Steel Industry

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Geraint Davies

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Other colleagues may want to comment on this, but my view is that in general the energy sector is predisposed to giving the individual consumer cheaper prices, with the costs going more towards manufacturing. The consequences of that have led to some manufacturers going off grid; and a consequence of that may be higher prices for the individual consumer, as capacity cannot be fulfilled by larger consumers. In European countries such as Germany and Holland, there are discounted energy costs for large manufacturers but with the understanding that the individual pays higher bills. There is consensus, to a certain degree, that people are willing to pay higher energy bills in order to maintain manufacturing in their country so that they have a job—but that is with open political consensus. We as politicians need to talk about what type of economy we want. Do we want to move it away from finance and services back to a more balanced economy? We need to talk about that in terms of energy policy, but I will go into that issue in more depth later.

The Government can act to support the steel industry’s attempts to improve its energy efficiency and thereby cut emissions and costs by providing an energy efficiency fund. Such a fund could supply capital for companies to make improvements and efficiencies in the way they use energy, meaning they can better compete on energy prices and millions of tonnes of carbon emissions can be cut.

The second immediate challenge is that of the British Steel pension scheme. The scheme’s deficit, estimated at £700 million earlier this year, has been a major obstacle to the sale of Tata Steel sites. In response to that, the pension scheme’s trustees have asked if it would be possible to alter the scheme’s benefits in order to make it viable without a sponsor employer. The Government have been consulted on that option and on the alteration to section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995 necessary to alter the scheme’s benefits. We are yet to hear a statement on the consultation, but recently the pensions deficit has been drastically re-estimated at £50 million, due to the trustees taking advantage of the post-Brexit economic situation—I must mention that that has more to do the British Steel pension scheme’s investments in other nations’ stock, which has boosted the pension fund.

If interest rates were to rise and the scheme’s asset value continued to increase, hypothetically the trustees may wish to withdraw their request to change the scheme’s benefits, and therefore a change in section 67 of the Pensions Act may not be necessary. The compounded complications are that any change to section 67 could affect any other workplace pension scheme, and any other representative of any other constituency without a steel interest would be highly hesitant about voting for such an action. I hope we can keep in constant contact with the Minister, so that if the scheme’s benefits continue to rise, we can look at measures short of the scheme falling into the Pension Protection Fund, because that is fundamental to the existing Tata sites. The Government must act to explore that possibility, provide certainty in an uncertain situation and secure the continued viability of Tata Steel sites. The BSPS is a fulcrum of the continuation of the current Tata sites.

As well as the five asks, strategic decisions will need to be made soon by Government that have the power to end or secure the industry’s future. Those are decisions that come in the wake of Brexit. There are many implications for the steel industry of the UK leaving the European Union, from workers’ rights to an ability to attract expertise and investment from the continent, but I wish to focus on one: trade, and in particular access to markets and trade defence measures.

Earlier this week, I warmly welcomed the Government’s actions to secure investment, jobs and growths at the Nissan plant in Sunderland, via the production of the two new Qashqai and X-Trail models. That move is warmly welcome, not least because Nissan is one of the largest buyers of British strip steel, largely from Tata Steel sites. It is a shame the Government did not take the same decisive action when it came to the closure of the SSI Redcar steel plant over a year ago, which I am certain my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar will talk about. None the less, it seems the Government have reassured Nissan that it will have access to European markets tariff-free. That is fantastic news, but it is not just Nissan or the automotive industry that rely on access to tariff-free trade with Europe.

Over half of all British steel exports are to the European Union, therefore any tariffs on British goods would damage the health of UK steel. I hope the Minister will commit today to providing steel producers with similar assurances. Doing so would again demonstrate this Government’s commitment to the sector, and of course do much for those whose jobs who are dependent on the steel trade. The Nissan deal also reflects how big and powerful the industry players and the automotive lobby is as a whole. Steel requires its players to come together and command such attention. It must also gain the understanding of the auto sector and all the other industrial lobbies that the UK steel supply on their doorstep requires their clear verbal support.

Leaving the European Union presents both an opportunity and a threat in terms of trade defence measures—a threat in that it means we would leave behind the trade defence measures provided by the EU, modest and limited though they are, and an opportunity in that it allows this country to implement our own trade defences. As many here will know, the over-production of primarily, though not exclusively, Chinese steel and its dumping, sometimes at below-cost prices, in foreign markets poses a real and significant threat to industry here in the UK. Currently the EU’s tariffs on steel differ by product: the highest import duty is about 73% on heavy plate steel, whereas in the US in March duties were set at over 265%.

While Chinese production of steel did slow as global demand dipped, the latest International Steel Statistics Bureau statistics show that Chinese exports remain at a year high, with August levels being some 7% above last year. The problem is not going to go away; it will certainly re-emerge. However, this Government seem to have set their face against trade tariffs on Chinese steel, as two quotes reveal. The first, from the Chancellor, was on granting China market economy status. He said:

“Our position on China’s market economy status is that we gave certain undertakings to China and believe that we are bound to go down this route.”

Recognising market economy status for China would limit our ability to apply duties on Chinese steel, potentially opening up our markets to a flood of cheap steel, undercutting domestic producers and risking thousands of British jobs.

Commitments made to endear ourselves to China should not take precedent over commitments to steelworkers or common sense. It is obvious that Chinese steel is not made under market competition conditions, and it is also obvious that by campaigning for MES for China, the Chancellor is campaigning against the interests of British steelworkers. This may be further complicated by Brexit. If we campaign for market economy status for China—as a country, I add; that is the Government’s position—while we are in the EU, will not this Government be obliged to recognise that once we can do so unilaterally after leaving the EU? Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.

