GKN Automotive Plant: Birmingham
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for accommodating me and allowing me to be here in person, Dame Angela. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate, which is not just important for Birmingham and the west midlands, but is of national significance because of the nature of the issues. I declare an interest as a long-standing member of Unite the union and chair of the Unite group in Parliament.
My hon. Friend has described what Melrose is doing to the GKN automotive factory in Birmingham. Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace. Out of deference to the procedures of the House, we do not curse and use foul language, but what is happening to the loyal workforce at this plant is an outrage. Over 500 jobs—my hon. Friend says 519—many thousands of jobs in the supply chain, and more than 50 years of proud history at the site are in the firing line. If this plant is allowed to close, and I am looking here at the Minister—we do not want just warm words but definite actions—it will be a nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing. We look to the Government for a response and a reaction.
GKN is a living, breathing symbol of a great British company. It has been building critical equipment, including for the defence of the realm, for over 260 years. My hon. Friend mentioned that it was involved in building Spitfires, and cannon balls that were used by the British artillery at Waterloo. Surely that is a history worth defending and a future worth saving.
I express solidarity with Steve Turner, assistant general secretary of Unite, who has been involved in plans to save jobs at the plant and Frank Duffy, Unite convener there, and his members, who have fought valiantly and continue to fight. Despite company promises to build a “British manufacturing powerhouse”, many Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend and others present, and the trade unions, warned what would happen when Melrose launched its hostile takeover bid three years ago. Sadly, despite the comments, made I am sure in good faith, of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), those predictions have proved correct. I do not accept the argument that the plant is not viable. Melrose’s directors have been heavily criticised for excessive bonuses and profits. I will not quote a figure, but it is eye-watering.
It strikes me that there are some parallels with what has happened with the European super league, where an elite wring out value from an organisation—in this case, GKN. As we have heard, Melrose is already closing one factory in Birmingham, and now it wants to throw the other, on Chester Road, on the scrapheap with the intention of stripping it of its assets, because that is what asset strippers do: they buy companies cheap, break them up and sell them off, and they throw away what is left. I had some experience of it in the north-east many years ago with Helical Bar, a property company that bought up the capital assets that were sold off cheap from Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation, then sold them off, making a huge profit for Michael Slade, the chief executive, and walked away without adding any value to the community or to the local economy.
The more than 500 skilled engineering jobs under threat at Birmingham are good jobs and part of the backbone of British manufacturing, but apparently they are not valuable to Melrose, because the company just wants to throw them away. However, these jobs are valuable to the workforce themselves—of course they are. They are valuable to the families who the workers support. They are valuable to the communities in the west midlands where the people live. They are valuable to the trade union. They are also valuable to the economy, to us here in this room; well, I hope they are. The question I put to the Minister is: if they are valuable, what are Ministers going to do to save them? What are they going to do to save British manufacturing, especially the automotive sector, as we shift rapidly to electric vehicles? I look forward to the Minister’s comments later in the debate.
The key issue with the GKN plant in Birmingham is whether it is viable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington touched on. Unite the union has worked through the figures and looked at the numbers with independent experts that have been recognised by the company. They looked at whether it is viable, and at Melrose’s claim that, in fact, the plant has been losing money for several years. According to the information I have seen, this seems to be a case of what we would call creative accounting. It is called transfer pricing, where large companies that operate over several sites, often based in different countries, pretend the different sites are buying and selling from each other while building a product. In that way, they can say that some sites are theoretically profitable while others are loss-making, depending on what prices the company chooses to charge itself or elements of itself.
It seems to me that that is a fiction, and it is often used to reduce the tax paid in some countries because the profits made in another are higher. In reality, all the sites contribute to the value of the product made, and that is certainly the case with GKN in Birmingham. Melrose bosses think they can just get the work done cheaper in Poland and France, an appalling attitude for a company that promised the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee only a short time ago to build a British manufacturing powerhouse.
Unite has developed an alternative plan with the independent experts, and they make it clear that it is possible not only to make a profit on the site but to increase capacity by 50% and deliver annual savings of up to £8 million for GKN. Most importantly, this will save those valuable jobs and create more jobs for the future, but it seems that Melrose is only interested in short-term profit. We need the Government to make Melrose see that this is an offer it cannot refuse. That will mean support for the rapid shift to electric vehicles, which the factory is perfectly placed to take advantage of, as my hon. Friend said.
GKN Birmingham Chester Road produces Driveline components, including side shafts and prop shafts; small, specialist components. According to Unite, the e-axle, known as the eDrive, which is an existing GKN technology that was developed at its UK innovation centre, is a key product that can secure the Birmingham site’s long-term future, as well as the UK’s critical manufacturing capability. The demand for that product will only increase as we move towards full electrification, but Melrose must get serious about supporting its manufacturing base, and so must the Government.
