Steel Industry: Contribution to the UK Economy

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for so eloquently leading on this very important debate. I speak today as a member of the Unite and GMB trade unions.

Steel is a foundational sector across the UK, never more so than in Neath Port Talbot county borough. On such strong foundations, economies and supply chains are created. Port Talbot steelworks reaches all the surrounding communities. Thousands of Neath constituents have worked there, or know someone who works there or in its supply chain, as my father did. To say it has been a difficult few years for the steelworkers in Neath Port Talbot would be an understatement. Competing in the global market, the absence of anti-dumping tariffs, the lifting of lesser duty rates and rising UK energy prices have conspired to create uncertainty and fear.

Over 2,000 local jobs have been lost since 2014. Steel and the steel industry are vital to Wales and its economy. The idea that the steel sector does not have a future is unthinkable, but our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they make. They have so far bounced back from every adversity, but the situation is about to get much worse. Of the top 10 economies in the world, the UK’s is the only one with a declining steel industry. The UK Government should immediately sit down with Tata Steel and other businesses to do a deal on green steel for the sake of the future of our workforce.

The steel sector is a crucial aspect of the partnership between the public and private sectors. The UK Government should look to set indicative targets for the amount of domestically produced steel that we put into Government-funded projects. That would enable us to make, buy and sell more steel in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, of which I am a vice chair, cannot be with us today because he has duties in the main Chamber, but he has spoken in Westminster Hall many times about the importance of the steel sector to the UK, to his constituency and to Wales.

Floating offshore wind has the potential to transform the economy and jobs market in my hon. Friend’s Aberavon constituency and across south Wales, but it will happen only if floating offshore wind substructures and other components are manufactured and assembled locally. The public know we need a Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet, and they recognise the need for foundational industries to thrive if Britain is to prosper. Indeed, in one recent poll, 80% of those surveyed declared steel to be a strategically important industry that we must maintain in the UK. That is why the Labour party’s green prosperity plan will marry the quest for sustainable growth and jobs on which people can raise a family with the need for resilience. Net zero should be seen not as a hindrance, but as an opportunity for growth and prosperity. Labour’s proposed green steel renewal fund will secure the future of the steel industry for my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, who live in Neath and work at Tata Steel. By greening our steel processing, Labour will ensure that our steelmakers can compete in a world in which global steel demand is on the rise. Britain needs its steel as a foundation of the modern manufacturing renaissance that Labour will deliver.

Time is running out for the future of our steel industry. I know that the Minister, who is a very magnanimous person, is working around the clock to familiarise herself with her new brief. I am grateful that she has already met the members of the all-party group for steel and metal-related industries, and I hope that she will stay a while in her new role. I urge her, however, to impress on the Treasury the importance of investing in decarbonisation of the UK steel industry, and particularly Tata Steel in Port Talbot. Without serious UK Government investment now, I fear that Tata Steel in Port Talbot is on the cliff edge.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Thank you to all our speakers for being on time; that allows each Front-Bench spokesperson to have 10 minutes.

Songwriters and Composers: Remuneration

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is a bit of a musician himself. I am not going to go into lengthy detail about that issue this morning. However, suffice to say, the recent Competition and Markets Authority report into competition issues in the music industry, and, in particular, into the cross ownership of both publishing and recording rights of the major record companies, did not decide to proceed to a full market investigation. In a way, it threw the ball back to the Government, by saying that it

“is not to say that we think the market gets a ‘clean bill of health’ or cannot be improved further… We think it is a matter for the Government and policymakers to determine whether the current split is appropriate and fair, and to explore whether wider policy interventions are required, for example those relating to the copyright framework and how music streaming licensing rates are set.”

I note that in France, for example, a form of equitable remuneration—to use the technical term—which is a guaranteed payment when music is streamed, was successfully introduced recently. The research into equitable remuneration from the Intellectual Property Office research programme is over three months late already. Will the Minister update us on what is happening in those groups that were set up in the Intellectual Property Office? What is happening in relation to the research?

I also put this to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, yesterday at the DCMS Committee, but can the Minister take a closer interest and put some ministerial input into driving that work further forward and bringing it to a conclusion? There has been some turmoil and changes in Government since we discussed this a year ago, but I know he had hoped it would have been done by last September, and for a number of reasons—not entirely his fault, and because the work is complex—the work is still incomplete. Some ministerial input is what I am calling for.

When we discussed this a year ago, the preference was that the industry should come to an agreement. That is what it has done in France to improve remuneration for songwriters and performers. If the industry did not do that, the Government were prepared to consider action. I remind the Minister of that, and ask him to respond today as to where he and the Government stand now.

