The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-14559, in the name of John Pentland, on save our steel. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with great concern the announcement of job losses at the Dalzell and Clydebridge steel plants and the detrimental impact that this would have on the workforce, their families, their communities and the local economies; considers that any curtailment or closure of the plants will have a significant and long-term negative impact on the Scottish economy; welcomes the creation of the Scottish Steel Task Force, and notes the view that all avenues should be explored to prevent the closure of the plants, including UK and Scottish government intervention to protect jobs and ensure the long-term viability of the Scottish steel industry.
17:10
I thank the MSPs who have given the motion cross-party support. I welcome to the gallery members of the task force, Community union works conveners Ross Clark of Dalzell and Des Fearon of Clydebridge, and other Community members and their families. [Applause.]
I declare my interest as a former redundant steelworker and as a current member of the steelworkers union, Community.
My constituency used to be known as Steelopolis, for the obvious reasons: Ravenscraig, Clyde Alloy, Lanarkshire Steelworks, Colville’s and many others. Now they are all gone—gone because of MacGregor’s axe, wielded on Margaret Thatcher’s behalf.
Gone too were the ambitions and aspirations of many, leaving shattered lives and shattered steel communities—communities that are still picking up the pieces, trying to rebuild and regenerate the local economy and bring in jobs. Communities that have some of the worst social deprivation and unemployment have been left not with hope, but with the unwanted legacy of the biggest brownfield site in Europe.
Now the remaining steelworks are under threat, as are hundreds of jobs in the Scottish steel plants, which are linked to thousands in the service, manufacturing and construction sectors and tens of thousands in the wider local and Scottish economy.
Let us not start by asking whether we can save the steel industry; let us start by saying that we can have a steel industry. Steel is a strategic asset. Take away our manufacturing capabilities and you will make us dependent on others.
There is no doubt that our steelworkers at Dalzell and Clydebridge are at the sharp end of unfair competition. The Chinese stand accused of dumping, and we know that Chinese steel production is subsidised, pays less heed to working conditions, health and safety and quality and is made cheaper by exchange rates.
Such problems will not last for ever, but if we allow our industry to be driven out of existence we will pay the price in future. Other countries consider their steel industries to be too important and will not allow them to go to the wall. When their industries are threatened, they do what needs to be done to safeguard them.
There are good economic arguments as to why the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments should support the steel industry and help it to withstand unfair pricing. The starting point for the task force should be to find the best way to save the steel plants and all the jobs. As Ross Clark has said, we need to retain, not retrain.
I admit that I was alarmed when I saw the agenda for the first task force meeting, which appeared to be mainly about what we can do in the event of closure, rather than how to stop closure. I am glad that the discussion that took place was much more positive, largely due to the excellent contributions from Ross Clark, Des Fearon and Steve McCool, the Community reps, who emphasised their members’ high expectations.
Three key areas need to be addressed: dumping; ownership of the industry and the need to find a buyer or some form of public ownership; and support for the industry as a strategic asset, in the face of unfair competition. The Scottish Government should have a stronger input in the first of those, could be Scotland’s main actor in the second and has a crucial role to play in the third. Merely pointing the finger of blame at the United Kingdom Government and the European Union will not do Scotland much good. The task force must not be the means to pursue a grievance; rather, it should be the means to address the matter.
We must ensure that the Scottish Government does what is needed to save our steel. We need a strategy to get work for the industry, with more work provided through procurement. We need the Scottish Government’s agencies to identify future public contracts that can be allocated to the Dalzell and Clydebridge plants. With the increasing powers available to the Scottish Government, it can provide direct support to the industry and its communities, and there are precedents for the use of such powers, such as the actions taken to support Prestwick airport, Ferguson’s shipyard and Grangemouth. Morally, it would be wrong for any Government not to intervene. It was morally right for the Scottish Government to intervene at Prestwick to save jobs, so it would be immoral and unacceptable if the Scottish Government did not intervene to save jobs at Dalzell and Clydebridge as it did at Prestwick. Saving jobs at Dalzell and Clydebridge is just as important as saving jobs at Prestwick was.