When the company’s chief executive, Simon Peckham, gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February, he put the blame squarely on electric vehicles. He claimed that
“electrification is a threat to jobs as well as an opportunity to grow jobs.”
He also said:
“For GKN Automotive as a whole, electrification is an opportunity; unfortunately, for”
the Birmingham plant “it is not.” We do not accept that. The workers do not accept that, and nor does Unite.
The question is: do the Government accept that electrification will not be an opportunity for those highly skilled engineers, who make parts for top brands, including Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota, and Nissan in my part of the country? Are Ministers, who promised a British manufacturing powerhouse, prepared to let Melrose throw those jobs on the scrapheap? Are they giving up on those skilled workers at a time when they need support most of all? I hope the Minister will let us know when she responds to the debate, because we will not give up on them, and neither will their union. We will fight all the way, because we are fighting for the future of British manufacturing. It is a fight that we are determined to win, even if it takes strikes, protests and other ways to disrupt Melrose’s disgraceful plans. The battle for the Birmingham plant has only just begun.
It would be useful if the Minister let us know which side she is on. Is she on the side of the skilled, productive workers, or that of the short-term, greedy bosses? I imagine the whole country would like to know the answer, especially as we go into the local elections in May. I hope the Minister will tell us.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Before calling Rachel Hopkins, I remind Members who are physically present to put their masks on when they sit down.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to be called in this debate.
I fear that the investment-led recovery and the levelling-up agenda referred to by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) is set to fall at the first hurdle. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the plans by the notorious venture capitalists Melrose Industries to close the GKN Automotive factory in Birmingham. Indeed, hon. Members may remember the controversy that surrounded the hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose in 2018. Serious concerns were raised at the time by Unite the union and hon. and right hon. Members in this House about the implications of that takeover for national security and for the future of the GKN brand. In an attempt to allay these fears, Melrose promised to rebuild GKN into a British manufacturing powerhouse. It was a horrible promise. Five hundred highly skilled workers at the Chester Road site are now facing the sack.
The news of the planned closure has come as a shock to the workforce and to their union, which until recently had been in discussions with management about boosting investment into the site. Melrose maintains that the plant is unviable owing to the transition to vehicle electrification. Unite the union disputes this and is developing a rescue plan that will secure a bright future for the site. I want to place on record my concern that Melrose’s chief executive officer, Simon Peckham, misled MPs on the BEIS Committee last month about the kind of work that takes place on-site. With the Government bringing forward their ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2040 to 2030, the shift to battery electric vehicle production is more urgent than ever, but it is vital that that transition to electric vehicles is investment-led and sustainable.
GKN can trace its origins back to the birth of the industrial revolution. It has more than 250 years of history. The Government owe it to British manufacturing and to this prestigious company, one of the largest UK industrial companies, to defend its future as we make a shift from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles. I urge the Government to join Unite the union in urging Melrose to examine alternatives to the closure of the GKN automotive plant, and to prevent Melrose from asset-stripping and then disposing of this important British company.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
Businesses in tier 2 that are required to close can access payments of up to £1,500 per 14 days of closure. We are giving additional financial support of £1.1 billion to local authorities to support other businesses severely affected by restrictions even though open.
Grahame Morris
It is essential that the local restrictions support grant is available promptly to businesses and is not subject to a prolonged application process. In anticipation of some areas—hopefully my own in the north-east—moving into tier 2 this week, will the Secretary of State ensure that grants are paid quickly to businesses, including the retrospective grants, particularly to pubs?
Nadhim Zahawi
The local restrictions support grants, additional restriction grants and Christmas support payments are all available now for businesses through their local authority. I know that the Secretary of State takes these businesses very seriously. Throughout this whole process, since back in March, he made sure that all his Ministers talked to local government to make sure that we do get those payments out promptly.
Future of Coal in the UK
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a debate that is very close to my heart, and to the hearts of many Members representing coalfield constituencies. I welcome the debate, congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on securing it, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time.
My constituency of Easington has always been at the heart of UK coal, from peak coal production in the 1920s, to the role that my predecessor, Manny Shinwell, played as Minister of Fuel and Power in the post-war Labour Government, delivering the nationalisation of the industry on vesting day in January 1947 outside Murton colliery in my home village. But there was a cost to mining coal, and we suffered many tragedies; the most recent in my constituency, involving multiple fatalities, was the Easington Colliery pit disaster on 29 May 1951, when 83 men, including a number of members of the rescue team, lost their lives. I ask the hon. Member for North West Durham to reflect on the Hartley Colliery disaster in his own constituency, where 204 men and boys died. There are lessons to be learned about only having one means of egress—not just in mining terms, but more generally in how we run the economy.