The CMA concluded that it does not have the power to determine whether the current split is appropriate and fair. In the United States, things are done differently—it has a copyright court that determines those things. The judge there described some of the assumptions that the Competition and Markets Authority made about the problems that might be caused if the split was changed, and how that might disadvantage songwriters or other artists, as “heroic” assumptions. I was surprised to see that in the CMA report. But if the CMA does not have the power to do it, and it is instead a policy issue for the Government to resolve, what avenues are the Government pursuing and exploring to resolve the issue?

The second point I will mention is the issue of buy-outs. Parliament has determined, over many decades, that songwriters and composers should be entitled to a royalty when their work is performed or recorded. It did so because it recognises that the creative act involves the creation of intellectual property. That is extremely important, and many people do not understand that it is a key source of income for songwriters and composers.

This is nothing new; throughout history, people have wanted to get their hands on composers’ and songwriters’ money and get a piece of the pie, whether it is Colonel Tom Parker with Elvis Presley or whoever else. In recent years a particularly pernicious practice has emerged among some media companies of demanding up front, when they commission a piece of music—perhaps for a TV series or film—that the composer or songwriter signs a contract that waives their right to royalties, which they have a right to for their lifetime and beyond. It was Parliament’s intention that that should be the case.

Some might say, “Well, that’s their choice. They don’t have to sign the contract. A contract is something entered into equally by two parties,” but the power dynamic is weighted towards the powerful media companies. Composers know that they will end up on a blacklist of some sort if they do not agree to sign away some or all of their rights. They are often prepared to do some of that, but they are increasingly being asked to completely give up their rights to royalties when they are commissioned. Some composers got in touch with me before this debate and described the practices of one particular media company called Moonbug. When it commissions works from composers, it demands that they give up 100% of their royalties.

The Government might say, “This is a private matter. It is a contractual matter,” but there is room for Government leadership. They should support a code of conduct for the industry to make sure media companies are not routinely able to get away with this pernicious practice, which is becoming more and more common.

The third thing I want to talk about is artificial intelligence and the potential threat to our songwriters and composers from a decision that the Government announced earlier in the year—I understand they are now reviewing it. I have spoken to the Minister about this privately, and I have expressed my concerns. I know other Members have done so too, as have stakeholders in the music industry.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate and on his superb leadership of the APPG on music. Does he agree that the proposed text and data-mining exception to promote AI would remove the need for a licence to reproduce copies of original works, so would remove any opportunity for performers and creators to be remunerated for their talent and work? Furthermore, because there is not an opt-out for performers and creators, it will have a severe detrimental effect on their creative personality, because in the future it will be done by a computer.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady has made part of my speech for me, so I thank her for that. She emphasises the point that I wish to make. To be clear, if the Government’s original position on this matter were to be maintained, any tech company could freely data mine creative output, including musical works, to produce, using artificial intelligence, not an exact copy of that music but a kind of facsimile, in order to commercially exploit it. The composer would not have any ability to give permission for that and rights holders would not be able to license it. It seemed strange for a Conservative Government to trample over property rights in that way. I hope it was a decision taken in some of the turmoil that has been going on recently in government, and that they will actively reconsider it.

I spoke to the Secretary of State at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee yesterday, and she indicated that the matter is under review. I pressed her on the Government’s likely direction of travel and whether it would go back towards allowing reasonable exemptions, perhaps for academic purposes, as long as it really is for that reason and is negotiated properly with rights holders and the industry, but not allowing free access for people to exploit other people’s work and, in a sense, be able to pickpocket their intellectual property, then reproduce it in a slightly different format using artificial intelligence. The implications of that for songwriters and composers and their ability to make a living is quite considerable in future.

I hope the Minister can tell us a bit more about the review and why the Government came to such a conclusion originally. I understand why he might want to promote tech. We all want to see innovation using technology, but it cannot be done at the expense of people’s creative rights and intellectual property. When he responds, perhaps he will tell us about the timeline for the review and about who he is listening to on this subject, and perhaps he can lean into what the direction of travel is.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on a lively and informative speech. It was great to have a positive vision for the future from him. He rightly reminded us that many of the exciting new technologies and opportunities available to modern industry and business are being grasped by both the private sector and the Government working together. I congratulate him and his Department on that work. However, I urge him and the Department to greater efforts in the range of more traditional industries that are still very much industries of the future. We have a choice. If we make the right decisions on taxes, regulations, support frameworks and orders, we can produce more such things at home. If we make the wrong decisions, we will end up importing too many of them.