I believe that Scottish steel can have a future and that we must consider all the options for achieving that, including forms of public ownership. That means doing the groundwork to support all the options. The Scottish Government’s preferred option might be to find a buyer, but we also need to plan for public ownership alternatives. Failure to do so could mean that, in a month’s time, Scotland would have no steel industry, which is an unbearable thought and would be a dereliction of duty by those in power.
The workers at Dalzell and Clydebridge and their families and communities are looking to the Scottish Government for meaningful action in their hour of need. Many of their friends, families and supporters will be marching on Saturday, from the Dalzell works to Ravenscraig, in support of the industry and to save our steel. On their behalf, I extend an invitation to everyone to join them, assembling at 10.30 am to march at 11.00 am.
17:18
I congratulate John Pentland on securing the debate at this concerning time for the workers at the Clydebridge and Dalzell mills and their families. I also welcome our guests in the public gallery.
Steel has been the defining industry of my home town—just ask a Motherwell supporter about “the steelmen”. In the 1920s, my grandfather came from Warrenpoint in Ireland to work in Colville’s and spent most of his working life at the Dalzell works. Mr Pentland and I—indeed, many other members from Lanarkshire—will have attended school award ceremonies at which the Colville’s medal is still given out.
It was the closure of Ravenscraig that brought me into politics. Then, as now, the global overproduction of steel was causing severe pressures on the industry and, due to EU quotas, the decision was taken to close a plant in the UK. I believe that it was the wrong decision that that plant should be Ravenscraig. Our town’s industrial heritage has been much diminished since 1992. It is estimated that there was a loss of 10,000 jobs from both the steelworks and the supporting industries in the area.
The news from Tata about its intention to mothball the two plants with the loss of 270-odd jobs is devastating, but the possible loss of that iconic industry from my home town is simply heartbreaking.
The crisis that we face—the challenge before us—is not about sentiment or the past; rather, it is about the future. It is about the industry and the jobs that need to be saved, because Scotland’s future depends on a mixed economy, where highly skilled, well-paid jobs are valued and the capacity of our country to manufacture steel is prized and key to the successful future of our economy.
I very much welcome the formation of the task force. As John Pentland said, its clear focus is not about managing the situation into decline, but about securing a positive outcome and a new operator for the Dalzell and Clydebridge plants. I take great heed of the First Minister, who said that no stone will be left unturned in seeking to find an alternative operator or a positive outcome for Scottish steel.
Earlier this year, I stood on the Ravenscraig site at the unveiling of Andy Scott’s memorial, which is the first memorial in more than 300 years to steel workers who lost their lives or were injured in the industry. I stood there with politicians from all parties; many unions, including the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Community, were represented, too. I trust that the chamber will today send out the same message of solidarity that we will do everything that we can to stand with the steel workers in this fight to save Scottish steel and its future in Scotland.
17:21
I congratulate John Pentland on securing the motion and bringing it to the Parliament for debate tonight, as well as on the dignified manner in which he spoke. I also welcome the steelworkers from Clydebridge and Dalzell. It is very important that we have the workers here, because a lot is at stake—people’s livelihoods, and the livelihoods of their families and communities. Sometimes when we debate issues and legislation in the Parliament, we look at the facts and figures, but in this instance we have the people who are affected in the gallery. We need to remember that as we consider the issues that are at stake.
The Clydebridge plant, which is in my constituency, has been in existence since 1877. There is no doubt that it would be a big blow to the area if the plant were to close. There is a proud history and an iconic tradition of steel making in my constituency and throughout Lanarkshire.
However, Clare Adamson is right: it is important to realise that this is not some dewy-eyed, emotional response. I firmly believe that there is a strong business case for keeping the plants open. Over the past couple of weeks, there has been lazy right-wing analysis that says, “Oh well, we’ll do what we can to keep these plants open, but see if you cannot find a buyer, too bad—that’s just what happens.” I do not accept that analysis. If we look at the business analysis, we will see a current customer order book, and there is an opportunity to extend it.