The miners’ collective spirit and solidarity secured pay increases in 1972 and supported miners and their families throughout the miners’ strike of 1984-85 in a valiant battle to save jobs and communities. Sadly, the miners did not prevail in 1984. Industrial east Durham at that time had near full employment, and that is what we want to return to, but to do so we require investment in health, housing, education and employment.
This nation’s wealth was built on coal and on the toil of miners working in dark and dangerous conditions. Let us not forget that we owe a debt of honour as a nation to the miners and their communities, those men who mined the coal that fired the engines of industry in the last century that made Britain great. As coal is phased out of UK energy production, we should never forget the sacrifice in lives lost and shortened; I think of my late father, my grandfathers and a dear friend of my father’s, Jimmy Grogan, a staunch trade unionist who sadly passed away yesterday.
The legacy of coal in the UK should be a new, bright, clean and green future for former coalfield areas. We should be exploring technology by ground source heat exchange pumps that have enormous potential in former coal-mining areas. The future of coal and the debt we owe the former coal-mining communities must include settling the historic injustices that former miners in coalfield communities still encounter, 30 years after the pits closed. As we consider the future of coal in the UK, let us use this time as an opportunity to amend these historical injustices in relation to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme surplus, justice for Orgreave and investment in coalfield communities.
I am pleased that the Minister is familiar with this issue, and I remind him that in the general election Labour had a manifesto commitment to a 90-10 share of the surplus from the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, and I am hopeful that the Conservative Government will honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister to a coalfield community in Mansfield.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alok Sharma
I am absolutely delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent, Jess. I thank him for all the work he does in his constituency to support engineering apprenticeships. He is absolutely right. We want the sector to keep supporting well-paid skilled jobs for our young people moving into the workplace as we build back better into the decade ahead.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
I did address this issue earlier, but as the hon. Gentleman will know Rolls-Royce has indicated that it will retain key work in Barnoldswick, including fan blade capability relating to the Trent 700 engines, the joint strike fighter and a new technical capability for product development. I can also tell him that I will be meeting a cross-party group of Members of Parliament, together with Rolls-Royce, next week.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
In July, the Government published their ambitious R&D road map, reaffirming our commitment to cement the UKs position as a science superpower. We will revitalise our whole system of science, research and innovation to release its potential, and our investment in multiple disciplines and methodologies will be guided by expert researchers.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. A successful transition to new approach methodologies requires the support of Government- backed infrastructure, a strategic allocation of funding, improved education, multidisciplinary collaboration between universities and industry, and close collaboration with the regulators. Will he undertake to prioritise the opportunities offered by human-relevant methods, so that the UK does not risk losing its position as a global leader in biomedical research and innovation?
Alok Sharma
I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue and launched a white paper on it earlier this year; I welcome the contribution of that report. The use of animals in research is carefully regulated and remains important in ensuring that new medicines and treatments are safe. However, the Government are committed to reducing and replacing the use of animal research, and we have invested £67 million to support the development of new techniques that will help to achieve that.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend may know that we have funded Citizens Advice to provide local advice during this crisis, and we have negotiated a voluntary agreement with energy suppliers to support households impacted by covid-19. I also commend the Money Advice Service for developing the money advice tool, which gives people important practical support in managing their finances.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are very supportive of any schemes in this country that promote the net-zero agenda, and I would be interested to hear details of that scheme in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I would be happy to meet him, and others, to discuss those matters further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Grahame Morris Excerpts(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Every NHS and careworker must get the personal protective equipment they need. That is why we have appointed Lord Deighton to lead a national effort to boost PPE production and to support the scaling up of engineering efforts for small companies capable of contributing supplies.
Grahame Morris [V]
A large number of UK companies and consortia came forward with offers to manufacture and supply PPE, including the Protecting Heroes community interest company, which manufactures plastic visors and face masks. However, after the pandemic began, how many of those offers did not receive a reply for weeks at a critical time, resulting in some businesses selling vital PPE abroad? What were the reasons for the delay in processing and responding to such offers? Have the Government now established a more timely and efficient system for doing so?
Michael Gove
We have received 12,789 offers of help with the provision of PPE and 10,436 of those companies have now been contacted. I am sure that the House appreciates that many of those who make well-intentioned and generous offers of help are offering PPE that may not be appropriate in health and social care settings. We must ensure that we have appropriate PPE in appropriate settings.