I start with energy. The Minister’s Department has a crucial role in organising our energy and the transition that it wants as well as ensuring that we have enough of the traditional energy forms when they are crucial to heating our homes and turning our factories. In this period of transition, we can do more to extract more of our own oil and gas. That is greener than importing it, because, in burning gas that comes down a pipe from the North sea, far less carbon dioxide is generated than if the gas were extracted somewhere else, transformed into liquid form and transported—at least half the CO₂ is saved that would otherwise be generated. More importantly, that is a safer supply. Even more importantly, if we are still to have high taxes on it, we will collect those taxes. At the moment, the more we import, the more dead money goes out of our country to pay somebody else’s taxes, doubly burdening our industry with the extra cost of what are sometimes extreme market prices to secure the supply—when there is not a long-term contract—and extra transport costs that must be put into the equation for effective delivery.

I urge the new ministerial team to take up from where the old team were moving to and understand that there are quite a lot of good proven reserves out there now. Production licences could be granted in a timely way, and we could have more of our own import substitution and more secure supplies for the future. It is possible to work with the industry on existing fields so that maintenance schedules can be kept to a minimum and output can be maximised, particularly over a difficult winter. We all know that if anything goes wrong with the UK and European gas supply over the winter, it will be our industry that gets caught first; industry is very reliant on plentiful gas supplies for much of its important processes.

We must be careful about carbon accounting. I think a lot of us feel that it does not make a lot of sense to say that the heavy gas-using industries and other fossil fuel-using industries in the United Kingdom, such as cement, glass, ceramics, steel and so on, will be penalised because they are generating carbon dioxide in their process, only to substitute imports of those same products that will certainly produce more CO₂, not only because of the long-distance transport, but quite often from the processes as well, as this country has often gone a bit further in more efficient processes than some import substitutes. So that, too, is an area that we need to look at very carefully.

On the car industry, I would like to expand a little on the intervention. Again, a difficult transition is under way and it can only go at the pace that the customers are willing to let it go. At the moment, as we have been hearing, a relatively small minority of the cars built in this country are full electric cars—something to do with price and range, and people getting used to the idea of the electric vehicle—and so during the transitional period we again have a choice: either we produce the diesel and petrol cars that people still want to buy, or somebody else does that and we end up importing them. Again, I do not think that that is a good course. I would not want to be ahead of some of the other leading car producers in the world in definitely ruling out producing vehicles that still sell well, when we have put a lot of investment collectively into developing more fuel-efficient vehicles, which have much less coming out of the tailgate.

My final brief point builds on one that the Minister eloquently made in certain contexts. We can do a lot more, as the Government are trying to do, with sensible purchasing of our own products. Of course, we do not want to buy products that are less good quality or too expensive. There has to be competition within the UK market to reassure the Government they are getting value, but just as we have always done with things like warships, so we can do for more essential products. We should give the home base the best chance and, if necessary, help people come in as major investors with their factories in order to do so.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

As a former Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very exciting global centre of rail excellence that is being built in Onllwyn in my constituency. It will be the only testing centre for futuristic trains and infrastructure in the UK. The Welsh Government have put in £50 million. Does he agree that his Government should honour their commitment to put in £30 million, so that it can be finished on schedule by July 2023?

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady has made her own point very well and I trust Ministers will answer. I have not been privy to the documents on this particular project, so I have no idea how I can answer that and I do not know what the background is to the timing and the opportunity that may be presented. However, in general terms I am all in favour of more opportunities for Wales, as well as for England and the rest of the United Kingdom.

In summary, yes Minister, let us have more of it. Let us have more, cheaper energy produced at home. Let us have more steel, bricks and ceramics produced at home. To do that, it will require some actions, inspired purchasing and the right tax and regulatory regime so that we do not penalise ourselves needlessly over net zero and end up burdening the world with more CO₂ and ourselves with more imports.

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on introducing this hugely important Bill. It has been about four and a half years since I last spoke from the Back Benches; it feels a little unfamiliar, but it is right that I am doing it on a sitting Friday for private Members’ Bills. One of the great benefits of having recently become an ex-Minister is that I have the opportunity to speak in debates like this one and put my support behind such excellent private Members’ Bills.

It is perhaps somewhat surprising, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish National party is helping to implement a Conservative manifesto commitment for us. I do not think that that would happen very often, but it is a testament to this House’s ability to come together around issues that really matter. When people watch proceedings of this House such as Prime Minister’s questions, they often see the combative nature of politics. I encourage many more people to watch sitting Fridays, when the House comes together to deliver outcomes and legislation that genuinely make a difference to people’s lives. That is one reason why I am very pleased to be here today.

Another reason is the persuasive skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who does an amazing job of encouraging all Members who are able to come in on a Friday to contribute to important debates such as this one. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) to her place on the Front Bench; I very much hope that she will be there for many years to come.

