Debates between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Sajid Javid during the 2015-2017 Parliament

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Sajid Javid
Monday 11th April 2016

(8 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that Tata is fully aware of its obligations, both legal and otherwise, on the pension scheme. I hope it will say more about that when it publishes its information memorandum. I am very much focused on making sure that the challenges of the pension scheme do not become an issue with regard to finding and securing a buyer. That is why we are talking to the trustees, to try to work together to make sure that the members’ interests are looked after and, at the same time, that we have the best chance of securing a sale.

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Given the Secretary of State’s new-found robustness in his attitude towards China, can he assure us that he will no longer block the EU’s attempts to ensure that China is not granted market economy status, which would not only affect the steel industry to the tune of thousands of jobs, but cost up to 2,500 jobs in my own constituency?

Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The decision on market economy status is for the EU collectively to make. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that any country, including China, that wants market economy status has to earn it. To do so, China says it is cutting overcapacity, and I think that the EU would want to see evidence of that. Let me further reassure her that even when countries such as Russia do have market economy status, that does not stop the EU taking defensive action, including on dumping.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Sajid Javid
Monday 14th September 2015

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I should emphasise that point: we are saving £17 million a year because of the transparency we have introduced into the civil service. It will no doubt have a similar impact on the rest of the public sector.

There are nurses, teachers and other public servants being paid a salary by the taxpayer while working for their union under the banner of facility time. There is no transparency around how much time they spend on union work and no controls in place to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is a situation that most ordinary Britons, including many dedicated public servants I have spoken to, find absolutely baffling. That is why civil service Departments are already required to publish information about the use of facility time by their staff. The Bill allows the Government to make regulations extending that to all public sector employers. It will include information about an employer’s spending on trade union duties and activities and about how many of its union representatives spend a specified percentage of their time on their union role. We have already made considerable savings for the taxpayer by requiring Departments to publish this information, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). However, if transparency alone does not lead to further savings, the Bill also grants Ministers the power to set a cap on the time and money spent on facility time.

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Will the Secretary of State agree with one of his own donors, JCB, which has people in facility full-time to encourage positive industrial relations? If it is good enough for the private sector, surely it is good enough for our public sector.

Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is good enough for all sectors. There is nothing wrong with facility time—the Bill is clear about that—but it should be open and transparent, and the current rules do not ensure that.