EU Referendum: UK Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the future of all the steel industry in south Wales. I have no doubt that we will shortly be hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on that subject. Additional uncertainty is being created by the news that we have heard in the past few days, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s perspective.

It is now more vital than ever that the Government continue to work with us, with the steel industry, with the steel trade unions—particularly Community, GMB and Unite—and with other partners to instil confidence that we will all work together to create the right business environment, which particularly applies to the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Government, following their re-election and the reappointment of Carwyn Jones as First Minister, have reiterated their commitment to doing everything they can to support the Welsh steel industry. We want that co-operative relationship, which has been in the interest of the industry, to continue.

Crucially, the steel industry is a question for the incoming Prime Minister. Will she take the kind of laissez-faire approach that we have seen from the current Prime Minister? There is no industrial strategy, and his idea was that we should not be intervening—the series of interventions in the steel industry came quite late, however welcome many of the steps taken by the Minister herself have been. Will the new Prime Minister form a Cabinet that is going to take decisive action in the national interest? That is the fundamental expectation of people in the steel industry. We need a proper industrial strategy, and we need tough action, particularly in relation to the Chinese.

I have a number of questions for the Minister on the uncertainty created by the referendum, particularly on the different trade options that might be on the table and their many implications for the steel industry. Like many others, I would argue that retaining access to the single market is crucial. There is a Celsa plant in my constituency. Celsa is a European company based in Catalonia that has plants all over Europe. Almost 100% of its trade is within the EU, so if we lost the ability to trade in that single market on the kind of terms we currently have, the additional cost of punitive tariffs, or other tariffs, could be devastating.

We also have questions about the future of the state aid rules under any regime. Let us not forget that it was often suggested during the referendum campaign that, somehow, everything was the EU’s fault, but actually the EU has taken many steps to support the steel industry across Europe. The reality is that there are rules that would apply under European economic area and World Trade Organisation trading arrangements. What does the Minister have to say about the different options on the table? What would be the best one for our steel industry?

Other uncertainties might be created in any transitional period. Let us not forget that this is not just about exports. Raw materials are imported, whether it is scrap, as with Celsa in my constituency, or other raw materials. There could be an impact both on the steel industry’s inputs and its exports. The other implication is for exchange rates. Some would argue that the fall in the pound provides a benefit to the steel industry, but of course that benefit is potentially offset by the changes in input costs. I can see no positive net benefit from the current currency situation. Indeed, any short-term marginal benefit will definitely be offset by the much wider risks. What is the Minister’s perspective on that?

UK Steel, which has done an excellent job of representing the interests of the industry as a whole and is working together with the different producers, has made it clear that we need to remove the unilateral energy costs; increase the procurement of UK steel; address unfair trade provisions; provide funding mechanisms for energy efficiency projects; and set out a clear direction for the investment and support required by the industry in the long term.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

One of the unilateral cost increases for the industry was the carbon price floor, which was a unilateral tax introduced by the British Government without any foresight. They then had to request permission from the EU to try to provide a compensation scheme. Post-Brexit, will the Government reconsider that measure in the immediate future to give more space to the steel industry on costs?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. Given that the facts of our relationship have changed so substantially, what people want to know today is what completely new and different things the Government are willing to do with the levers they control, to respond to the wider uncertainty being created.

That is even more important because in a post-Brexit Britain the self-sufficiency and security of the steel supply is of even greater strategic and economic importance for our construction industry, our defence industry and all the other parts of our economy in which the steel industry and other foundation industries play such a crucial role. In any circumstances, the steel industry is of national importance, but with Britain going alone that will be even more the case, which is why we need that action.

I have already mentioned procurement. I am still deeply disappointed that we do not seem to have seen anything concrete. We have heard a lot of good words about the guidance that has been issued to Departments, but I have yet to see any concrete projects to provide certainty to the industry. When I asked the Minister for Defence Procurement shortly after we returned from the referendum recess, there were a lot of warm words but no clarity on which defence, construction or infra- structure projects are to enjoy increased supply of UK steel. Indeed, this is not just a responsibility of the UK Government. As we have discussed in this place before, it is deeply disappointing that the Aberdeen bypass, for example, is being produced using Turkish steel. This is the responsibility of all the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government.

As a Welsh MP I would do this, but I mentioned the support that the Welsh Government have been providing. Quite rightly, everybody is concerned about the Tata situation in particular, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will speak on, but the Welsh Government have made it absolutely clear that they are committed to supporting the sales process and the communities involved, and that they will continue to put every resource they can to that purpose. As far as I understand, their offer of support definitely remains on the table, but obviously there needs to be clarity on the bidders and the plans coming forward. I would be very interested to hear what discussions the Minister and her officials have had with the Welsh Government over the last few days.

There is a crucial broader point to make. We have seen discussions going on with the steel council and the various working groups, but I am concerned and would be interested to hear the Minister clarify whether those discussions and that dialogue have continued, whether the steel council and the working groups have met and whether her officials have continued working on it, or whether everybody’s attention has simply been diverted by the implications of the referendum and the switch in Prime Minister and Government. We cannot afford to be diverted. Diversion of attention for a few weeks or a month could be absolutely devastating. I would like some assurances from the Minister about what is happening.