The context of the Bill was ably set out by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. One in seven babies requires neonatal care of some sort, and 50,000 babies a year require neonatal care in hospital for more than a week, so the need is stark. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other factors—for example, the need to look at the support and accommodation available to families in hospital settings, including simple things such as catering facilities. I encourage my successor in the Department of Health and Social Care to bear that in mind as we look to build new hospitals and upgrade others.

The Bill goes to the heart of what is hugely important to these families, too many of whom are asked to choose between their livelihoods, work and obligations, and their time with their child. This debate reminds me of the debates we had on what is now the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which those who were Members of the House back in 2017 and 2018 will remember. In those debates, we talked about the fact that many businesses do the right thing and make support available, even though they are not compelled by statute to go as far as we will hopefully move towards today, but some do not, which is why it is right that we legislate through this Bill to put that right and fill the gap.

The Bill reminds me not only of those debates, but of our debates on the children’s funeral fund, for which the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) campaigned. I was the Minister who put that in place. Again, that provision is hugely important. The two measures that I have outlined are in place for when the worst happens. Thankfully, today we are talking not about the worst happening, but about babies who need more neonatal care in hospital. However, there is a common theme that runs through the pieces of legislation that are already in place and this Bill: giving parents the time and space to be parents, to be with their children and to process what is going on, without at the same time having to worry constantly about what is happening to their job or their family finances.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for all the help he gave me when he was a Minister; I am really grateful. I pledge my support to the Bill, because during lockdown I was blessed with two grandsons, and the provisions in the Bill would have made a huge difference to my daughter Angharad and her husband Ciaran—who we call “Shaky”, but that is another story!

[Edward Argar]

It was a pleasure and a privilege to work with the hon. Lady on a number of issues during my stint in the Department of Health. That goes to the heart of what I said about how much we can achieve in the House—how much is often not seen outside the House—by working across the Chamber, making changes that are often small but that genuinely make a huge difference to people’s lives.

We have heard that there is already a degree of statutory support available, such as the ability to request flexible working, which is welcome, but it does not go far enough and it does not address the challenge of businesses that choose not to do the right thing, not to be flexible and not to support such families.

I hugely welcome what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has brought before the House. Of course there are details to be worked out, and I hope that can be done speedily and efficiently in Committee. I am happy to volunteer to the hon. Gentleman that if I am still on the Back Benches when the time comes—in anticipation of a possible longer stint on the Back Benches—I would be happy to serve on the Committee for this important piece of legislation. It is hugely important: no family or parent should be forced to choose, or feel forced to choose, between having the space to be with their child in neonatal care, and their livelihood and job, yet there are currently parents who have to make that choice every day. That cannot be right, which is why I hugely welcome the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill today and, should he so wish, to serving on the Bill Committee to help ensure that we get the legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Christina Rees Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point. I thank her so much for her endorsement and support, and for representing her constituents. I have heard the same stories from so many Members. In fact, a lot of Members—I will not name them—tell me that they worked in hospitality when they were students, and have experienced this issue; it really cuts through. On my hon. Friend’s point about a media campaign, I invite colleagues from across the House to help me promote this legislation as widely as possible. I hope that in a year’s time—hopefully sooner, but it might be a bit later—we get to the day when a customer never again has to ask, “Will you definitely be able to keep this tip?” That is one of the ambitions of the Bill.

The Bill is not about bashing business. Most businesses comprise good people, good entrepreneurs and good CEOs, and most pass on tips fairly. The businesses that I have spoken to—especially in my constituency and through fantastic Members of Parliament across the House—support the legislation, and hospitality businesses definitely do so.

Let me turn to fairness for workers, which is covered in several aspects of the Bill.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this excellent Bill to the House. Fairness is the key word. He has mentioned that he is working with businesses and trade unions. I am a Labour and Co-operative party MP. May I ask whether he has reached out to the Co-operative party? Many businesses are co-operatives, and I am sure the Co-operative party would be grateful if he reached out to it.

[Dean Russell]

The hon. Member makes a brilliant point. The idea of the code of practice is to ensure that we do that engagement, and I am hopeful that when we reach out to such organisations, they will help with the media campaign. We need to ensure that everybody knows about the legislation and to highlight that there are businesses that do not pass on tips. In the meantime, I hope that people challenge businesses on that when they speak to them.