The Scottish Government infrastructure budget is £4.5 billion. We are building roads, bridges, hospitals and houses. I understand that there are technical constraints around Clydebridge and Dalzell, but the Government should be doing all that it can to explore the procurement options and to enhance the production process, which has recently seen investment.
We have a skilled workforce at both the plants. Those skilled workers, combined with the physical assets, are real assets for us.
We also know that there is scope for reducing business rates and—if the UK Government can act promptly to secure an exemption from the high electricity tariffs—electricity costs. There is real hope there, and there is great support for intervention, as demonstrated by yesterday’s Survation poll, which showed that 68 per cent of the public believe that there should be intervention in the steel industry. The Government must bear that in mind if the first option fails and an alternative buyer cannot be found.
It is a crucial issue. As well as representing the Clydebridge plant, I grew up in the area. I saw the steel plants closing in the 1980s and I saw the effect that that had—some people never worked again, and some people’s lives were devastated and they were never the same again. We cannot allow that to happen. There is a real urgency about the situation, so it is incumbent on both Governments, all the political parties and everyone who is involved in the task force to pull together to find a solution that sustains steel making at Clydebridge and Dalzell. It is incumbent on everyone to stand up for steel.
17:26
I thank John Pentland for bringing this extremely important debate to the chamber.
At the first meeting of the Scottish steel task force, it was abundantly clear that there is good will across all political parties to work together in an effort to retain a viable steel industry in Scotland. It was recognised that, in order to achieve that objective, it is crucial to look at how to retain the skilled workforce while exploring different measures to reduce the unit cost of the product.
There is an encouraging example of how that was achieved at Liberty steelworks in Newport, South Wales. Liberty House bought the plant in Wales when it was mothballed in 2013. The 150 staff members were retained on half pay and allowed to find other work until market conditions improved and the plant could be reopened. Two and a half years later, it reopened and every worker returned to the plant to resume their skilled employment. It is therefore worth looking at the Newport experience in detail.
I turn to the second major issue of reducing unit costs. Some progress on that has already been made through the action that has been taken to reduce prohibitive energy costs by making improvements at the plant. Potential UK and Scottish Government procurement contracts, including contracts for infrastructure projects, also need to be identified. That should be done with a view to the Dalzell and Clydebridge plants gearing up to submitting a successful competitive bid. An added bonus would be a reduction in the costs associated with transportation when steel is imported.
More immediately, there is also the opportunity to consider reducing the plants’ business rates. In a recent response to a question on the subject from my colleague Murdo Fraser, the minister said that the Scottish Government is constrained by state aid rules on the maximum assistance that can be provided to any steel company over a three-year period. However, when I asked at the task force meeting for information about the state aid rules and the possibility of exploring enterprise status for the plants, it was confirmed that those rules, like business rates, are entirely within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. Consequently, it would be possible to grant mini enterprise status for the Motherwell and Clydebridge plants. I believe that the Scottish Government is considering such a measure, which would lead to a significant reduction in unit costs.
It is also worth looking at potential new areas in which contracts could be won. One such area is flood defences, as the sheet piles that are used for flood defences and for port infrastructure are not currently produced anywhere in the UK. Scottish steel is recognised internationally as a quality product. At a time when concern has been expressed about the quality of imported Chinese steel, there are opportunities for increased and more effective marketing of our steel.
Given all that, there is a definite strategy, and tangible proposals are emerging to secure a viable future for the Dalzell and Clydebridge plants and their skilled workforce and to safeguard the Motherwell and Cambuslang local economies that benefit from the steel industry.
Many thanks. Before we continue, I advise the chamber that, due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion from John Pentland that under rule 8.14.3 the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[John Pentland.]
Motion agreed to.
17:30
I begin by saying something that we too often do not hear in the chamber, which is that I hope that the debate serves as an example of MSPs and politicians across the political spectrum setting aside their differences to work together to save our nation’s steel industry. I also thank John Pentland for bringing this important issue to the chamber and welcome the work that we are all doing together to stand up for workers, for steel and for our communities.