I want to allow as much time as possible for other Members to speak, because I know many want to. Let me end by saying that we have all made the arguments before and we know what they are: they are on energy, trade terms, procurement and the wider business conditions. We have seen progress on some of those areas from the Minister—I acknowledge that—but not enough. This decision is so fundamental in changing the terms for this business and its future that we need to know what is happening that is new, that is different and that will give that certainty, reassurance and hope to the industry for the months and years ahead. As I said, this industry has a future. It can play a vital strategic role in post-Brexit Britain, but it will only do that if we see decisive Government intervention to ensure that it survives and is able to compete on a global stage. I thank you, Mrs Gillan, and every Member who has attended today to show their support.

Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I have been chair of the all-party group on steel and metal related industries for five years and we have tried to reiterate the arguments for the steel industry. In 2012, when I first mentioned a debate about Thames Steel Services in Kent in the south-east of England, which is obviously not in my constituency but is part of the steel family, we did not get much of a hearing from the Government. Following that, we had further debates on the impending crisis, which we could see coming because of dumping from Chinese markets and other repercussions of Government policy. Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport responded. They were not even Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I kindly suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of the last few years. Colleagues in this Chamber who are members of the all-party group from other parties are well aware of that history.

The Government must stop dodging the issue and start to work on a strategy to protect and boost the industry across the UK. A real concern is the amount of time that Tata Steel is allowing for the sales process and that an arbitrary deadline will be imposed that is too soon for credible investors to develop a viable bid. Tata allowed time for the sale of its long products business to a credible investor. It should provide the same opportunity to bidders for the rest of its UK business as it allowed in every contemporary example, including SSI back in 2010 and Greybull Capital now—and, indeed, as was allowed in Tata’s own acquisition of Corus back in 2006.

The story is lost to some extent, but Tata achieved its purchase of Corus in competition mainly with a Brazilian company, and it achieved it only because in 2002 Tony Pedder, who headed up Corus at the time, was in competition with the same Brazilian company to create a merger, which then failed. Four years elapsed to allow Tata to purchase it. Some would argue that it paid an expensive share price, but that time elapsed and both competitors ratcheted up the share price because they thought the British assets were so key and vital, as they still are.

Public sector steel contracts must specifically consider UK steel, but I and my colleagues are concerned about recent reports that British steel is not being used in vital upcoming manufacturing projects—for example, Ajax vehicles. The Defence Minister, the right hon. Earl Howe, revealed in answer to a parliamentary question that 40% of the work building those vehicles will be carried out in Spain and a majority of the supplied steel will come from Sweden. This came after the Prime Minister hailed the deal as a boost for British manufacturing. Another example is the Aberdeen city bypass. Negotiations on a £12 million contract for 10,000 tonnes of rebar for the bypass have been reported as being at an advanced stage with Turkey.

Legislation and warm words are not enough to guarantee the viability and sustainability of a UK steel industry. The Government must act now to ensure that British steel is used in every public sector manufacturing contract and that British jobs are protected.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend has made some important points about procurement and the defence industry. His example of Aberdeen is particularly concerning, not least because rebar is one of the main products produced by the Celsa plant in my constituency. It has been used very successfully in projects such as Crossrail and elsewhere. Does he think it is time the Scottish Government fully explained their reasons? They said they would do everything they could to save steel jobs, but that seems to be falling down at the first hurdle.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Indeed. In a spirit of cross-party politics, we want a positive response from the Scottish Government on revisiting that issue, looking at the contract and looking to British-sourced rebar steel, made in Britain by British workers, so that our British steel industry can thrive.

It is important to remember that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has said, lack of customer confidence is the surest way to undermine the steel industry. The Government must work with Tata to ensure the continuity of client contracts. I know that a lot of work has been done on that in the background. It is essential to preserve the commercial viability of any sale. Retaining essential skills and competencies is vital for the future of the business. The highly skilled workforce cannot be allowed to fragment or disappear. Indeed, in 2010, £60 million was set aside by the then Labour Government to retain the existing workforce at Teesside Cast Products in Redcar. Not one hard redundancy was endured over a 22-month period among core Corus workers, to ensure that a purchase could allow a new owner to retain those workers. To avoid a fire sale and irreversible mistakes, the Government must demonstrate to all stakeholders in the industry that they are taking a proactive approach to ensuring the continuity of operations.

This is a time for leadership by the Government and no issue is more important for them to lead on than the lesser duty tariff. Europe currently uses the lesser duty rule to impose the lowest possible duties on unfairly traded products that have been dumped in European markets and exported at prices below those in the home market. Duties introduced by Europe are usually way below the actual margin of dumping, the result of which is that dumping continues and unfairly traded products are allowed to compete in European markets and depress prices.

The US does not follow the lesser duty rule, which means it can implement much tougher sanctions reflecting the margin of dumping. For example, it recently imposed duties of 236% on a particular grade of Chinese steel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

First, I would like to congratulate and welcome my new hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and say how privileged and happy I am to have him intervene during my speech. I believe that this is the first time he has spoken in the House, so I am very honoured that he has taken this opportunity, but I am even more impressed by the fact that he has got straight into the job and is representing his constituents in a very steadfast way.