The Bill will provide greater transparency for employers and workers in teams regarding how tips should be treated; that will be clear to everyone. It will create a level playing field for the majority of businesses that already pass on tips to workers fairly and transparently, ensuring that they know that other businesses will do the same as they have always done. As we have already mentioned, through the Bill consumers will have the confidence that the full value of their tips will go to workers, and the premise of the Bill is that 100% of tips will go to the workers. The code of practice will agree how that will be shared, and we can turn to that point later.

UK Steel Sector: Supply Chains

Christina Rees Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this important debate.

Steel is a foundational sector across the UK and never more so than in Neath Port Talbot county borough. Upon these strong foundations, economies and supply chains are created. Port Talbot’s steelworks reaches all the surrounding communities. Thousands of Neath constituents have worked there, know someone who works there, or work in its supply chain—my father did. To say it has been a difficult few years for the steelworkers in Neath Port Talbot would be an understatement. Competing in a global market, the absence of anti-dumping tariffs, the lifting of lesser duty rates and rising UK energy process have conspired to create uncertainty and fear. Over 2,000 local jobs have been lost since 2014. Steel and the steel industry are vital to Wales and its economy.

The idea that the steel sector does not have a future is unthinkable, but our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they make. They have bounced back from every adversity so far—but the situation is about to get much worse. The recent Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate recommendations on the existing steel safeguards could be catastrophic for the UK steel sector. Only 10 out of 19 product categories are recommended to have safeguards extended, leaving sites in Llanelli, Cardiff, Gateshead, Sheffield and many more without the protection to limit sudden increases in imports. The lifting of safeguards would open up UK markets to trade diversion and have a negative impact on the remaining measures. The interconnected nature of UK steel means that a threat to one product category will have consequences for the others.

Steel imports increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, before the original EU steel safeguards were introduced. The current circumstances of global overcapacity and import restrictions in other countries make it highly probable that steel imports will again escalate should safeguards be removed. It is probable that the EU and the US will continue to provide safeguards for their industries and place measures on UK steel imports. It is astounding that the UK Government would provide open access to our steel market. The market remains volatile and delicate during the continuing pandemic, which has seen steel demand drop by 16% during 2020. The steel sector needs stability to recover and to adapt to a post-covid world. Safeguards are crucial to provide stability. The steel sector will continue to face many challenges—decarbonisation, subsidy regulation post Brexit, public sector procurement, energy price disparity—but it is the removal of steel safeguards that poses the biggest existential challenge, given the interconnectivity across the sector.

This is the first major trading test for the UK in post-Brexit times, and the UK Government must establish a fair trading environment for the UK steel industry and our communities. In contrast, the Welsh Labour Government have been standing up for steel, making an £8 million commitment to help secure a £30 million power plant at Port Talbot; offering £17 million of support for skills development; investing in energy efficiency; planning to reduce carbon emission; and offering research and development funding for new product development. At critical times, the Welsh Labour Government have provided direct financial support to sites right across Wales, protecting our jobs and communities.

UK Hydrogen Economy

Christina Rees Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

Of course, we need to restrain all sorts of leaks in our systems, whether from our gas pipes or our water pipes. I know that there are water pipe leaks as well, and I agree that we will need to upgrade certain elements of pipe. If we want to push at the very start, hydrogen will work very quickly, but of course with all technologies we need to maintain the infrastructure, which I know the Government will do very well.

In the boiler sector, Worcester Bosch and Baxi are leading the way in producing the world’s first hydrogen-ready boilers, which can run off either pure hydrogen gas or natural gas, including natural gas blended with up to 20% hydrogen—a mixture that all boilers can utilise, so we are ready to go with that mix. Hydrogen boilers have a distinct advantage over heat pumps, which are another solution, in that they are many thousands of pounds cheaper, costing about the same as a gas boiler. It is estimated that a hydrogen boiler will cost £2,500, whereas a heat pump for a house will cost between £6,000 and £18,000. That is important in terms of fuel poverty, as the cost of heat pumps is potentially unaffordable for some families.

Furthermore, a hydrogen boiler does not take up much space and takes a matter of hours to install. In contrast, an average of three days is needed to fit a large and unwieldy heat pump. It is also worth bearing in mind that the electricity grid has five times less capacity than gas, and relies on gas in the winter to prop it up, making the gas network the obvious choice for resilience purposes.

If there are subsidies for heat pumps, why are there not considerable subsidies for the production of hydrogen? There should be, as that would also help to bolster more jobs. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) raised with me the need to train up more boiler installers so that we have those skills. The Government should be supporting that.

I am pleased to note that the Government have helped initiate a number of projects that have demonstrated the technical and economic viability of hydrogen as a pathway to decarbonising the gas grid. I have been privileged to learn about many of them since my election, although hon. Members will agree that the preference for similar-sounding names is quite the tongue twister. They include the Hy4Heat programme, the HyDeploy project run by ITM Power, Cadent and the Northern Gas Networks, the H21 project led by the Northern Gas Networks, National Grid’s HyNTS Hy Street experiment, and SGN’s H100 Fife project.

