plant we’ve got gets older and older. I’m a steel man; I make steel. I like to think I’m good at it. I’d want my union to be good at looking out for me. I pay them for that; instead, silence. I’m going home and my wife is asking me, “Well, what does all this mean?”, and I don’t know. I’m clever enough to know that, when you smash production records and your employer responds by making job cuts and threatening closure, any deal he puts on the table needs a close look. All I want to know is: who will help us? We’re used to politicians ignoring us; now it seems our own trade unions are doing the same. We need their help.’

Let us be clear what we’re facing here: we are facing economic blackmail by a multinational company playing off Governments and workers to try and minimise its costs and maximise its profits. I well remember the closure of Ebbw Vale, and the then chair of Corus, Brian Moffat, telling the House of Commons Welsh Select Committee that his company was in the business of making money, not making steel. The workers across Wales have been through a series of crises, and they have understandable anger. I’ve had numerous conversations on social media with workers from my constituency who work both in the Trostre works and in the Port Talbot steelworks. They tell story after story of having spent decades working seven shifts in a row, working shifts through weekends and bank holidays, nights, long days in stressful, physical environments—all on the promise that they could retire at 55 on a decent pension. After a horrendous year when they’ve faced the abyss, they now have to give up the pension rights that they’ve worked hard to secure. They’ve lost faith in their company. One of them put it very starkly to me: ‘We’re being asked to jump into a black hole, while they whisper, “We will catch you”.’

The anger is real and understandable and there’s a very real risk that the vote will be lost. Tata need to listen to this. If they genuinely want this deal to go through, they need to consider what further concessions they can offer, especially to those steelworkers who are within 10 years of retirement, who pose the biggest threat, I believe, to the vote. But I do worry about political game-playing. It would be a calamity to the Welsh economy if Tata put its Welsh operations into receivership, and that is very clearly what they are threatening to do. Were that to happen, not only would the works go into administration, but the pensions would go into the pension protection fund, and the rights would go. They would lose not just the 10 per cent, but, as John Benson was successfully arguing today from the Allied Steel and Wire precedent, the amount of pension they’d end up getting is nearer 50 per cent.

Compare this to where we were 10 months ago. We now do at least have some commitment. There is doubt about how sincere that commitment is. [Interruption.] Indeed.

Does he accept that there is a distinction here? Because, of course, Tata has a parent company and, uniquely in English and Welsh law, there is unlimited liability under the Pensions Act 2014. The pension regulator can actually go after Tata’s assets, whether they’re in Europe, India, or wherever across the world.

You’re not going to find me defending Tata in this position, and I have no idea what arrangements Tata have put in place to deal with the eventuality of losing this vote. But they’re not daft and they are very clear in their view that, if they lose this vote, they will go. And then what do we do? This is why I think it is irresponsible to be urging the voters, to be playing on this understandable anger, urging them to vote ‘no’, because then where are we? The point that Adam Price made about the motivations behind this and the liabilities on the pension fund and the competition from the Dutch plant was a very persuasive argument, but the hard-headed fact remains that this is the deal we’ve got on the table—this is the best deal the trade unions could negotiate and it’s the only deal that Tata were willing to agree to, despite the pressure and the incentives offered by the Welsh Government. If it wasn’t for the £4 million investment on the table from the Welsh Government, there wouldn’t be a deal in the first place. And that £4 million comes with strings. We’ve done all that we can to pull it back from the brink and now the workforce must choose. But I do urge caution for those in this Chamber who are calling on the workers to reject it, because they will bear a heavy responsibility if the plants go under.

Our only real power—this is where we do have a choice—is to avoid being in this position again. We need to lessen our dependence on large, foreign-owned multinationals. We need to embrace innovation and confront the fourth industrial revolution. It’s a sobering fact that the 7,000 jobs at stake in Tata pale into insignificance compared to the 700,000 jobs in Wales that are under threat from automation. That’s what we should be confronting here: looking ahead to get out of this short-term crisis and start planning for a future where we embrace the foundational economy and innovation. I hope that Tata workers vote to accept the package, not because I think it’s a watertight deal—I don’t—but because, until we craft a radical new economic strategy that’ll benefit workers across Wales, it’s the only deal we’ve got.