A Green Industrial Revolution
Grahame Morris Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on their excellent and most entertaining maiden speeches. I am sure that we will hear a lot more from them during this Parliament.
I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I was following very closely the Secretary of State’s words. One of the key issues that we need to resolve, whichever side of the Chamber we sit on, is the growing economic divide between the north and the south. I will refer quite extensively to a new report published by Sheffield Hallam University, “The State of the Coalfields 2019”, which details the situation, identifying not just problems, but solutions.
In the UK, power and finance is concentrated in the centre, in the near exclusive control of Whitehall and Westminster. This has led to decades of under-investment in the north-east and former industrial communities such as mine. I believe that our economy and country as a whole will not succeed post Brexit if we remain exclusively reliant on the success of London and the south-east. Today, I will focus on the green industrial revolution and the economic benefits that it could bring to constituencies such as mine— Easington, in County Durham.
I am very proud of Labour’s manifesto and I thought that our Front Bencher, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), made a terrific contribution at the start of the debate in outlining the advantages of Labour’s green industrial revolution. In my lifetime, the north-east was one of the engines of economic success. It powered the industrial revolution and has a long and proud history in shipbuilding, coalmining and engineering. In Murton, where I live, the colliery was the mainstay of the village, providing employment and coal for the nation’s furnaces from 1834 until it stopped production in November 1991. It employed my father, uncles, cousins and grandfather.
Labour had planned to make the north-east a centre for the next industrial revolution—the green industrial revolution. Indeed, Labour’s manifesto set out not just slogans, but specific pledges: £13 billion of new investment in the green transformation fund, including plans for Crossrail for the north, expanding our ports, particularly on the Tyne and the Tees, a steel recycling plant in Redcar, and manufacturing facilities to support the Dogger Bank wind farms. We would have had 80,000 well-paid new green jobs. We heard about investment in manufacturing electric vehicles and the benefits of expanding the electric vehicle charging network. That would protect the 18,000 workers directly employed in the automotive sector in the north-east while reducing emissions and improving air quality. Also important is the upgrading of housing—the national figure was quoted earlier—from which 1.2 million households across the north-east could benefit. It would reduce bills, eliminate the vast majority of fuel poverty and make our homes healthier and more comfortable.
It is important that we consider the record of the last Government. It is not just a feeling or an impression, but certainly true that former coalfield constituencies such as mine have been at the sharp end of austerity and suffered disproportionately. If we grouped together all the coalfield areas, some of which are now represented by Conservative MPs, into one distinct region, it would have a population of 5.7 million and would be the poorest region in the United Kingdom, so the shared prosperity fund that Ministers talk about needs to be targeted at regions and former coalfield areas such as mine in the north-east.
The IPPR North research department found that between 2009-10 and 2017-18 the north-east saw a £3.6 billion cut in public spending, while the south-east and south- west together actually saw a real-terms £4.7 billion rise. Indeed, my local authority, Durham County Council, had a 40% budget cut—almost £250 million—at a time of increasing demands on services. We also have to hold the Government to account for their industrial policy, or lack of it: the abolition of One North East, our regional development agency; the scrapping of our Minister for the North—someone who could be an advocate for a joined-up government—and of specific measures to help with employment in my region; and their failure to support the industrial base, as several Members have mentioned, particularly the steel industry on Teesside.
I ask that the Minister consider the report by Sheffield Hallam University’s centre for regional, economic and social research. It contains some specific actions that I think he will find are very well thought through and evidence based. It documents the consequences of a legacy of failure that stretches back several decades and which manifests itself in many ways. For example, health problems are more widespread in former coalfield areas; more than one third of residents aged over 16 report health problems lasting for more than 12 months; and although the number of jobs is increasing, it is doing so at only half the rate we see in the main regional centres and a third of the rate we see in London, which widens the economic inequalities in coalfield areas such as mine.
The current focus on the City and financial sectors of the economy disadvantages coalfield communities, which have a higher proportion of manufacturing jobs. Such is the scale of the intervention needed—the Secretary of State mentioned some figures—that to raise employment to the national average would require 80,000 additional residents in work in the north-east and to raise it to the level of the south-east our region would require an additional 170,000. Part-time work accounts for a third of all our employment, there is a skills shortage, which is not helped by education cuts, and we have fewer degree-level qualifications. The young and better qualified have little option but to move out of coalfield communities to meet their employment aspirations. Welfare reform has hit us particularly hard, with £2.4 billion having been taken out of our communities—money that would otherwise have been spent in the local economy.