The Net Zero Teesside and HyNet large-scale projects are crucial to stimulate the mass production of hydrogen so that we can move from theory to reality when it comes to home heating. Those projects are a firm demonstration of the Government’s interest in and commitment to hydrogen as a technology to help us achieve net zero. They have also provided evidence of the technical and economic viability of hydrogen as a pathway to low-carbon heat, and have helped us address some of the inherent challenges of rolling out technology. In addition, the geographical spread of the projects across the United Kingdom—many are in left-behind areas—shows that hydrogen can play an important part in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

The success of those projects shows that the distribution, transmission and production of hydrogen must be a priority for the UK. However, the UK is at risk of being overtaken by other countries that have more aggressive and developed approaches to hydrogen. For example, Germany has earmarked €9 billion for the expansion of hydrogen capacity, targeting 5 GW by 2030 and a further 5 GW by 2040. Japan established its hydrogen strategy in 2017, which has given industry the confidence to invest.

To date, the UK has lacked the clear policy framework that exists in Japan, and Government investment has been lower than in countries such as Germany. That is precisely why the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was so welcome, and why the forthcoming hydrogen strategy must be ambitious, wide-reaching and published as soon as possible.

Having addressed hydrogen transport and home heating, I now turn to hydrogen’s potential for use in industry. That is of great importance to constituencies in the former red wall such as mine, Rother Valley. Traditionally, my area has relied on energy-intensive industrial processes. Sheffield is, of course, famous for steel making. It is vital that we decarbonise our industry and provide our factories with renewable energy that is powerful, in ready supply and affordable. Rother Valley bore the brunt of British coal’s lost competitiveness compared with cheaper foreign imports, and the high cost of energy and the struggling industry has been the narrative ever since. We now have a chance to ensure energy sustainability for generations. In doing so, we will turbocharge our national industries in the post-Brexit world.

In the light of that, I warmly welcome National Grid’s ambitions to build a hydrogen transmission backbone consisting of pipelines connecting major industrial hubs across the UK. Such hubs exist in Humberside, Teesside, south Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, Merseyside and the Isle of Grain in Kent. The concept is that significant volumes of hydrogen will enable the build-out of 100% hydrogen pipelines to decarbonise early adopters in industry and transport. Cadent is planning a similar idea of piping 100% hydrogen by Pilkington’s glassworks in Ellesmere Port so that the factory can reduce its costs and stay open to save jobs.

Members will know that I am always keen to focus on my region of Yorkshire and the Humber in this House, which is why Zero Carbon Humber is of such relevance to me and to industry in and around my constituency. Humberside is currently the UK’s largest carbon emitting industrial area, but Zero Carbon Humber aims to make it the world’s first net zero carbon industrial cluster. It is a wonderful example of the Government working hand in hand with the private sector to fund an ambitious endeavour. It is a staggering statistic that H2H Saltend in Zero Carbon Humber can produce more than half the Government’s planned 1 GW of hydrogen by 2025, and is one of the few places in the world where hydrogen, carbon capture and offshore wind congregate to create a “super place”. The towns and villages around Zero Carbon Humber offer opportunities for hydrogen neighbourhood heating trials, essential for decarbonising the heat networks I spoke about earlier.

Around my constituency, steelmaking is a huge carbon emitter, but it is also a huge employer, as it is across the UK. On Humberside, hydrogen can be injected into blast furnaces in the steelmaking process, displacing fossil gasses and producing steam as a by-product rather than carbon dioxide, although any CO₂ is captured and stored. We need that technology in Rother Valley and South Yorkshire to protect our plants and factories and to give British steel the boost it so badly deserves.

I envisage the Zero Carbon Humber project being recreated in Rother Valley, tying in with my plans for a hydrogen valley in my constituency. My hydrogen valley will create high-skilled jobs for my constituents, attract investment and new industries to the area, and decarbonise the towns and cities of South Yorkshire.

ITM has already acted, building the world’s largest electrolyser factory on the border of my constituency and expressing its desire to build large hydrogen refuelling stations across our nation. In that vein, the Government must encourage the development of net zero industrial clusters across the UK. That is a crucial way to revitalise left-behind areas, protect and create jobs, decarbonise polluting industry and help our manufacturers adapt, to ensure that they not only avoid closure but thrive in our green future.