It’s a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I do think that we should be having a debate, to address one of the points mentioned earlier. Everything is essentially political, whether we like it or not. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree that we want to see a steel industry succeeding here in Wales and prospering for many decades to come. We’ve seen the headlines, and I won’t rehearse the wonderful arguments put forward by Adam Price and Bethan Jenkins already. Of course, a number of possible solutions have also been aired over the past few months, and the role of the Government here in Wales has been discussed and what exactly we could do about the problem of Tata in Port Talbot. We’ve had the debates about business rates and the fundamental need to invest in skills, and, of course, the whole issue of public procurement.

We must have a more broad-ranging strategy, and my intention, in the few minutes I have, is to look more broadly as to how we can provide a programme that can take us into the future. Because it’s very difficult for the Welsh Government, with all due respect, to have an influence on global markets, but I do think that the Welsh Government can take action to create a healthier market for steel here in Wales by having an industrial strategy with core elements focused on skills, and the need to develop skills, and that gets to grips with the whole issue of public procurement and how we go about public procurement, and, of course, also addresses the whole issue of infrastructure and the need to develop infrastructure, as a means of getting us out of the economic difficulties that we’re currently facing.

We’ve had a number of debates already on a national infrastructure commission for Wales, the so-called NICW. And, of course, negotiations are ongoing and we hope to persuade the Government, but it’s still true that our NICW in Plaid Cymru isn’t the same as your NICW within Government. But there are signs that things may change, and of course things need to change. There is £40 billion-worth of infrastructure that is waiting to be built. We must release that potential using, of course, resources such as locally procured steel in order to help us achieve that infrastructure work.

We had some exciting news about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon last week. Of course, there are some financial issues that are yet to be agreed at the other end of the M4, but there is huge excitement surrounding that project, and, of course, the infrastructure, the skills and the raw materials must come from somewhere, and that’s why we need to develop a comprehensive industrial strategy here in Wales, with steel as a core part of it. So, this debate this afternoon is extremely important. It’s very important that we are having this debate. I don’t think that there are any circumstances where we shouldn’t be having a debate when we have people in our constituencies who are put at risk directly by what is happening in terms of the future of their jobs and their pensions. Of course, we should be staging these debates, and we shouldn’t restrict our ability to express our views and our concerns on the basis of the experiences of those living within our constituencies. But also the Welsh Government needs to look more broadly and to work proactively to create an industrial strategy for Wales with steel at its heart. Thank you.

Can I start my contribution by declaring that I’m a proud member of Unite, one of the unions that’s obviously represented in the steelworks, along with Community and GMB? I hope by now that Members in this Chamber will be aware of my passion for the steel industry, my belief in a strong, vibrant future, my respect for the steelworkers, and my total commitment to them, their families and my communities.

The crisis in steel was abundantly clear over 18 months ago when SSI announced the closure of Redcar, and the UK Government actually started to wake up a little bit to the challenges facing one of our foundation industries. It’s only 12 months ago that the loss of over 1,000 jobs in Tata Steel UK was announced, and we started to see the impact of that crisis here in Wales—followed within months by an announcement to sell the Tata Steel UK operations. Since then, steelworkers and their families, particularly those in my home town, have gone through hell not knowing whether there would even be a steelworks remaining in the town and a job to go to.

During this time, strong leadership to secure steel making in Wales has been given by both this Welsh Labour Government and the steel unions. I think it’s disgraceful the UK Government has not shown the same commitment to our steel industry. In fact, since the change of Prime Minister, since last summer, we have struggled to actually hear any reference to retaining a strong and vibrant steel industry from any member of Theresa May’s Government. That does need to change. They need to be more public with that support.

The challenges facing our steel industry have not gone away. Yes, the drop in the pound has helped the sector improve its financial position, but long-term sustainability cannot be based upon the fluctuations, which are volatile, in exchange rates. In the EU and UK, the steel demand growth rate for 2016 was up 0.8 per cent and forecasts for 2017 are up 1.4 per cent. That’s still more than 20 per cent down on the demand figures for 2007. The OECD actually estimates the global overcapacity of steel as 700 million tonnes next year—400 million tonnes of which will be Chinese steel, by the way—and that global competition will continue to be challenging and dumping will still be a threat.