I want to conclude with some specifics. I have obviously got a vested interest in promoting the green industrial revolution. The north-east is the home of UK manufacturing. We have the most productive car plant in the world producing electric vehicles the world wants to buy. I know of constituents driving polluting diesel vehicles who would love to switch to electric if they could afford it. In my constituency, we have the commercial space—office and factory units—to accommodate the green businesses of the future, and at the end of this month Biffa will be opening a new £27.5 million plastic recycling plant in my constituency. Also in my constituency is Drilcorp, specialists in renewable technologies, heat pumps and geothermal systems, while our East Durham College has established a technical academy that delivers courses and training in engineering and manufacturing, including renewable technologies of the future. The Minister has an opportunity—I am asking for his help—to unleash the immense potential of our former coalfield communities and of constituencies such as mine.
Product Safety, Metrology and Mutual Recognition Agreement (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Grahame Morris Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for seeking some clarification on the scope of the SI. I listened intently to her comments on chemicals and cosmetics and on the issues to do with Switzerland. On product safety, does the statutory instrument cover the safety of imported domestic electrical appliances? Is that within its scope? Specifically, there have been issues with tumble dryers being responsible for many domestic fires, and a major product recall of imported dryers has been widely publicised. Does that come within the scope and purview of the SI?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The SI that we are debating relates to amendments to the bigger SI, which covered some of the areas to which he referred. These are amendments to the current regulations, so yes, his comments are relevant in the broader scope of things. He will hopefully be aware that, as the Minister with responsibility in this area over recent months, the issues with tumble dryers, fridge freezers and so forth have been at the forefront of my mind, particularly as we have been scrutinising the legislation coming forward and these amendments. The hon. Gentleman is right to address that.
It is crucial that we have functional legislation if we leave the EU without a deal. The SI ensures that previously laid instruments can serve their intended function. It is vital that we protect consumers by making these changes. We can better ensure that we continue to be in step with the latest scientific advice, thus reducing the risk of cosmetic products with chemicals that are banned at EU level being dumped on the UK market. Without this legislation, there could be additional burdens on business, as some of the provisions address burdens or barriers to trade that could be problematic if not amended.
Additionally, the instrument explicitly implements provision in the existing EU-Swiss mutual recognition agreement and allows importers of certain goods from Switzerland to place their contract details on a document accompanying the product, rather than on the product itself, for a period of 18 months if we leave the EU without a deal. The SI will provide continuity and certainty for business, and maintain consumer confidence in the safety and accuracy of products as the UK exits the EU. I urge the Committee to approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
Grahame Morris Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, under the excellent stewardship of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for permitting this important debate. I also take this opportunity to apologise to those retired miners who made the long journey from the coalfield areas in anticipation that the debate would take place last week. Unfortunately, that was impossible owing to Government business.
In March I was honoured to accompany a group of retired mineworkers and MPs from coalfield areas to deliver a petition with more than 100,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing Street calling for a review of the surplus sharing arrangements for the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The petition is the basis on which this debate was called. I thank all those who have campaigned for pension justice for miners and their dependants.
I must declare an interest. Like many miners, my father and grandfather died prematurely in their 50s, their lives cut short by the industrial diseases prevalent in coalfield communities. While my father never collected his pension, my mother has been left with a reduced widow’s pension from the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Every year, thousands of miners face premature death because of the dangerous conditions they toiled in underground many years ago.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks movingly about his family, but he also points to another issue, which is that the Government need to act urgently, otherwise miners and their families, who are obviously getting older, will not benefit from any measures taken.
Grahame Morris
That is an incredibly important point. When I had to apologise to some of the miners from Wales and Yorkshire who travelled down last week, the point was made to me that even in the space of one week—the period by which this debate was delayed—thousands would die.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for their work. Does my hon. Friend agree that a key issue is that the widow’s pension is even smaller than many of the miners’ pensions, so we are asking for an uplift from very small figures? If the Government could show some compassion and bring forward these changes, many widows and miners’ children would benefit hugely.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely; that is a key point. I hope those on the Treasury Bench will listen intently to the points made in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a point about the number of miners and their dependants who were dying. The mineworkers’ pension scheme annual report shows a dramatic fall in the number of pensions in payment. It has fallen from 175,000 in 2011 to just over 135,000 today. As this indicates, because of the age of the retired miners and their widows—many are now in their 80s or older—they are passing away and the number of beneficiaries is falling dramatically.
I am proud to represent the mining communities of east Durham. We owe a debt of gratitude to our miners. Easington’s pits produced the nation’s wealth and powered the industrial revolution, and the mining industry transformed our landscape. Without coal, many of the colliery villages in Durham would simply not exist. Where a pit was sunk, workers from all parts of the UK— from Wales, Cornwall, Ireland—would come to work in those collieries. Indeed, at the height of its production, the Durham coalfield alone employed 170,000 miners in the 1920s.