The second telling quote came from the Secretary of State for International Trade. During his speech to the Conservative Way Forward group, the right hon. Gentleman, now infamous for calling British business people fat and lazy, said we

“must turn our backs on…voices that tell us: ‘It’s OK, you can protect bits of your industry, bits of your economy and no one will notice’”.

That seems to set the right hon. Gentleman against any industrial strategy and certainly against trade defence measures for the steel industry. I hope that that misapplication of free trade dogma to trade with a communist country and its state-owned and subsidised steel industry does not spill over into Government policy. I hope Ministers from BEIS have explained the absurdity of that position to the Secretary of State; if not, I fear someone will have to very soon. Those two aspects of the Brexit negotiations are fundamental to any industrial strategy and I hope the Minister will outline today the conversations he has had with and the cases he has been making to the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about Brexit and our industrial strategy.

I would like now to address my own Front Benchers. As a party, we have been vocal in campaigning to save our steel industry, and we should be proud of that, but, if our party is to help to revive the steel industry in the UK, as I hope it will, and not merely be its pallbearer, we must stop cutting off potential demand for British steel by opposing or sitting on the fence over major infrastructure projects. Heathrow will require 370,000 tonnes of steel and could support hundreds of jobs in the industry. Labour does not seem to have a settled opinion—I know mine—and we must be clear. Trident will support British jobs in the steel industry, despite the Government allowing French steel to be used in the vessels’ hulls, but Labour’s own leadership casts doubt on our commitment to this project, despite party policy and a consensus at our conference and among trade unions to accept it.

Shale gas is an example. Our party has vowed to ban the practice of fracking. The GMB union called this decision ridiculous, nonsense and madness, and my union, Community, said the decision was rushed and did not fully consider the evidence. Both unions have since signed a memorandum of understanding with United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas, the industry trade body. Two proud unions, with large private sector bases and affiliated to our party, are asking the party to back a proposal that would provide jobs in regions across the UK—not just jobs, but secure, well paid jobs that would help to stop our reliance on autocratic nations for our energy. It would offer people, not least the thousands of offshore oil workers being made redundant, well trained, highly skilled, long-term roles, but we have denied them that option. Shale gas would cut energy prices for the steel industry more profoundly than any tax break or subsidy. On Teesside, it would provide a gas supply to a much-needed chemicals industry at 50% less than the cost of conventional North sea gas.

The infrastructure and sites would also require thousands of tonnes of steel. The viability of British-made welded steel pipes for fracking is currently being explored. It is vital to both Corby’s and Hartlepool’s pipe mills. The industry is moving ahead without the Labour party. We should be shaping the shale gas industry, not ignoring it for our own satisfaction. We should be making sure it is safe, that it uses British steel, that energy price cuts are passed on to steel producers and that they organise their workforce so that it can bargain collectively and secure benefits for local communities.

Blanket opposition to infrastructure projects may offer the false comfort of the moral high ground, but it is not responsible. Failing to make these choices is not the action of a Government in waiting who intend to deliver for steelworkers. As a party, we must be pro-jobs and pro-steel choices, and not just attend marches and wear badges. I hope my party will think about these issues and choose jobs over familiar, fashionable and flawed opinion.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

From one Tom to another, I call Tom Pursglove.

Boulby Potash and Teesside Unemployment

Debate between Tom Blenkinsop and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Boulby Potash job losses and wider Teesside unemployment.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this important debate on the recent announcement by ICL Cleveland Potash to cut 700 jobs at Boulby in my constituency, and to have a wider discussion of unemployment in Teesside and east Cleveland. The job cuts announced at Boulby Potash have hit the community of east Cleveland very differently from the closure, following liquidation, of Sahaviriya Steel Industries UK; there are a number of reasons for that. [Interruption.]

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Will those leaving the Chamber do so quietly, so that we can hear Mr Blenkinsop?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Thank you, Mr Davies.

The first reason for the different effect is that my constituency, in the borough of Redcar and Cleveland, has the largest population of miners in the UK. It is more than fair to say that the announcement came as a complete surprise to almost everyone—except some members of the management, perhaps. Only two years ago ICL repeated announcements that the mine had 40 years of potash that could be accessed. That has suddenly fallen to two years’ supply. There had been no sign that the business was struggling, whereas, by comparison, debt and coal shortages were routinely reported for SSI. It was undoubtedly weathering the storm that commodity prices have suffered since the beginning of this year. However, there were none of the early indications that one might have expected, given that the potential job losses run to three quarters of current employee levels. The proposals set out that 700 jobs of a workforce just shy of 1,000 are to go by 2018, with half of that happening by the end of this financial year. If anything, the mining industry in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies appeared to be on the rise, with the proposed York potash project.

I cannot proclaim strongly enough how much of a staple Boulby Potash is in the east Cleveland community. Generations of families have forged livelihoods on the back of the mine since the early ’70s, and now for hundreds of them there is the potential for that livelihood to be stolen away from them. In the early days of the mine, relatives of such people lost their lives to create a working mine and provide good, well-paid jobs for the community. The workers have been given this news in the run-up to one of the most stressful periods of the year. Despite what former Ministers may say, there is never a good time for someone to lose their job, but there is something particularly cold about losing it—or at least being informed about losing it—at this point, in the run-up to Christmas.

The latest job figures that I have do not even cover the impact of the collapse of SSI. However, for the record, the sad fact is that in the two boroughs that my constituency covers, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland, there are now 6,887 jobless adults and 1,610 young people signing on. There is also an impact in County Durham, where Thrislington quarry in Ferryhill is now under threat because of the effect on the requirement for limestone, which is a prerequisite for the production of iron in a blast furnace. The Government decided to announce, on the very same day as the Boulby job losses, that three local tax offices that provide employment for hundreds of people will be relocated to a centralised hub, which is at best an hour’s commute away if traffic is good.