It is important that working together should be the motto of this cross-party effort to save our steel. The briefing from Community, the steelworkers union, makes clear the reality of the job losses and their wider impact and reinforces why we must support Scottish steel. The jobs that are being cut are of a high quality, with good terms and conditions and, interestingly, each of them supports a further three employment opportunities in the wider economy.
I remember days gone past when we joined with thousands of people in Motherwell and marched to save Ravenscraig. Those were days of immense troubles and battles between workers and the right-wing Tory Government led by Thatcher. I thought that those days had gone, but we are now faced with a Tory Government that is possibly even more right wing than the Government of those bygone days.
I say that not to be partisan, but to highlight the absurdity of its position on our steel industry. I have been led to believe that the Prime Minister has refused to meet the MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, which is where the majority of jobs will be lost, and I hope that that is not the case. However, that discussion is a distraction from the most important issues in all this: our workers, their jobs, their families, their futures and their steel industry.
The First Minister and this Government have been quicker in responding to the issue. I note that the First Minister visited Tata Steel in Dalzell as a matter of urgency and began to explore the options for protecting the future of the industry not only in Motherwell but across Scotland. The First Minister also announced the formation of an emergency task force to get the people we need around the table to work together on a potential solution to this problem.
However, we should not rest on our laurels. I know that this Government is listening, and I note in the Community briefing the ideas that have been proposed for an active industrial strategy. I believe that there is long-term work that we can do together to help our industry and to ensure that it is used and championed, and I know that this Government and—I hope—parties across the spectrum will do everything that they can to protect our workers, their families and their futures.
Our steel industry is one of the proudest in our resource-rich nation, and it would be a sad day for our nation if any steel production were to depart. It must not be allowed to happen, and we must work together on finding a strong, successful and productive future for the steel industry in Scotland.
I want to end in the spirit in which I began by again congratulating John Pentland on securing the debate. I also welcome the steelworkers to the chamber. I wish that the circumstances did not require such a debate, but the fact is that we must secure and save Scottish steel.
17:34
As someone from Lanarkshire, I share a common heritage with many people of the county who, although they might not have been directly employed in the steel industry, will have had parents, grandparents and other relatives who over many generations worked in the many and varied steelworks that are synonymous with our area.
Although I have never worked in a steel-making plant, I was a welder in a previous life, and as an active trade unionist in the steel fabrication sector in Lanarkshire, I am grateful to have gained so much life experience from working with fellow trade unionists across the local, wider steel industry. That is why I want to extend a message of solidarity to the Community union and other trade unions whose members are affected by Tata Steel’s recent announcement in relation to its Dalzell and Clydebridge plants in particular. I thank John Pentland for bringing the debate to the Parliament and allowing me to extend that message.
My colleague Siobhan McMahon is unable to attend the debate, but she asked me to pass on her thoughts to the workforce and unions at Tata that are affected by the company’s decision. I know that the thoughts of the Deputy Presiding Officer, Elaine Smith, who represents a community that has seen the demise of Gartsherrie, Gartcosh, the Imperial and Tennant’s foundry, will be with the steel workers at Dalzell and Clydebridge.
It is clear that John Pentland represents the steel workers at Dalzell. He is a former steel worker, and it is right that he has led the debate. However, I also represent parts of the Steelopolis that is Motherwell, and I am proud to do so. I also represent the Vallourec steel works in Mossend, which is better known to many as the Clydesdale tube works and which is the only remaining heat treatment facility for tubes in the whole of the UK.
As I said to the minister last week, following his statement, although the current acute crisis means that we must rightly focus the work of the task force that he has established on the immediate plight of Dalzell and Clydebridge, we must not lose sight of the importance of other steel facilities in Lanarkshire, which have their own issues to address. I know from his answer to me last week that he appreciates that. I reiterate my gratitude to him for that.