I have so far addressed the UK’s hydrogen economy by sector, demonstrating that we can use hydrogen to decarbonise transport, the gas network and industry. What are the benefits to the British economy of such a hydrogen economy? The Hydrogen Taskforce believes that hydrogen can add up to £18 billion in gross value added by 2035 and support 75,000 additional jobs in every part of the United Kingdom, many of them in the north of England.

Industry, offshore wind and CO₂ storage assets are currently concentrated in the north, meaning that investment in hydrogen production is likely to create and protect more jobs in areas that have been hit hardest by the covid-19 crisis. The existing pipeline of hydrogen production projects has a strong regional spread and will support the Government’s levelling-up agenda. More immediately, the business community has told the Treasury that is has £3 billion of shovel-ready private investment hydrogen projects and is merely awaiting the right policy framework and commitment from the Government.

As the UK looks to bounce back from the covid-19 crisis, investors in hydrogen offer sustainable economic growth opportunities that will kick-start the green recovery. Speeding up hydrogen solutions will allow the UK to build on existing areas of expertise and global leadership. With a value chain that spans production, storage, transmission and distribution, along with downstream appliances, this growing global market can support thousands of jobs in the UK for decades to come.

With the benefits of the UK’s hydrogen economy ringing loudly in their ears, the Government must act decisively and boldly, to steal a march on our competitors and cement Britain’s place as the hydrogen nation. I have already mentioned the absolute necessity of the prompt publication of the forthcoming hydrogen strategy. In addition to that, I have several policy asks of the Minister.

I will first reiterate my policy asks from my hydrogen transport debate, which, unsurprisingly, are still relevant three weeks later. Those were to set ambitious targets for the mass commercialisation of hydrogen technology; to stimulate supply and demand in parallel, focusing initially on regional clusters; and to ensure relevant Government Departments work collaboratively.

However, this debate has a wider scope, so there are additional specific policy asks. Generally, we must ensure that the upcoming hydrogen strategy sets out a clear road map for how the UK will create the renewable hydrogen it needs. We must institute long-term, stable and predictable policy and regulatory frameworks to reassure investors. We must ensure that the Government and Ofgem make decisions quickly and decisively. We must support hydrogen innovation by funding research and development. We should support trials of 100% hydrogen. Government industries should now invest and collaborate to ensure that technology, development and commercialisation take place in tandem.

For transport, we must aim for at least some of the 4,000 zero-emission buses to be hydrogen buses. Most importantly, we must reform the RTFO to allow renewable energy from all sources to be eligible. We must introduce changes to the bus service operators grant to stop discrimination in favour of diesel vehicles, and the Department for Transport must build on the University of Birmingham’s hydrogen train success, by supporting hydrogen train fleet development. Additionally, we must support the opening of 100 hydrogen refuelling stations by 2025, to support the roll-out of hydrogen transport.

For the gas network and home heating, we must support the roll-out of hydrogen-ready boilers for existing homes by 2025 at the latest; outline in detail how the vision for hydrogen towns can be delivered; set out how the gas grid can be repurposed to enable the safe distribution of hydrogen; enable hydrogen to be blended into the gas network; and ensure that the heat and buildings decarbonisation strategy promotes a technology-neutral approach. We must also provide clarity on the business models that underpin hydrogen—for example, carbon capture and storage, pricing and demand mechanisms.

For industry, we need to lay out specific hydrogen production targets, prioritise the reskilling and upskilling of workers, and ensure that there is early decision making on permissions, business models and the role of regulators. I appreciate that this is a substantial policy list, but I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten me about his plans, both verbally during this debate and in writing at a later date.

As I draw to a close, I reiterate that I believe the hydrogen economy will be transformative for the UK. Not only can it decarbonise across all sectors, ensuring that we achieve our net zero target, but it protects industry and retools it for our green future. The hydrogen economy will create skilled jobs in left-behind areas, such as Rother Valley, revitalising parts of the UK that have suffered the grim effects of deindustrialisation.

We have a unique opportunity to corner the hydrogen market, positioning Britain as the world leader in the production and use of hydrogen. That will not only be a shot in the arm domestically as we recover from the coronavirus pandemic, but it will enable UK plc to export our technology and expertise around the world in a post-Brexit age. The hydrogen economy will improve our energy security and resilience, which are critical in light of both the devastating pandemic and hostile Chinese and Russian relations. However, in order to reap these rich rewards, I urge the Government to act now to avoid losing out, as we did with batteries and the wind farm supply chain. We have first-mover advantage, but other countries are waking up; we must be ahead of them.

In a brave new decade with many unknowns, we do know that decarbonising our economy is important for environmental, economic, security and health reasons. Hydrogen can be one part of our energy solution, used in conjunction with other technologies, if we take action now to ensure that the UK’s hydrogen economy works for everyone, and we confirm our place as the hydrogen kingdom.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Mr Stafford, could you please provide specific details of your declaration of interests for the record?