The US Government are in the process of introducing new laws that will enable the US to take even tougher action against Chinese dumping and which will make Europe an even more attractive target for dumping. However, there is hope, as it has become widely recognised in Europe that the lesser duty rule is killing our industry. The European Commission has proposed that it should be scrapped, and that has been supported by the European Parliament. The European Commission is demonstrating the very reform and flexibility that the Prime Minister kept banging on about wanting to see in the European Union, so why will he and his Government not support the European Commission in that action?

I would be very happy if the Minister responded to that question, because that is the type of reform we want. When the facts and the market change, the mechanisms need to change. In my opinion, the reason why the lesser duty tariff has lasted so long is that the level of dumping was previously nowhere near the levels it has been at in the last four years. When the facts change, our trade defence mechanisms need to change in order to support our industry, yet even now the UK Government continue to lead the charge among the small group of nations blocking the scrapping of the lesser duty rule. Our own Government are arguing that end users of steel need access to cheap Chinese product.

Despite all the rhetoric, the UK Government are failing to stand up for our steel industry. They say they have delivered on four of the five industry asks, including

“backing EU-level action on anti-dumping measures”,

but the Government’s opposition to scrapping the lesser duty rule exposes the enormous gap between rhetoric and reality. Furthermore, on 5 February, the Secretary of State signed a heavily publicised letter to the Commission calling for Europe to

“use every means available and take strong action”

on Chinese dumping. That letter is simply not consistent with the Government’s position on the lesser duty rule.

Even more importantly over the coming weeks, the EU will make decisions that will impact on the granting of market economy status to China. It has become increasingly clear that Chinese dumping poses an existential threat to the UK and European steel industry. Despite that, the UK Government continue to act as a cheerleader for China in Europe in its bid for MES, whether we remain in the European Union or not. Market economy status for China would be a complete disaster, as it would make it even harder for European producers to gain protection from unfairly traded Chinese imports. That issue is becoming more urgent, as the Commission must take a decision on it by December of this year, and the European Parliament votes on it tomorrow. I do not know, but I have heard that Tory MEPs are being whipped to vote that through. That has serious implications yet again, in terms of what the Government say and what the Government are prepared to do.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for being generous with his time and giving way again. He makes an extremely important point about market economy status, and I absolutely agree. He highlights, aptly, that the crucial point in this is what the UK Government and Tory MEPs do in Europe and not, as some have suggested, that the European Union in some way putting the kibosh on the steel industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is misleading for Brexit campaigners to suggest that the steel industry in the UK would be better off if we left? The truth is that leaving the EU would be a body blow to the steel industry.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the Minister will agree with this. What would we be saying, as a nation, to Greybull or the seven potential buyers of strip and tubes in Britain if we removed ourselves from the European Union? They are purchasing, obviously, in the context of our being a member of the European Union. The implications of removing a pillar of the deal that has just happened—it took more than 12 months in relation to long products and Greybull—would be so massive that it does not bear thinking about, but then again, the Brexit campaign is more politically led than economically led. I make that quite clear because the matter is that important, and not just for steel. The Chemical Industries Association has come out very strongly for remaining within the European Union, as have trade unions in the manufacturing sector, because it is the only practical option if we are to retain any form of manufacturing in this country.

Another matter is business rates. This one cannot be immediately resolved, but it needs looking into. The review of business rates that concluded in advance of the Budget did not go far enough to deliver savings for UK producers. Business rates in the UK are up to 10 times higher than those paid by competitors in France and Germany. The Government should act now to level the playing field by removing plant and machinery from business rate calculations. Including plant and machinery in the calculations is anti-investment and anti-industry. Tata Steel recently invested £185 million in the construction of a new blast furnace in its Port Talbot steelworks and, in return for that investment, received a £400,000 increase in business rates. That is patently uncompetitive and ridiculous.

Back in March 2012, I gave a speech in relation to the closure of Thamesteel in Kent. That just goes to show how long we steel MPs in this place have been fighting, not just for our constituencies but for our countries’ steelworks, our steel culture, our steel families and our people. I want to repeat what I said that day, quoting a Teesside man of steel:

“When I see a blast furnace, I see a thing of beauty...I see something that has given thousands and thousands of people a way of life, a good, honest wage, the ability to pay their mortgages, go on holidays and bring up their families. That to me is fabulous, that is a beautiful thing. When you come to Middlesbrough and see that skyline...That blast furnace is the heart of Teesside. As long as it pumps, there is life in Teesside.”

It was not just a Teessider’s fairy tale when we saved TCP. The men and women from Kent, Stocksbridge, Rotherham, Hartlepool, Corby, Port Talbot, Shotton, Llanwern and Trostre all have the same view of their steelworks, as does every single steel community. It is a story for all steelworkers in Britain. There is a way to save our steel sites and UK steel if the Government do something to facilitate the process and lend their support, so the question for the Minister is: will you follow through on those promises, because now is the time for action?

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Until 2008, which was a big year for the steel industry, profits were massive. Everything coming out of any plant was getting bought up. The demand in the world was so high because it was driven by Chinese growth. Any bit of steel—slab or whatever—was being absorbed by the Chinese market. Steel producers made very good profits, as did their workforce, who made very good bonuses. I remember negotiating terms and conditions, and pay and pensions for those workers at the time and they did very well.