Finding a solution to the present predicament will not be easy. In many ways, that has been made more difficult by previous decisions and missed opportunities. Only six years ago, Tata announced the closure of its facilities in Mossend, with the loss of 78 jobs at its plate and profiling mill. However, when I met management at Tata Steel in May this year, it was keen to tell me that it had identified potential future markets in steel recycling that would allow it to develop the capacity to pursue work in the renewables sector. What it needed to be able to do that was investment in equipment for profiling—the very same type of machinery that it had disposed of in 2009 when it shut down Corus at Mossend.
One year after making that short-sighted decision, Tata announced an investment of £8 million at the Dalzell steel mill, which included investment for installing new 3,500 tonne press and handling equipment, as well as an upgrade to the plant’s existing press and other manufacturing equipment. Again, that was done with an eye on capitalising on the burgeoning wind turbine manufacturing sector. A change in procurement rules was needed that would ensure that local products were used as much as possible, rather than new turbines being constructed in Germany, Denmark and elsewhere.
In welcoming the Statoil announcement yesterday, I point out that, yet again, it looks as though we will have huge Scottish public investment, but in something that is built by Norwegians using a Spanish steel fabricator, and another 20,000 tonne opportunity is going a-begging for the Scottish steel industry, just like with the Forth crossing. That has to stop. It is down to the Scottish Government to get its hands dirty on public procurement rather than standing by. I hope that the task force will also look at that issue.
I wish the task force well in its efforts on behalf of the Scottish steel industry and the steel communities in Lanarkshire. We have to save our steel.
17:38
I, too, thank John Pentland for arranging the debate.
Today, there is a sad situation for the families and communities of Motherwell, Cambuslang and the surrounding areas. Above all, it is potentially hugely damaging for Scotland and its downstream manufacturing.
Many years ago at NCR, I sat at a table declaring people redundant. The pain on both sides of the table was palpable. It is up to us when we consider the concern of the 270 workers at Motherwell and Cambuslang to do everything that we can to eliminate the pain.
I commend the Scottish Government for putting together the steel task force, which will consider any solution to meet the challenge. Frankly, in the face of the EU talks on the steel industry, the UK Government is supine, because on such matters the UK and EU relationship is soured. Fergus Ewing should certainly be at the table as a distinctive Scottish voice looking after the interests of our steelworkers.
The situation is urgent not just because of the mothballing and the consequent loss of skills but because of the very significant downstream impact on future Scottish infrastructure and precision engineering capability and capacity. When Ravenscraig closed in 1992, 770 jobs were lost directly, but it was estimated that another 10,000 jobs were linked directly or indirectly to the plant and the loss of those jobs was attributed to its closure.
What of the parties involved in the current situation? What is Tata’s position on the proposed closure? Tata is 100 years old and was the first company in the world to receive an ethical award for good governance. In 2014, the most recent recorded year, the company’s shareholders’ funds rose by 8.2 per cent, which I think is 5 billion rupees, with Tata BlueScope Steel producing steel building and construction applications. Of course, the company covers the globe in many other areas—for example, it is the core supplier to PSA Peugeot Citroën. The company also won the most respected company award in 2011 and has won many other awards. The company was categorised last year by Social Accountability International as an SA8000 standard company, which is a prestigious award, so I believe that there is every reason for the company to come to the table and be constructive in dialogue about any positive solution offered.
It is true that Chinese steel production has dropped, but its steel prices have dropped drastically to get rid of the inventories that the industry had built up. While China’s crude steel production fell by 0.9 per cent in the last year, Europe’s production actually rose by 1.6 per cent in terms of millions of tonnes—that applies to rolled plate, coil and other elements of the steel industry.
The steel plants must not be closed. As I said in a parliamentary question last week, I urge the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to work with the employees and with Tata in Scotland to consider an employee buy-out, to be exercised with a repayable loan, and to sit down with Tata and the employees to produce a business plan to facilitate that.
We only have to look at a company called Mondragon for inspiration in steel. In October 2009, the United Steelworkers union in the United States reached an agreement with the Mondragon Corporation to create worker co-operatives in the United States, a model that is working to this day and that might be an inspiration to, or at least one solution for the people of Motherwell. In 2012, with strong international sales capability, high quality and good customer services, Mondragon had international sales of over €4 billion.