When we add to this the likely impact of Brexit and the announcement yesterday that the UK will leave the single market—and this is particularly important as Tata actually exports three times as much to the EU-27 as it does to any other country—there is clearly still a long way to go to provide a secure and sustainable industry. We must continue to do what we can to deliver that.

This Labour Government has already agreed over £16 million of investment to Tata to support skills training for the future workforce, and for work on redeveloping the power plant in Port Talbot as part of the £16 million identified as support for Welsh steel making—funding that is conditional upon a commitment from Tata of continuing with two blast furnaces at the heavy end of Port Talbot—and future investment. It has also indicated an ambition to establish a steel research centre in collaboration with Swansea University, thus looking to make Wales a centre of production of premium steel.

The steel unions have worked tirelessly to reach agreements on the transformation plan, to challenge the UK and EU Governments and to secure investment and job security for the workforce. The current proposal being considered by the steelworkers is the culmination of tough and lengthy negotiations undertaken by the unions with that aim. They have been and will be there for their members, and for anyone to claim that they are doing their members a disservice is deplorable. Anyone making such comments, in my view, should withdraw them and apologise to the unions.

Now is a time to show respect to steelworkers and allow them to seek out the full facts of this agreement on offer. I agree with my colleague from Llanelli; these proposals are not great, they’re not fantastic and there are serious challenges. My personal view: when the public sector issues were raised under the UK Government, I was totally in support of ensuring that anyone who was in a scheme was allowed to stay in that scheme—they bought into it, they should stay in it. I’m still of that view. I haven’t changed my mind. But in this case, I’m not going to express an opinion as to which way they should vote on this.

It is important that we allow them to seek the full facts from a variety of sources—and I actually raised this with the CEO of Tata Steel UK: ‘Get independent advice for your workers and make sure that it is independent’—for them to weigh up the proposals and the possible outcomes, so whichever way they vote, it will be based upon their personal considerations and not on rumour or political manoeuvring.

Llywydd, today’s motion is calling on the Welsh Government to intervene in this process, ignore those discussions and replace unions in any further negotiations with the company on an agreement for the workers. That’s what it says. I hope Plaid Cymru is not now saying that the unions should no longer have a role in reaching agreements with the company and put in offers to members by Governments instead.

We all understand that the steel industry is a volatile and cyclical business. It’s extremely sensitive to fluctuations of the global economy.

Will the Member give way?

I’ll give way, yes.

I’m grateful. We heard in the earlier debate, didn’t we, the importance of the social partnership model, which is tripartite—company, unions and Government. Surely, in the context of the steel industry, there is an absolutely central role for Government and, I agree, for Governments—plural; both Welsh and UK.

I think the motion’s second point actually highlights that working together is important. The motion’s first point actually says the Government should replace the unions in the negotiations. So, it’s actually a separation—a mixture of the two. 2016 saw Brexit, Trump and an increasingly belligerent Russia. In 2017, we’re already seeing challenges with China and the trading world by Trump’s administration, which could have a greater impact upon Europe, and we wait to see what the knock-on effect of that will be on our steel industry. We have a long way to go. It’s uncertain and unstable. We need to create a sustainable industry. Governments and politicians must work with unions and steelworkers to achieve that. It is our job to work with them, as you quite rightly point out, in partnership, but not to dictate to them our views.

As an Assembly Member for north Wales, of course, and as someone who lives in north-east Wales, it is important that we remember that this is about more than Port Talbot, as Members have already reminded us. There was a great deal of doom and gloom the last time I visited Shotton steelworkers last year. The cloud hanging over the entire Tata enterprise had extended even to one of the most consistently profitable and innovative plants where 700 workers produce, of course, cutting-edge materials and finished steel that is exported across the world. But, as has already been mentioned in the past in this Chamber, it is used in Wales as well extensively: the Millennium Stadium, the most iconic of our national buildings, of course, is coated with Shotton’s unique steel.

Despite producing profits for the past decade, steelworkers in Shotton have not seen a pay rise for the past five years and despite the contribution they make to the company, many of them feel that a gun is being held to workers’ heads when it comes to pensions and that feeling, understandably, is particularly acute amongst those over 50, some of whom could, as we know, lose a significant amount if the pension deal goes through. This pension deal is based on a short-term promise. As we’ve heard, and as Adam reminded us, it’s not a bankable promise. We have no guarantees that Port Talbot won’t be under threat again in five years or even less and the workers in the meantime will be leaving with a poorer pension.