Coalmining remained our primary source of employment until the closure of our last pit in Durham in 1994. The colliery in my village, Murton, ceased production in November 1991. It was a proud industry until relatively recent times. In my opinion, the men who toiled in our pits are heroes—they worked in darkness so that we could live in light—and, in their retirement, they and their widows deserve respect and security.
There are points of agreement that I believe are accepted across the House, including, I hope, on the Treasury Bench and among Government Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that there is value and importance in the guarantee given to the mineworkers’ pension schemes. What is in dispute is the cost of the guarantee. There is no denying that the guarantee has given to those who administer the funds the freedom to make bold investment decisions, which has allowed them to target higher returns on investment. It follows that the guarantor—the Government—should be compensated for the guarantee fairly and proportionately.
This debate is about the cost of that guarantee and whether the £4.4 billion and the ongoing claim to half of all future surpluses can be considered reasonable recompense to the Government for the level of risk they shoulder. In my view, there should be some correlation between the level of compensation and the level of risk.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
We should recognise that when the increase in the miners’ pension scheme was higher than that in the state benefit scheme, many people in my constituency, because they got more money, did not take the means-tested benefits they were entitled to, so it is not just about surpluses; it is about how much money the scheme saved the state.
Grahame Morris
That is an absolutely relevant point. Other colleagues have referred to the relative pension levels. Ministers often quote the percentage increases, but the average pension payable is £84 a week. That is a paltry sum. I also respectfully point out to the Minister that the Government have never been called upon to make a single payment into the scheme.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a deferred member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. My hon. Friend mentions the fact that British Coal—the National Coal Board—never put a single penny in the scheme. Many people have called this the crime of the century. At the time of the discussions, the projections were that the agreement would raise £2 billion. The Government have taken £4 billion from the miners of this country without putting a single ha’penny back in. Is this not an absolute disgrace?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. I could not put it any better myself. It is now time to review the surplus sharing arrangements and the level set in 1994 and consider whether the decisions taken then were taken with the best financial advice and in the best interests of miners.
To be fair, the Government have been consistent in their arguments against making changes to the scheme. These arguments are set out in various responses to parliamentary questions and were restated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in her response on 14 May to a cross-party letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. I want to summarise the Government’s response because it is important to consider their arguments. The first is that the sharing arrangements work well for beneficiaries; the second that the sharing arrangements provide fair compensation for the Government; and the third that there can be no unilateral action and that changes can be made only with the agreement of the trustees. I want to take each point in turn.
First, does the surplus-sharing scheme work for beneficiaries? The Government’s position is that the scheme has worked well. In her letter of 14 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, the Chief Secretary said:
“The sharing arrangements has meant beneficiaries enjoy bonus payments worth more than 33% of their index-linked benefits”.
As highlighted in a previous debate by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the average payment from the scheme is just £84 a week, and it is a great deal less for widows, many of whom have outlived their husbands by many decades. Our industrial legacy means that many miners, like my father, never reach retirement age. Those who do are often in ill health, and will draw their pensions for fewer years than those who retire from other industries and sectors.
We often talk about deferred wages. When miners made those contributions, week after week and year after year, the expectation was that they and their families would have security in their retirement. After we delivered the Downing Street petition, w Sullivan, a campaigner and former miner, spoke of some widows receiving pensions of
“as little as £8.50 a week”.
Emlyn Davies, another campaigner, receives just £57 a week in return for 26 years’ work in the pit: a poverty pension for years of working in damp, dark, dangerous conditions, sacrificing health and wellbeing. Let me say to Conservative Members, and to people watching this debate, that to me it seems offensive to argue that the scheme is working well for beneficiaries when miners and their widows are receiving such a pittance as £8.50, £57, or even £84 a week.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He has given some alarming figures. Does he agree that this is not just about security in retirement, but about dignity, and that the Government are not giving dignity to pensioners in the mining industry and their widows?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. We owe a debt to the miners, and the Government have an obligation to them— a moral obligation. They obviously have the financial resources to discharge that debt, and to give retired miners and their widows and dependants some dignity.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the moral obligation? Does he remember that when the Prime Minister first stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, she talked about dealing with injustices in our society? Would it not be appropriate if, during her last few weeks in office, she asked officials and Ministers to think again and look at the independent analysis conducted by the National Union of Mineworkers, which suggests that a 90-10 split would be much fairer?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which has pre-empted my further remarks.
I am trying to deal systematically with the Government’s objections to changing the split. The second point made by the Chief Secretary in her letter concerned the question of whether the surplus sharing arrangements represent fair recompense for the Government guarantee. In her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, she wrote:
“Thank you for also raising your views on the surplus sharing arrangements. I believe that these represent reasonable recompense to the taxpayer, both for the past investment in the Mineworkers Pension Scheme during the industry’s period of public ownership and for the risks they continue to bear through the government guarantee”.