The anticipation after that was that the lull in the market would pick up at some time but, if anything, it has remained the same. It has flatlined—never picked up. It is usually an indicator of world economic performance, and nothing has happened. In many ways, the best-laid plans always go awry. The real issue is the ability of Governments to react. For some time now, there has not been a proper reaction. There has just been an expectancy or a desire—a hope and a prayer—that the market would pick up again. If anything, it has been quite clear that the domestic policy in China has been to prop up its own industry while that market stays at such a low, with ever-increasing production and increasing emissions.

We must talk about the backdrop. The big factor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned, is the “sheikhs versus shale” argument. There is a global, geopolitical war going on between oil and shale gas, as well as the onstream effects of renewables. They have forced down the price of oil, which has been a key factor for steel, whether that is in procuring contracts or gaining work, particularly at Hartlepool or Corby, where tubes are made.

There is a mismatch, in that the new markets developing for potential steel contracts and the R and D that could be invested in them differ very much from the steel sites that already exist. If we are looking at the new future for a tube site, it is more than likely going to be non-conventional onshore or offshore gas. The industry —we will be talking about this next week in a separate debate—requires a different type of tube, which is non-welded. There are no non-welded tube sites in Britain. At some governmental level, there has to be liaison with industry to find out what new industries are coming and to ask whether we are investing and helping those industries or potential suppliers to put in the new factories that will supply the product they require to develop that market.

This is the issue: steel or a steel strategy is one thing; what we really require is a real, integrated industrial strategy. That strategy should look across the piece and across regions to work out who needs to liaise with who to make whatever happen in the future. It should identify which industrial partners to bring on board and what they want to see, and ensure that investment is solid and sound and that we bring investors along with us to make those decisions work in our nation’s favour. There just does not seem to be any of that.

In the Chancellor’s autumn statement we heard that an announcement to the stock exchange had been made about the withdrawal of the last £1 billion to support carbon capture and storage. That is integral to any future of shale or non-conventional gas. In a world in which oil has fallen below $30 a barrel and the world market will retrench and retain fossil fuels for the current period, CCS should, in many ways—mainly because of the emissions targets that we are all now signed up to—precede renewables as the step for any nation to take to develop its power generation if, indeed, that country is going to buy in cheap fossil fuels while shale, oil and conventional gas all fight one another for customers. That is a massive opportunity for the steel sector to take hold of.

I have spoken so much about the steel sector, in relation to my local area and the whole UK. There is a positive story to be made for British steel, if we have an integrated industrial strategy. The Government could roll up their sleeves and actively engage with bodies, partners, business and finance to invest in the country. The right and adequate policy could be put down, with long-term futures secured, so that people know that their investments are sound and can deliver. However, in every single situation—for example, after the Paris climate change talks, when the world is looking at CCS as the future, and it is going to develop, the Government removed funding for it—we run away and concede the ground to competitors, which gives completely the wrong message to the industry we are talking about today.

[Stephen Doughty]

Signals.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Exactly. We need to send market signals to potential investors to demonstrate that we have industries that link up with each other.

That brings me to defence. The future of sites such as Dalzell and Clydebridge in Scotland, which are linked to long products, is not certain. They produce the sonar-specific coated plate for the renewal of the four nuclear submarines, but they also produce the plate used for offshore renewable technology. That is where we have to shoot some sacred cows. There is no dichotomy between renewables—the green argument—and, say, the four nuclear submarines. Often the technologies are shared and cross over different markets.

We have to reassure steelworkers at those sites that we will be making the case for their industries and the products they make. However, their future is uncertain. Although the Government make a strong argument for the nuclear deterrent, I am not entirely sure where they are going to procure the plate from. What is the future for Dalzell and Clydebridge? Where is the sonar-specific plate going to come from if those sites are not bought and kept running? At the moment, Tata’s plan is to mothball them both. The certainty that the Prime Minister gives at the Dispatch Box about national security certainly is not there, and he has big questions to answer on national defence because those two sites do not have a certain future.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

On long products and the future of Skinningrove and Lackenby beam mill—TBM—in Redcar, we know that Greybull Capital is interested. We want those sites to have a successful future, and there is now a better prospect than under Klesch. However, I have not heard any certain clarification about long products per se. Most of what I read second hand is about the Scunthorpe site. The APPG has already pre-empted that in wanting to talk to Greybull to hear its intentions for Longs, but I want clarity for the men and women who work across all the Longs sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Such promises have been the hallmark of much of the relationship with Europe of this Government and the previous one. There has been a lack of engagement. We can argue about the reasons why, but things have not been followed through until far too late in the day. I know that the Minister will talk about the actions she took, which were very welcome—I praised her for them publicly—but that was the first action after many similar requests in terms of our relationship with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon talked about market economy status, and my biggest concern is China. It is basic economics. The statistics show that Chinese steel exports have increased every year—they rose in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. If we look specifically at statistics for the EU, we see an upward trend of Chinese exports since the start of 2011. In 2014, they increased by 53%. They peaked in quarter 4 of 2014 at 27.1 million tonnes, but in quarter 3 of 2015, a new record was set of 29.4 million tonnes, which was an increase of 17% in one quarter.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