[Alexander Stafford]

Of course. It is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Until my election to this House in the general election in December last year, I worked for Shell, and Shell has worked on hydrogen; I personally did not work on hydrogen there, but I did work for Shell.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

I do not think there is any need to impose a formal time limit, but if you each speak for about seven minutes, we should be able to get everyone in comfortably.

Fuel Poverty and Energy Price Caps

Christina Rees Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones with the cleaning materials provided before they use them and then dispose of the materials as they leave the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. They should speak only from the horseshoe and can speak only if they are on the call list. That applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As my hon. Friend would expect, my colleagues meet representatives of all kinds of businesses, both in the UK and those looking to invest here. We are clear, as the Prime Minister has been, that we intend to pursue our negotiations to secure the best possible access to the single market so that the manifest advantages of the UK continue to be available to companies, here, now and in future.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. European Commission state aid approval for the steel industry is still not in place. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that compensation under the energy industrial package will be provided by the UK Government until the exemption is finally introduced?

[The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)]

Of course it will continue. We are in discussions about the mechanics of that, as part of a broader conversation that the Secretary of State and I are having with senior management of the steel industry and trade unions about securing a sustainable future for the industry.

Tidal Lagoons and UK Energy Strategy

Christina Rees Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that is well understood in Government. The Government recognise the particular importance of ports as linchpins in their local economies.

If Ministers choose to harness our abundant natural resources and, in doing so, launch a new industry here in Britain, just as the Danes did with wind, we will secure a considerable competitive advantage over new market entrants from day one. Britain’s first post-Brexit industry will not only underwrite a strong domestic order book but help to put us at the front of the queue in future technology export markets. If we seize the moment now, wherever a new tidal power project is commissioned in future—from Garorim bay in South Korea to the Gulf of Kutch in India—there is every chance that the people, the parts and the components that build it will contain the words “Made in Britain”.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Hendry report is good news for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, after five years spent raising £48 million. The right hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about the jobs that it would create, but it would also create apprenticeships, which we in Wales need at the moment. What are his views on that?

[Stephen Crabb]

Perhaps we need another occasion to talk more fully about the role that apprenticeships play in rebalancing the economy, but the hon. Lady makes a vital point. If we are to have a new tidal lagoon industry, there is a lot of training to be done. A lot of new skills need to be brought into the workforce, so one can readily see that apprenticeships will play a key role.

I will draw my remarks to a close by drawing attention to the elephant in the room, which a number of hon. Members have already mentioned: money and affordability. I was discussing the Swansea tidal lagoon project with one Minister recently who described it to me as “eye-wateringly expensive”. When I pressed him on that, it became embarrassingly clear that he did not understand the project at all and was merely repeating what he had heard someone else say about it. A myth of unaffordability has grown up around the vision of tidal lagoons as it has developed over the last five years.

Let us be clear: the projected investment costs should not deter us. We know that investors are ready to support the Swansea bay project, whose overall project cost is about £1 billion to achieve construction and connection to the national grid. Tidal Lagoon Power has already spent around £50 million on the development work, and another tranche of money is ready to be used to bring the project to financial close, as long as the Government give the green light. Of the total capital investment of around £1.3 billion, we know that around 84p of every £1 will be spent here in the UK, and at least 50% of that will be spent in Wales. For the Welsh economy, a project of that scale would certainly help to move the dial in terms of gross value added.

We have still have not addressed the crucial point on which this whole thing hangs: value for money. I am interested to see what the Hendry review says about it, but after seeing the figures that crossed my desk when I was a Minister, and again more recently, I have been greatly encouraged that the project does represent value for money. By taking a long-term view of the asset—for that is what it is: a long-term source of power generation—and using established modelling that will be familiar to Treasury officials, the current net value of subsidy for Swansea could amount to a contract for difference equivalent of £89.90 per megawatt-hour. We would be talking about a 90-year contract with a diminishing subsidy each year for 35 years—because it is de-linked from inflation—which then starts to pay money back to the Government for the rest of the life of the contract. That compares favourably with Hinkley C, which locks in an escalating strike price with a contract for difference of £92.50 per megawatt-hour.

The point is that it is affordable: Swansea bay tidal lagoon would put an additional 18p on to household bills, and would require only 0.41% of the 2020-21 levy control framework budget in its first year. By its 35th year, Swansea bay would require just 0.15%—effectively a rounding error—of the levy control framework budget. To put that into context, Hinkley C will add around £12 to household bills.