There is no evidence that the current sharing arrangements can be considered fair or reasonable. Incredibly, the scheme was established, and the surplus sharing arrangements agreed, without any actuarial advice, as confirmed in written answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East.
We know a lot more about the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the associated risks that it faces than we did in 1994. If the 50-50 split represented the risk in 1994, 25 years later the risk to the Government is marginal. After a quarter of a century, they have never made a single contribution to the fund.
In the context of efforts to set a fair sharing arrangement, the Minister will be aware of two reports commissioned by the National Union of Mineworkers. I thank the NUM, and Chris Kitchen and his executive, for that. The two reports were produced by First Actuarial, and dealt with the Government guarantee and the surplus sharing arrangement.
One of the reports suggested that a 90-10 split of future surpluses would be a fair return to the Government for the relatively low level of risk taken in providing the guarantee. The schemes have been tested, and I point out that they weathered the 2008 world financial crash without any need to fall back on the guarantee. I implore the Government to use that report as a basis for negotiation—or rather renegotiation—which can deliver for all interested parties.
The third point made by the Chief Secretary in her letter was this:
“Any changes to the surplus sharing arrangements could only be considered in the round with changes to the guarantee, but trustees have indicated that their members are happy with the guarantee as it stands”.
As previously stated, the benefit of the guarantee is not being questioned. We all accept that it has benefit and value. It has allowed the scheme to be ambitious in its investment strategy. However, we should not conflate support for the guarantee with support for the surplussharing arrangements. Members representing coalfield areas will have received emails from constituents referring to the MPS trustee for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, Ken Capstick, in which he says:
“I know of not one Trustee that would agree with the statement made by…Chief Secretary to the Treasury and it is a complete misrepresentation of the position of the Trustees.”
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
That is what we expect from Tory Ministers.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely.
The MPS winter newsletter states:
“Whilst the Trustees are and always have been supportive of any initiative that had the underlying aim of improving members outcomes, the Trustees do not have the power to make these changes without recourse to the Guarantor”
—in other words, the Government.
“We will of course continue to work in your interests across all aspects of running the scheme”.
Let me say this, earnestly, to the Minister. The trustees will be listening. They want to renegotiate the current sharing arrangements. If approached by the trustees, will the Government, as guarantor, negotiate those arrangements? If the Minister wishes to intervene now, I will take his intervention; otherwise I hope he will address that question when he sums up the debate.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are those on this side of the House who not only have a great deal of sympathy with what is being said, but have a great deal of support for it and want to give a great deal of encouragement? Having come from Sheffield and worked with miners on the cricket field as well as the rugger field, I know the position exactly. I have seen all the pits and been down a lot of them. Let me simply say, I hope that you get what you want.
Grahame Morris
God bless you. I am grateful for that intervention,
What I am trying to do—with all due respect, and without denigrating anyone’s contribution—is set out the factual position. I think that the arguments that the existing arrangements are unfair are overwhelming.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
There is one point that my hon. Friend has not mentioned at all. I worked in the pit for 20-odd years before I came to Parliament, and I must say at the outset that this is an easier job than working down a coalmine. I know a lot of people do not like me saying that, but it is a fact. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
One of the things that I learnt about the pension scheme was this. I must tell my hon. Friend, who has not referred to this yet although he may do so later, that when I went down the pit just after the second world war there was a pension scheme in the coalmining industry for managers and people who ran the mine. There was also a scheme that paid deputies, who were like little sergeants in the pit. They were people with authority and their membership entailed that they could be paid as well. I think it was in the early 1960s, when I was still in the pit, when at last somebody decided that miners themselves, and there were 700,000 of them working in the coalmines in Britain at the time—
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is a pleasure. I must say that we are not creating a precedent here for the Chair allowing a very long intervention. Given the hon. Gentleman’s very specific position and long experience on this matter I have stretched things a bit, but that does not mean that anyone else will get away with it.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for his knowledge, input and expertise. Of course the 700,000 miners, and the 170,000 miners in Durham, have built up a huge pension fund. I have asked various parliamentary questions to ascertain the size of that fund, but bear in mind that 50% of the surplus is taken by Government—£4.4 billion—and my understanding is that, when the last of those miners and widows dies, the Government will get everything; not just the surplus, but everything.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on that point. As he knows, although Hartlepool never had any pits we certainly have mineworkers who served in pits in Durham. Does he agree that the Government are under an even greater obligation because of the sacrifices and industrial diseases that those mineworkers have suffered from, which have shortened their lives in many cases? That makes this an urgent issue for many.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. This is a poignant time. Just a short while ago it was the anniversary of the disaster at Easington colliery in my constituency, where 81 men were killed in an explosion and two men from the rescue team. There is blood on the coal. A price was paid and men paid contributions into their pension funds in anticipation that, if their lives were cut short by accident or injury, their widows and dependants would be looked after. The Government are falling short on this. This is an historical debt that the Government must discharge.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Fred Smith died last week. He was a proud Scotsman and a miner in the Castleford collieries. He died of an industrial-related disease and he leaves a widow, Enid, and a family to care for. He wants justice.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. A dear friend of mine, Myrtle McPherson, an absolute stalwart and a legend in Easington, died just a few days ago. These people should have justice. She was loved in that community and worked tirelessly. Her husband Gordon died prematurely of pneumoconiosis. There is a time pressure here and the Government and Ministers really must act.