I add my voice to the voices that have called for the steelworks to be saved. I wish that I could say that I was delighted to take part in this debate, but the pain that I mentioned earlier means that I cannot. The future of the Scottish steel industry is vital to all Scotland—it is the lifeblood of the Scottish manufacturing base. We owe it to the highly skilled, dedicated steelworkers and the people of Motherwell and Cambuslang to look exhaustively at all possible opportunities. The option that I suggested is one of those and I urge the Scottish Government to consider it seriously.
17:43
I, too, thank John Pentland for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. First, I would like to reiterate many of the points that other members have made in the debate.
The closure of the Dalzell and Clydebridge steel plants will be a huge loss to their communities. The closures, if they are allowed to go ahead, will have a detrimental effect not just on the workers in the plants but on the local communities as a whole and on Scotland.
To see that, we need only look to the recent past and the closure of Ravenscraig, which was the cornerstone of industry in Motherwell, and a source of high employment in a proud historical industry. As other members have said, steel production in Motherwell was so important that some among us remember its nickname, Steelopolis. The closure of Ravenscraig devastated the area—the local economy faltered and hundreds of people lost their jobs as a direct result of the closure, while thousands more jobs were lost indirectly. The community that had evolved around the steel industry in Motherwell never recovered and the Ravenscraig site remains mostly empty.
Similarly, the closure of the steel mill at Gartcosh in 1986 devastated that community and the surrounding area. The closure weakened the local economy and resulted in job losses outwith the steel plants. Gartcosh remains a largely derelict site. The only investment that has been made in the site in recent years has come from public money, through Police Scotland.
It is imperative that we do not let the same thing happen in Dalzell and Clydebridge. Local industries provide the lifeblood of such areas and the mothballing of the steel plants will run down a wide range of businesses. As we have seen in the past, plant closures affect more than just the workers; they negatively affect the community as a whole.
That is why it is imperative that we assist those who want to see developments. Chic Brodie talked about the possibility of, rather than mothballing the plant, a workers’ co-operative or other development that would allow the works to continue to function and for the workers to develop orders in their own right.
I welcome the announcement of the Scottish steel task force and I hope that it can do what the Scottish Government claims it can do, but we must keep the Scottish Government under scrutiny and put pressure on it and the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the task force delivers secure, appropriate and well-paid jobs, and that it retains the industry.
John Pentland was right to refer to the save our steel march on Saturday. The save our steel campaign is not just for the workers at Dalzell and Clydebridge; it is for Scotland. If we want to look forward to an industrial and manufacturing future, we need a steel industry. If those plants close down, it will once again decimate the future opportunities for Scotland to be a productive manufacturing nation. I hope that everyone in the chamber will make the effort to get along to the march on Saturday to support the workers and their families. I will certainly be there.
The reality for members in this chamber and for Scotland as a whole is that we must ensure that the steel industry remains, grows stronger and leads the way to the manufacturing and industrial base that Scotland should have. I can remember when the central belt was Scotland’s manufacturing heartland, providing steel and other products to go round the world. We have to make sure that manufacturing can build and grow again. I look forward to the plants being retained and being able to grow with the appropriate resources and support from the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I look forward to working with Community the union to ensure that that happens.
17:48
I congratulate John Pentland on securing the debate and giving members the opportunity to express our sympathy and support for the workers at Dalzell and Clydebridge. I also declare an interest as a member of Community union.
For all that has changed in steel manufacturing over the years, it remains an iconic industry for Lanarkshire. The number of people who are employed in steel is much smaller than in decades gone by, but the jobs that remain are largely highly skilled, and the industry that remains across Britain is generally productive.
However, there is a real sense that too many good jobs have gone and that too few of the jobs that have replaced them are as rewarding, secure or important to the identity of the communities as work in the steel industry once was.