Shotton had its meltdown moment in 1980, of course, when the biggest redundancy announcement in a single day in western Europe saw 6,500 steelworkers lose their job. The economic devastation that caused, of course, for Shotton, Deeside, the whole of Flintshire and beyond lasted for a generation and that mustn’t happen to Port Talbot: a community similarly built on steel and equally dependant. I am optimistic for the future of Shotton steelworks—somewhere that’s adapted and innovated since those dark days—and I’m equally hopeful that the deal we need to see and we all want to see the workforce obtain in terms of wages and deferred wage—pensions—will be the right one for a brighter future. But, of course, it won’t happen unless the Welsh and UK Governments are more tenacious in demanding that it happens.

Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to be able to once again speak up for steelworkers in my community at the Shotton site and, of course, across the country. On the issue of the British Steel pension scheme, from the conversations and correspondence I’ve had, there is concern that Tata isn’t providing the workforce with all the details they need at their disposal in order to make an informed decision on the implications for their future. I understand that the employer is actually answering—or not answering questions to be more accurate—employees with an inadequate ‘don’t know’. Another specific uncertainty and lack of clarity is on the mechanisms for the potential separation—the impact of benefits accrued and the resting place for the British Steel pension scheme. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that Tata must address these concerns and answer the questions of their hard-working workforce across Wales and the UK.

In addition, I am also acutely aware of the uncertainty and anxiety being created by the UK Government’s apparent lack of strategy and action with regard to our fundamental foundation industry of steel. It’s been magnified, from the employees I’ve been speaking to, in recent reports that the UK Government has apparently refused to guarantee that British steel will be used in the construction of high speed 2, HS2. I noticed the Welsh Conservative amendment that recognises the UK Government’s role in supporting the steel industry through the introduction of new procurement rules. I think we need this in practice, not just written in principle, and our steel industry—

Will you take an intervention? Do you not recognise that 95 per cent of all steel used on British railways is British steel and Chris Grayling has given a commitment to the House of Commons that he wants to see British steel used in HS2 but there are procurement procedures that have to be gone through?

I was going to go on to say that what we need now is not just one word: we need action without delay. Cabinet Secretary, I know the workforce and management at Shotton recognise the support and steps taken by the Welsh Government, but I’d ask you and colleagues and others here to join us to apply additional pressure to make sure that we take seriously the future of steel, that we commit to the use of steel procured in the UK and that we really do put the money where the mouth is to make sure we see our steel industry not only sustained and saved, but growing in the future.

Thank you. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure—Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I begin by thanking Members for their contributions today and for their continued interest in this significant subject? I’d also like to declare my membership of Unite the Union at this stage and suggest: at the outset, let’s just agree, everybody across this Chamber, that nobody should do or say anything to undermine the future of Welsh steel or steelworkers’ jobs. For those that depend on steel—Tata workers, their families, people in the supply chain and, of course, towns and villages around sites across Wales—the last 12 months have been nothing less horrendous, and it’s my belief that it’s our duty to bring hope and surety where there’s fear, not to sustain it by fuelling mistrust or by turning people against one another.

I think it’s fair to say we’ve come a long way since last January. An enormous amount of work has been undertaken in that time by workers, by Welsh Government, by trade unions, by management at the plant, and by partners right across the sector, but we are not out of the woods yet. As the leader of the Conservative party said, this is still a sensitive period. However, thanks to the significant financial contributions by this Welsh Government and as a result of the turnaround plan that is being delivered at Port Talbot, in particular, there is hope once more.