Grahame Morris
I know lots of Members wish to speak in the debate but I will give way one more time and then conclude.
Caroline Flint
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, given that these surpluses are essentially a windfall to Government, at the very least, we should have greater transparency in knowing what that money is actually spent on? Does he also agree that it is rather odd that the Treasury budgets to spend this money but claims it is not a sound or firm amount of money that it can count on? Does he think that the Treasury has questions to answer on that front?
Grahame Morris
I am rather alarmed that the Treasury uses some of the surpluses from the mineworkers’ pension funds and says that money is being recycled into regeneration in coalmining areas. Surely the money that miners paid—miners such as my father, grandfather and uncles no longer with us—was deferred wages; it was for their benefit in their retirement, which they never got a chance to enjoy, or for their widows and other miners, not to be used as regeneration funds.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
As a Member of Parliament whose paternal grandfather was a coalminer and whose major conurbation in my seat is called Coalville, I think the hon. Gentleman will know whose side I am on in this debate. Does he agree that, given that the vast majority of retired coalminers and their widows still reside in the coalmining communities in which they worked, and some of them died, any increase in their pension from this overfunded, well-endowed fund will only go back to enrich the communities in which they have lived and worked all their lives and it would be a good investment for the Government?
Grahame Morris
It is not often that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but, absolutely, those people are certainly not going to be buying yachts and making investments in offshore tax havens. They are going to be spending that money in the local economy and supporting local businesses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grahame Morris
I shall now conclude, otherwise I will incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our mineworkers have served our country. They have served it loyally. They have toiled in the most dangerous and challenging working conditions imaginable. The contributions that miners have made to the wealth of our country was captured by George Orwell in his essay “Down the Mine” and I just want to read some lines from it:
“Our civilization…is founded on coal, more completely than one realizes until one stops to think about it. The machines that keep us alive, and the machines that make machines, were all directly or indirectly dependent upon coal.”
The importance of coal may have declined, but our gratitude to the miners should never wane and we owe them a debt of honour. Miners and their widows deserve better than poverty pensions. I am asking the Minister to end the pension theft and allow miners and their widows a better quality of life in retirement in their remaining years. Renegotiate the existing pension sharing arrangements. Do the right thing, Minister, and give the miners the money back that they have already earned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grahame Morris
We were doing so well in this debate, and I am heartened by the many contributions, especially from Conservative Members. I say that not to be mean-spirited but to acknowledge the contributions and the sympathy shown for the arguments that have been made, which I appreciate. I had hoped the Minister would be rather more positive in his approach to those contributions.
We have had brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Leigh (Jo Platt) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
We have also had notable interventions—too many to list—including from the youngest working miner to come into Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and from my inimitable hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We have had some terrific interventions, including from the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and a number of others.
Justice knows no age and, irrespective of the ages of the Members of Parliament debating this issue, I think we can recognise the injustice that the miners, their widows and beneficiaries are suffering. The Treasury forecast was that it would receive, at best, £2 billion, but it has received more than £4.4 billion and there is an ongoing commitment.
The motion, which I hope the House will agree, instructs the Government to conduct a review of the existing surplus sharing arrangements. My understanding is that the trustees want to do that, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.
Edward Miliband
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) having secured this debate, the House has now passed a motion stating:
“That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.”
I wonder whether you could give us some guidance, Mr Speaker. With the House having passed, without opposition and for the first time in 25 years of this scheme’s operation, this very important motion, can we use your good offices to persuade the Government to carry out the will of the House? It was very open to the Government to divide the House on this motion, but they choose not to do so, which must mean that they agree with it. Presumably, that means they are going to do something about it, if this House’s deliberations and possible votes are to be meaningful.