To return to the point about MES, there is the issue of what our allies are doing and what China demands. China wants MES almost automatically, without debate. On the flip side, there was an OECD steel committee meeting before Christmas at which nations from around the world wanted to talk specifically to the Chinese delegation about the amount of dumped steel in their markets—this is not just a European Union phenomenon; it is a global one—and China did not attend. Those factors need to be raised by the British Government with the European Union. We should be looking seriously at MES, not just taking it for granted.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree wholeheartedly. We have already heard about a letter from Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of the union Community, to the Minister. The letter, which he made public, says clearly:

“As you will know, it is widely understood that the UK Government has taken a decision to support China’s bid to receive market economy status from Europe. This would be a complete disaster for our steel industry, as it would make it even harder for European producers to gain protection from unfairly traded Chinese imports.”

This is not just about what we have seen, as there are also issues involving the Chinese currency. Many experts agree that the recent devaluation suggests that there is an increased chance of further growth in Chinese steel exports and dumping into markets. We have discussed this in many debates, but there is also a problem that if China is exporting all that steel, and certain other countries and Administrations around the world are taking measures to prevent imports of that steel, the impact on the UK market will be even greater.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I would certainly be interested to hear the views of the Minister and experts within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about what impact that might have, and whether it is likely to increase the pressure further.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

To what extent does my hon. Friend think that the deal allowing Chinese currency to be exchanged in the City of London is affecting the Government’s decision to support Chinese MES?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point. My hon. Friend rightly talked about an industrial strategy and having an overall strategic look at these industries and their interaction in the globalised economy that we face. There are tensions in government between the Treasury, BIS and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Minister may shake her head and wave her hands, but she knows that those tensions are there, and that there is not one voice on these matters in government. She works for a Secretary of State who, as we know, would not utter the words “industrial strategy”.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend believe that maybe, just maybe, we need Treasury Ministers to attend these debates? Despite all the confidence that we have in this Minister, we are now in a situation in which, if we are to talk adequately about UK steel, we need to hear Treasury Ministers justifying decisions and views on things such as MES.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is important, because a whole-Government approach is needed. We saw the disjunction between DECC and BIS about the package for energy-intensive industries and the measures that were taken. The approach needs to be co-ordinated. The Chancellor has been warned repeatedly, and I have letter after letter from Celsa to him and Treasury officials. We ensured that we always kept them informed, but there was very little engagement by the Treasury.

I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to a number of questions. Given the welcome steps that have been taken on compensation, exemptions and so on, after all the changes come through, will companies be paying more tax or less? What will be the net impact of the introduction of the compensations and exemptions? This has been a key concern for the industry when big figures are bandied around. What will be the net impact on their balance sheets?

Secondly, on procurement—other colleagues have asked this, but I would also like to know—since the Government announced their various procurement measures on a UK level, has any work been given to UK steel producers that would not otherwise have taken place or that had not already been contracted? That point is crucial. Celsa played a crucial role in supplying rebar—I think it supplied some 45% of it—to the construction industry for the Crossrail project. Unless the infrastructure pipeline goes through, and without a commitment from the UK Government that major infrastructure projects—whether in defence, construction or major energy—will support UK steel, we will have a serious problem.

Finally, as the Chair of the BIS Committee and others have mentioned, what does the Minister think is the acceptable bottoming out of the steel industry in the UK? Does she have a sense of where it ends, or is this, frankly, just a managed decline? People want to know and understand the situation. If we do not have clarity of vision from the Government, we unfortunately risk continuing to be buffeted. We will lurch from one crisis and set of job losses to another, as has happened over the past few months, which we warned would happen. Can we prevent any further loss of the expertise, skill and national security provided by our steel industry, let alone the productivity?

I made this point in an intervention, but I cannot emphasise it enough. As somebody who believes in tackling global climate change, operating sustainably and having responsible industry, I find it absurd that we would offshore from this country steel jobs and production involving the most carbon-efficient methods, because that will result in more global carbon production and an increased chance of climate change, less security of steel supply in our own country, and less quality and safety of supply. Those are serious points that we must be aware of, which is why a strategic approach is required across Departments, with people all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I am proud of what the Welsh Government are doing to respond to the immediate crisis in Wales. I am proud of what the Economy Minister said this week and I am proud of what Carwyn Jones has been doing to respond, but a fundamental change in approach on working together is needed from the UK Government, because otherwise I do not know where we are heading.

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

It is good to be on to the new clauses. It is intriguing that the Minister was talking about using mobile phones and the ease of doing things online—almost the very arguments that could be used in support of e-balloting and the methods connected to it—but he has chosen to apply those methods in other measures. That emphasises the debate we have been having throughout the Bill.

New clause 11 would prevent all public sector employers from deducting trade union subscriptions via payroll and would mark the end of what is called check-off. I believe that the Government are deliberately targeting trade union finances by making it harder for individuals, including lower paid workers and many women in particular, to get access to trade union representation in the workplace. That is particularly true for dispersed workforces. I was struck by the evidence I received from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which works in the retail sector, about the many people working in small shops and retail outlets throughout the country who find check-off a convenient way to have their payments taken, without a complicated process. They will struggle because of the new clause.