As soon as Tata announced planned redundancies, it was the Welsh Government, working with trade unions, that rallied partners together to support those affected. As soon as Tata announced their proposed sale of the UK operations, it was this Welsh Government that made an offer of £60 million of support for the company through a combination of loans and grants. And as part of that package before Christmas, I announced £4 million of investment in skills across Tata’s Wales operations, and a further £8 million towards the £18 million investment at Port Talbot’s power plant to enable more efficient operations, reduce energy costs and, of course, to cut emissions. In addition, I also announced proposals for a new research and development base in Swansea, because our focus has always been on ensuring a sustainable steel-making presence here in Wales. The investments that we’ve announced to date are designed to enable real efficiencies to be delivered right across the Welsh plants, and to help safeguard jobs into the future, irrespective of future ownership. Because, as Lee Waters rightly said, automation and competition are the biggest challenges that we face in the fourth industrial revolution. We must transform those challenges into opportunities through R&D and modernisation.

In addition, a major element of any sustainable solution for steel in Wales was to solve the pension issue. That’s why I believe that the proposed agreement between Tata and the trade unions is a positive and significant step towards securing that sustainable future. It is important to remember, I believe, that the future of the British Steel pension scheme was an issue for all of those that expressed an interest in purchasing Tata’s operations in Wales. And whether or not workers accept the proposal that has been agreed is a decision for them to make.

Members will be aware—

Will you take an intervention?

[Continues.]—that pension matters are not devolved. However, in our—yes.

Thank you. Just on that last point, really, there’s been quite a lot of talk today about what the role of Government is in terms of opinion and advising. From what I hear, you’ve made it clear that anything that the First Minister might have said here, for example, is merely opinion and is not advising. Is there a point, or has there been a point during your negotiations in putting the Welsh Government package together—which I don’t diminish, actually—where your advice has been sought rather than your opinion?

First of all, the pensions issue is a non-devolved issue, and the First Minister and I have been absolutely clear that, in the absence of any other opportunity, option or discussion, this is the only offer that’s available. And the question will be for workers to decide whether to accept the deal that is being presented to them or to reject it and therefore throw the entire steel industry in Wales and beyond into doubt. This is a question that workers themselves need to answer and make judgment on.

But I think it’s quite obvious, based on what Hannah Blythyn has said and what others have urged, that we have to make sure that—[Interruption.] Not at this point. We have to make sure that in the run-up to the ballot, Tata take full responsibility for providing valuable information to workers and ensure that they interact fully with the workforce, so that they can explain in detail the implications of the agreement that is being reached.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for giving way on this particular point. The importance, in the run-up to any ballot, is confidence.

Yes.

To date, the confidence in the workforce has been shattered—I’ve said this many times to the First Minister and you. Will you also join me, perhaps, in calling for the new chair of Tata Sons to make a public statement to try and start that rebuilding of confidence in what they say?

Yes, I would. This was something, again, that we discussed on Monday, the First Minister and I, with Bimlendra Jha, the chief executive of Tata Steel. I think it’s absolutely essential that trust is rebuilt—that it’s not diminished further, but that it is rebuilt. That’s essential, not just for the company—that is absolutely essential for workers, the unions and the communities that they inhabit. [Interruption.] Yes, I would.

It’s just a point of information, really. When he says that this is the only deal on the table, he’s aware, obviously, of the Excalibur bid, which, actually, the Welsh Government have funded—

Indeed.

Is he saying that that is no longer a live bid?

No, it’s my understanding that Excalibur are still proposing what they were offering last year. But even for Excalibur, the steel pensions issue was a live one and a very serious one that they would have to contend with. There is not one single party that was interested in the steel operation that did not admit that the steel issue was a major problem to overcome.

I think it’s worth pointing out at this point that—. I’d like to repeat the pleas made by the trade unions that the ballot needs to be undertaken in a way that is free from political interference. Nobody can be in any doubt of the commitment of this Welsh Government in terms of securing a sustainable future for steel in Wales. Now, keeping jobs and production at all of the Tata Steel plants in Wales remains this Government’s No. 1 priority in terms of industry. And throughout this process, we’ve worked closely with Tata and responded swiftly to the changes over the past year, and we will continue to do so. We’ll work in this manner on an ongoing basis, but there are significant challenges ahead.

Discussions around a potential joint venture with ThyssenKrupp are a commercial matter, but the Welsh Government will continue to take a very close interest in any future deal. As I’ve said, the support we have provided through Welsh Government is conditional and that conditionality will apply to any joint venture. Both the First Minister and I have said in our meeting with Tata this week that protecting workers’ rights is absolutely vital, and whatever the outcome of the ballot, our commitment to protecting those rights will continue.