The challenge for us now is to ensure that steel becomes more than just a strand of our industrial heritage or a chapter in our social history. The steel industry must be part of our economic future. The promise to “reindustrialise Scotland” must be kept.
I welcome the immediate focus of the Scottish Government on finding new commercial operators for the plants, and its guarantee that modern apprentices who are affected by closures will be given the opportunity to complete their training.
Community, the steelworkers union, and Scottish Labour have also put forward a number of suggestions that I hope have been taken into consideration. They range from looking again at the infrastructure procurement pipeline to short-term working and, if necessary, public ownership to preserve industrial assets at the plants.
Of course, the crisis in the steel industry is an international crisis and it demands a response from government at every level. The EU must act on the dumping of Chinese steel in our markets and the UK must take forward its compensation package for energy-intensive industries.
Last week, steelworkers from across the UK rallied together in London. Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of Community, called for
“decisive intervention to support this vital foundation industry”.
That is a call that I repeat in Parliament today.
Before coming into politics, I had a long career in training and employability. From the youth training scheme to the new deal, I worked with people of all ages and backgrounds who needed support to help them into work. They included second and third-generation unemployed—young men and women who were growing up in homes where nobody had ever worked—as well as men and women from industries that had gone into decline and people who had lost the jobs they thought that they would have until they retired, but had been thrown into an uncertain and changing competitive job market, in which they were left wondering whether they would ever work again. It was that experience—real-life experience of what unemployment can do to people—that led me into politics and the Labour Party.
I can say from experience that what is happening to the workers in Lanarkshire is distressing socially, economically and emotionally. The de-industrialisation of Lanarkshire left far too many scars. We do not need any more.
We need to save our steel and save those jobs. We must get through this crisis now and build a better future for the people of Lanarkshire and for steel manufacturing communities across Britain.
17:52
We have heard speeches from members of all the parties that are represented in Parliament, and we are united in a common purpose to do everything that we can to save the steel industry in Scotland. I commend John Pentland for securing the debate and for the passion and conviction that he brought to the topic, based on his experience of working in the industry. I also commend Clare Adamson for her moving account of the recent commemoration of the sacrifice that some men have made in the industry.
The steel industry has been part of the warp and weft of Scotland and is part of our industrial history. It has contributed in large part to the manufacturing base of Scotland. It has helped to provide great ships such as the Lusitania, the Mauretania, the Queen Elizabeth II and many others. As many members have said, it is part of our heritage and culture. Members from all parties have stressed the fact that we do our best on occasions such as this to leave aside party politics. That is right and it is the approach that I have sought to take.
I will start by confirming that we will do everything in our power to ensure a sustainable future for this key sector against the significant challenges that it faces. That is the primary purpose of the task force; indeed, it was the whole topic of the conversation at the first task force meeting. As was correct, there were other matters on the agenda, but we all agreed without debate that it was not the time to discuss them. The primary purpose is the task that the First Minister has described and is the one that, as the minister with particular responsibility, I am pursuing. In that task, I seek to work with the UK Government to help the sector in every way possible.
Margaret Mitchell, James Kelly, Clare Adamson and other members referred to energy costs. For some time now, the UK Government has promised to introduce assistance for high energy-using industries. The current state of play is that it is being sought that the package be brought forward to now instead of April next year. I mentioned in my recent parliamentary statement that I had had workmanlike discussions with Anna Soubry. There appears to be confidence that those will have some success, which would play a part.
Reference has been made to business rates. As has been said, we are considering every possible permutation and option. It is only correct to put that on the record because it is a matter of fact, and facts are chiels that winna ding.
We cannot unmake rules; they exist and Governments must abide by them. Members should be sure that, where there is flexibility in the rules, we will use that to the full. Therefore, we are spending a lot of time—as is appropriate—on identifying every conceivable way in which, using the powers that we have, we can assist a potential private operator to carry on the industry. There will be a more detailed report on those matters, as is correct, at the next meeting of the task force, which will be a week tomorrow. There will be two to three hours in which we can have a good discussion.