The move is almost universally opposed, save for the Government and the TaxPayers Alliance, and we all know that the basis of the oral evidence they gave was very flimsy. It is all rather ironic when we consider that the Government’s claim that the proposal will save taxpayers’ money is, in fact, a red herring, given that many trade unions already cover the cost of check-off services. In some cases, the fees generated in the process and charged by Government employers for check-off provision generate a net gain for the public finances. There seems to be no sense at all in the proposals.

In pressing ahead in spite of the critics, the Government have failed to secure any substantial employer support for their proposals, as far as I am aware. Indeed, many employers, including employers in local government and the health sector—as we have heard with respect to the Scottish and Welsh Governments as well—have expressed concern that the removal of check-off arrangements could undermine constructive relations between managers and unions, which are vital to the quality of public services. Is that any wonder, when employers and trade unions were not even consulted properly?

The proposals have been introduced without a proper consultation process, engagement with the unions, or an assessment of the impact on employment relations. The proposals were not included in the Conservative party manifesto, Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, or the briefing accompanying the speech, although it would have been easy for the Government to do that. The Minister has said that everyone has long been aware of the change and has had time to prepare, but if the Government are so clear about it, why did they not make it clear when they first suggested introducing the Bill? There was no reference to the proposal in any of the BIS consultations or impact assessments that accompanied the publication of the Bill. Instead, the Government announced the plans on 6 August 2015, and published the new clause introducing the ban, which we are discussing now, only a matter of days ago.

That does not strike me as the most transparent, engaging or consultative process. Unfortunately that has been the hallmark of the Bill from start to finish. To date, the Government have failed to publish any evidence justifying the introduction of the ban, or any assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on those who would be affected.

There are also huge implementation issues. Transferring millions of members on to direct debit would create significant organisational challenges for many trade unions, particularly those operating in dispersed work forces. It will therefore be vital, if this goes ahead, that trade unions are provided with ample time to transfer members on to direct debits. We have talked about the potential unwinding of collective agreements and employment contracts in many sectors, but time will also need to be provided for employers and trade unions to renegotiate existing collective agreements, which often include aspects relating to the check-off provision.

I know many are concerned that no timetable for the introduction has been specified in the amendment. The Minister said he wants to allow a reasonable period and I hope that when he gets to his feet he will specify broadly what he has in mind. The explanatory note similarly suggests that a reasonable period will be provided, but that has no legal effect.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

As I was listening to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, I was thinking about potential ramifications of this and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. For example, if an accountant working for a council is a chartered accountant paying annual fees, does that come out of his pay packet in certain circumstances, in much the same way as check-off does? If a nurse pays annual fees to be registered as a nurse, does that come out of their pay packet as well?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, one we discussed during the oral evidence sessions as well as here: there are many things that are deducted in the same format as check-off. We as MPs are allowed to make salary deductions for various things, from repayments of loans to charitable donations. Again, this is one rule for trade unions and another for everybody else and it is simply not acceptable. I hope the Minister will provide an explanation and more detail on that provision and a definition of what is a “reasonable” transition period.

The Minister will be aware of the specific concerns outlined by the TUC that trade unions will be required to sign members up to direct debit payments at the same time as needing to comply with the other significant legislative changes in the Bill. Those include encouraging millions of members within just three months to opt in to the union’s political fund, even though they have voluntarily contributed for many years, gathering additional information for the certification officer and complying with the oodles and oodles of red tape and blue tape that are being put in by the Bill, let alone previous provisions such as those introduced by the gagging Act. In these circumstances, the need for significant time to allow unions to move their members on to direct debit is very clear.

As I have argued throughout this Bill, the Government are not pursuing a plan for modern and forward-looking industrial relations. They are trying to turn the clock back and offering solutions to the problems of yesteryear.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I have just thought of another question. This goes back to my industrial background working with predominantly female workforces in the textile industry. Many did not have bank accounts, but were trade union members and worked on piecework rates. How will they be affected if they are disfranchised, rendered unable to join a trade union at all because they do not have a bank account?

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Blenkinsop]

In most unions, by the time strike action is taken, a local dispute will usually have been taken to a regional level, and if the matter was not resolved at a regional level, it will have been taken to a national level. That is certainly what happens in large private industry, particularly the steel industry. I imagine that there are such cultural norms in most trade unions.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree. It is important to recognise something that Government Members seem to have lost in this debate: the vast majority of trade union members and workers, whether in public services or the private sector, will seek to resolve disputes through very reasonable mechanisms, such as talking to line managers, colleagues and others in the management of a firm or public service, before they reach the stage of even contemplating industrial action or disputes. Most people act in a human way and want to resolve things as easily as they can. It is only when frustrations build up and concerns are not listened to—for example, on health and safety or fundamental disputes with the Government about restrictions on pay or pensions—that things reach the point where industrial action is considered. I say gently that the Government do not appear to understand how things operate in practice.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I can barely think of any possible examples in which a trade union would not explain the progress of negotiations and what might be going on and feed back to its members what is happening in a workplace.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As a former trade union officer with the Community trade union, I was part of the National League of the Blind and the Disabled section, which deals with blind and disabled workers who work in Remploy factories—

