Context
Steel accounts for 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions and 50,000 jobs in the UK. There is no viable alternative to steel, yet the Government's decision to go with an electric arc furnace only modelled for decarbonisation risks thousands of jobs and makes the industry vulnerable to changes in steel prices.
Question
We have no viable alternative to steel, which is why the Government's decision to go with an electric arc furnace only modelled for decarbonisation does not make any sense. Not only does it put at risk thousands of jobs but it makes the industry vulnerable to changes in steel prices, as the UK will have to import it. The Minister spoke about carbon capture, but can she explain why the Government have not gone for a combination of technologies such as carbon capture, or the retrofitting required for hydrogen-based steel production? That way, we would not only decarbonise the industry but protect those vital jobs and the industry in the UK for generations to come.
Answer from Claire Coutinho
The Government's deal has provided long-term security for at least 5,000 steel jobs. The investment will grow UK domestic green steel production. I gently urge the hon. Lady to look at her party's plans for industry, which have been described as impossible and decimating the working classes.
Not addressed: Explanation of why the government has not opted for a combination of technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen-based steel production
How: I Gently Urge The Hon. Lady To Look At Her Party'S Plans For Industry, Which Have Been Described As Impossible And Decimating The Working Classes.
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)