I commend the local authorities for the efforts that they have made and for their co-operation. I have worked closely with the trade union representatives throughout the situation. At my own behest I made a visit yesterday morning for two and a half hours, during which I had the opportunity for an entirely private discussion with members of the workforce and the management in different sessions, as well as with representatives of the trade unions. Roy Rickhuss, the head of Community union, was there. We had a useful discussion. I am in touch with John Park, a former MSP, and with Steve McCool, who made a particularly effective and moving contribution in the task force meeting. It was possibly the most effective and moving of several contributions of that ilk.
We have been working closely with Tata; we have had its co-operation. That is important because, as a matter of practice, if one seeks to identify a private operator to take over—as we do—they need access to information. They cannot purchase blind; they need to carry out due diligence, make inquiries and have information about customers, costs and a range of other things. I am pleased to say that the management of Tata, many of whom I have met—including Jon Bolton, Colin Timmins and Mr Jha—have been fully co-operative. Indeed, the First Minister has met Mr Jha. We are in daily contact with the company, which is extremely important. Such situations are never easy, but they are made much more difficult if one does not have the full co-operation of the company involved.
In times past—not the distant past, either—there have been challenges. Each case is different. There was a threat to the opencast mining industry when Scottish Coal and ATH Resources went bust. People thought that the game was a bogey, but Hargreaves Services emerged, invested in the industry and preserved many of the jobs in a short space of time.
Shipbuilding at Ferguson’s yard looked, to be frank, as if it was over last summer. Thanks to many interventions, primarily that of Jim McColl, that great industry has been saved and now, I am pleased to say, the Scottish Government has awarded contracts to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd for two ferries. Incidentally, we are in initial discussions with Ferguson’s about the possibility of sourcing the steel that will be used in those vessels from continuing steel operation in Scotland.
I mention those comparisons not because they are of direct relevance—every case is different and there is no formulaic approach to such situations, which I know, as the minister responsible—but simply because there is hope. I assure members that we are pursuing the matter with hope and confidence, difficult though the task is.
The presentation that Jon Bolton and Colin Timmins made to the task force, as members who attended the whole task force meeting will know, painted a grim and difficult picture of the worldwide challenges that face the industry, with the price of steel having plummeted from £500 to £250 per tonne. That is a huge threat and the losses that have been made are very substantial.
However, the prospect now is not the one that we have been looking at over the past year and a bit—namely, the sale of the whole of the Tata long products division. Rather, it is the sale of the Scottish operation. That is entirely different and there are opportunities there as well as challenges. There are opportunities in respect of the skills of the workforce—about 40 of whom are welcome in the gallery this evening to listen to the debate—and in respect of the fact that the work that is done on steel plate at Dalzell, with quenching and tempering being done at Clydebridge, means that there are unique qualities to offer. I am not, and will not, become an expert, but I understand that the thickness of the steel plate produced there is unique in the UK and therefore can be used in contracts of particular types.
In response to the questions that have been asked by Michael McMahon and others, we have looked at the procurement issues and I can confirm that a detailed report will be issued to the task force next week. However, we are confident that there are opportunities that can and will be pursued—in shipbuilding, in bridges, in relation to other transport contracts and also possibly in relation to wind towers, as was mentioned earlier. We have, in Wind Towers (Scotland) Ltd at Machrihanish, a Scottish manufacturer, so there are opportunities and work is being done.
A huge amount of effort, quite rightly, is being injected by all the officials at my behest and at the First Minister’s behest. The matter is being dealt with at the most senior level possible. We are looking to find solutions to the challenges that face the sector, including business rates, procurement, energy costs and environmental liabilities. We are looking at every single way in which we can reduce the burden for any alternative private operator and we have not eliminated any possibility—nothing is off the table. State aid rules are a terrifically difficult constraint, I am afraid, but we are looking at the situation from a can-do point of view, rather than taking a pessimistic view.
For generations, steel has stood proudly at the very core of Scotland’s industrial landscape. This Government will leave no stone unturned to ensure that the sector remains viable for generations to come.
Meeting closed at 18:03.Previous
Decision Time