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Sadly, that is right. My section also dealt with blind and disabled people working in sheltered workplaces, including at Ayresome Industries in Middlesbrough. As well as union officers, the unions brought in, over a prolonged period, signers and Braille writers to ensure that those employees were informed of the situation and the exact nature of any dispute.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very important example. The Minister selectively looking at a couple of ballot papers proffered to him by his officials is simply not reflective of the wide degree of communications and engagement that will go on when trade union members—workers in a firm or a public service—are considering industrial action. It goes back, again, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West: why would trade unions want to be hoodwinking people into action? How would they then convince them to take part in it? It is just nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, and it would be a strange situation were we to find a Minister in a future Committee sitting able to find many examples of ballot papers to read from, casting all sorts of aspersion on the conduct of businesses in industry and the public sector up and down the country.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

A potential example that we would certainly not want documented or in the public view is a trade union dispute between GCHQ and its employees. Would the Government really want that information published?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can think of all sorts of other examples. Again, the implications of this do not seem to have been properly thought through. Will the Minister briefly comment on who has requested this? Who has said they want this? Have employers, businesses and public servants up and down the country been banging on the Minister’s door saying, “We want this information out there in the public domain,” as the Bill would require?

This would not only add to the regulation of trade unions and the implications for employers; new powers for the certification officer would inevitably be followed by additional costs. The wide extension of the certification officer’s power will have significant fiscal implications. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely cost implications of the certification officer having to gather this additional information? Will it come from existing budgets, will new moneys be provided or will it be cost-neutral?

In any other sector, I am sure the Government would attack such burdensome regulations as needless officialdom that should be done away with in a bonfire of bureaucracy. Does the Minister agree that legislation affecting trade unions should be held to the same standards?

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an important point. During our considerations we will see that, rather than hanging together coherently, the Bill belies its original drafting intent and is more like a Swiss cheese full of holes. Many aspects of the Bill do not sit together well because they are being put together for a different purpose than what the Government say they are trying to achieve.

Amendments 7 and 8 would apply similar principles to those that I have just laid out, to clause 3 of the Bill which deals with the proposed 40% threshold. I know we will come to that in due course. We have a number of serious concerns about the 40% threshold that go beyond even our concerns about the 50% threshold, but the same principles exist. If we are to have thresholds, we need to ensure that unions will not be opened to all sorts of vexatious legal challenges.

Amendment 20 would apply a similar principle to the reporting requirements on ballots outlined in clause 5 of the Bill. Amendment 23 would remove the requirement on trade unions to take the responsibility of informing members and employers whether the 50% turnout threshold was met and, where relevant, whether the 40% turnout threshold was met. I do not understand why the Bill—evidenced throughout its text—seeks to bog down trade unions in extra red tape, particularly when the Government claim that it is all about reducing regulation and burdens. Surely employers would be able to easily calculate whether a trade union has met any statutory thresholds applied using the numbers provided by the trade union? I really do not see why this reporting requirement is necessary.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think this goes beyond the percentages required for a ballot? The fact is that companies with recognised trade unions on site have either gone through voluntary recognition or compulsory recognition, which means that the workforce have already been balloted on whether they want a trade union representative liaising on their behalf with an employer. Is this legislation not going way beyond ballots and actually trying to give employers the ability to de-recognise unions across the country in all sorts of different workplaces, public or private?

[Stephen Doughty]

I believe that the Bill has many sinister intents. There are many provisions that can be used to tip the balance between employers and employees well beyond what would be reasonably expected in a democratic society. We heard during the evidence sessions that the Bill and these provisions put us at the bottom of the league when it comes to international labour standards and the rights of workers and trade unions.

Amendments 21 and 22 are to clause 5 and are consequential to other amendments for consistency.

Before I conclude on this group, it is worth referring to some of the comments. Many comments were made about this set of proposals in the written and oral evidence and it is important to bring the Committee’s attention to a number of them.

The Royal College of Nursing said that:

“The changes that are proposed…will do nothing for the improvement of industrial relations. The emphasis on ‘strikes’ and seeing all industrial action through the prism of strikes is misleading. This is at a time when the number of disputes is low compared to the past. The effect of the proposals to set thresholds”—

and a whole series of other measures—

“is not a ‘neutral’ step, rather it further strengthens the power already held by employers in workplace disputes now.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which was made on Second Reading and by a number of witnesses. The Bill has a disproportionate impact on women, many of whom would be standing up on issues such as disparities in equal pay. We have repeatedly heard how, despite the Equal Pay Act being so many years ago, the reality is that women earn significantly less than men for the same hour of work conducted, particularly in certain sectors. Unions play a crucial role in standing up for those women. Importantly, I mentioned the diffuse nature of the workforce in sectors such as retail, highlighted by USDAW and others. A lot of women work in those sectors, and there will be a disproportionate impact.

Turning to some of the other evidence, we heard from the GMB which underlined the point I made that thresholds will lead to unions taking more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure the necessary turnout. It stated in written evidence that

“Employers will be encouraged to sit on their hands and wait to see if the threshold can be reached rather than address the underlying issues in the dispute.”