There’s been much said about the role of UK Government and it’s my belief that there is still time for the UK Government to make a very significant contribution. The ask that the First Minister has consistently made of the UK Government to put in place a package of support for energy-intensive industries remains valid, because energy prices are too high. And this, again, was reflected to us just this week.

In the context of the hard-Brexit option that the Prime Minister outlined just this week, it’s even more important for our steel industry to be genuinely competitive, given that it will, very soon, sit outside the single market. We want to secure the long-term future for our steel industry and action on this is now imperative.

Deputy Presiding Officer, whilst decisions regarding the future of the plants are not ours to make, I will continue to ensure that we fully engage with all parties to ensure that messages regarding jobs, investment and protection for workers are heard by Tata’s most senior representatives. But as Dai Rees, as Lee Waters and as others have said, this is no time for politicking, no time for grandstanding—

I’m sorry, I’ve allowed for you to have interventions as well, so can you—?

And jobs, livelihoods and the fate of the communities need our support.

Thank you very much. I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been, I think, a valuable debate. I know that steelworkers who have contacted us will have appreciated hearing the range of views, of opinions, in relation to the package of proposals that will shortly be put before them. I thought it was very, very indicative that the backbench Members who spoke who have steel plants in their constituency all expressed very serious concerns about the current proposals. And I think that justifies the need for us to have this debate, and to put pressure on Tata to come up with a better deal that meets these reasonable concerns that have been expressed in this Chamber today. I have to say to Caroline Jones, I disagree with almost everything she said, but she’s still a nice person. But I have to say in all seriousness, while of course, ultimately, this has to be a decision for steelworkers, we cannot, nevertheless, outsource our responsibility as the elected Parliament. If we don’t speak on something as important as this, what are we don’t to speak on? I have to say, while we won’t be supporting the Conservative amendment, I think I welcome the fact that Andrew R.T. Davies accepts the important role in having a debate on the future of the steel industry, and their amendment does importantly refer to the need for a contingency plan. Because if we accept that it is the worker’s right to reject this deal, then we, as an elected Parliament and the Government of the country, have to come up with an alternative proposal that responds to that new situation.

I thank the Members on my side for their contributions—particularly, I’d like to pay tribute to Bethan Jenkins. Nobody has been closer to the steelworkers—going back over many, many years now—and, in fact, the reason that we have said what we have said in the public domain is because steelworkers have asked us to. We recognise that there’s a range of views among the workforce as well, but it’s important that those concerns were expressed publicly. I have to say—[Interruption.] I don’t have time, unfortunately. I think the important point is that Government now has a role, in the time that’s available, before the end of the month when these proposals are going to start to be voted on—we need Welsh Government in there saying to Tata, ‘Look, there’s a real prospect that this vote could be lost unless you meet these reasonable concerns.’ That’s why we need the Welsh Government to be in there in a leadership role, trying to actually respond to what we’ve heard today.

I have to say to Lee Waters, he started off, and I was in agreement with him—this is an act of economic blackmail, and then he made the case for completely capitulating to it. There was a phrase for that—[Interruption.] I don’t have time, I’m afraid. There was a phrase for that—I don’t have time. There was a phrase for that: ‘There is no alternative’. It was a phrase we heard a lot in the 1980s. That is not the kind of politics that we should accept. There is an alternative. We heard from the Cabinet Secretary himself that there is another deal on the table from a company that is offering a 25 per cent stake to the workforce. They’re being invited in this deal to fund their own rescue package out of their own pension, well why not actually look at that other deal? There was another prospective buyer over the weekend that actually wrote directly to the British Steel Pension—[Interruption.]

The Member is not giving way.

[Continues.]—wanted to offer more money into the pension fund. [Interruption.]

Not giving way.

There is an alternative for Tata as well. They could strengthen the deal. Ratan Tata came out of retirement because he was appalled by the kind of slash and burn short-termism that Cyrus Mistry had injected into the company. His new leadership represents a return to Tata’s traditional values of fairness and long-termism, and I think now we should appeal to the interim, emeritus chair of Tata Steel at a global level. Let’s have that fairness. Let’s have that long-term approach. The steelworkers of Wales deserve nothing less.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.