USDAW, which I have referred to a number of times, said:

“The best method to ensure high levels of workplace democracy is to make it as easy as possible to vote and to ensure that each vote counts equally. Under the proposed system of ballot thresholds, an individual choosing not to vote is likely to have more of an impact on the outcome of the ballot than someone choosing to vote against industrial action. If an individual votes against industrial action, their vote will be added to the turnout threshold even if they are in the minority, meaning that their vote could help to ensure that the ballot threshold is met. However, if someone chooses to abstain, their vote will not be added to the turnout threshold potentially meaning that, even if the vast majority of votes cast were in favour of action, the ballot will not meet the threshold requirements. As such—”

—USDAW is categorical about this

“the proposed ballot thresholds will clearly be detrimental to workplace democracy.”

I have another piece of evidence from Unison:

“In the UK an absent vote is not regarded as a negative one. There are a range of reasons why trade union members might not vote.”

It then gives a very practical example:

“There might be a positive decision to abstain. They might be on holiday or ill. They might not have an opinion on the dispute and rely on their colleagues to make their views clear.”

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend agree that they can be in management and also in the trade union, and it is dependent on the employer to recognise that member of management within the business unit, although not necessarily in their branch?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is indeed the case. To touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, low-paid workers are more likely to move and change address, and they might not regularly update the trade union on their latest details.

Unison is very clear:

“Rather than enabling such members to participate more easily in trade union ballots, the Trade Union Bill will restrict the democratic rights of working people and the ability of trade unions to represent their members in the workplace. It will ultimately lead to a diminishment of workplace democracy.”

We also had a response from UCATT, an important union representing workers in the construction sector. We did not hear from UCATT in the oral evidence sessions, which was a shame, but it has submitted written evidence, which says:

“It should be also noted that for trade unions taking strike action is always a last resort, no union asks members to lose money on a whim, it is only called for following an end to protracted negotiations that 90% of the time reach an amicable settlement.”

That point cannot be overemphasised. Unions want to find resolutions to disputes, but the Bill puts a whole series of barriers in the way of successfully resolving disputes.

Finally, it is important to look at some of the Bill’s potential legal contraventions. I mentioned the evidence given by Thompsons Solicitors. It also submitted evidence to the Government’s consultation, the conduct of which was significantly lacking, as identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee. In section 10 of the submission from Thompsons Solicitors to the Department on the consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services, it says:

“The ballot thresholds in ‘important public services’ will engage Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restriction on the right protected by Article 11 must be ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. To be ‘prescribed by law’ the proposed legal framework must have sufficient clarity and precision to enable the trade union on whom the restriction is imposed to regulate its conduct accordingly (i.e. to know exactly which of its members the additional threshold applies to). There is a very real prospect, on the evidence so far, that the government’s attempts to meet this standard will fail. It is completely unacceptable to palm responsibility for identifying whether a particular member is covered by the additional threshold off on to the trade union, (paragraph 17 of the consultation). The problem will be particularly acute when considering ‘mixed’ balloting constituencies—i.e. ones including some members who are covered by the additional ballot threshold, and some who are not.”

The complexity and uncertainty created by the way the Bill is drafted provides all sorts of grounds for legal challenge and undermines the ability of unions to stand up for their workers. Industrial action must always be seen as a last resort.

Trade Union Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

Q 271 The reason I wanted to ask the question was to find out why you think you have been asked here to give evidence on the Bill. Is it so that your poor industrial relations with a whole series of unions can then be used as an example to be reflected in full-scale national policy making? Is that why you think you have been invited here today?

David Palmer-Jones: I hope I have been asked here today to look at some of the grey areas—not the black and white areas about intimidation or numbers of pickets and so on—and perhaps a changing tactic on protests and the disruption they cause my company in continuing to invest in Teesside. I think that is why I have been invited; I hope so.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Q 272 The project at Wilton, of course, uses CNIM Clugston as the engineering, procurement and construction contractor. Are you aware of allegations that CNIM Clugston is paying certain members of staff—contractors who they employ and who are non-British workers—€6 an hour?

David Palmer-Jones: That is a complete fallacy. It is untrue. I have done the audit. I have seen the information myself and presented it to Merseyside council and the elected members. They are satisfied, as my customer. I have no obligation to show the unions. I offered, very genuinely, to involve ACAS, so that they could see it. They refused. They want to do their own audit.

Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Q 118 I was going to ask a question, but you actually answered it in your previous response about the exception to the rule in relation to how industrial action might affect access to services for patients. How often, in your opinion, do the exceptional circumstances that you are coming out with actually happen?

Julia Manning: I only looked back to 1982, I think; so for prior to 1982, I could not tell you.

[Stephen Doughty]

Q 119 Going back to the fundamentals of why you are appearing and giving evidence today, why did you think you were called to give evidence on the Bill? Why were you asked as a Government witness? Has your organisation lobbied for the Bill and the measures in it? Have you been meeting with Ministers arguing for the measures in the Bill?

Julia Manning: No, but we have a strong record on representing patient interests, talking about the patient experience and considering the wider landscape of change in legislation in terms of trends in population—