Steeling ourselves

Between 1979 and 1984, Sheffield lost more than 50,000 jobs in steel and engineering – more than the whole of the UK coal industry lost in any 5 year period. We understand the devastating long-term impact that such changes have on the whole economic, social and environmental status of a community. 

With major changes in the technology of steel-making, the location of raw materials, costs of energy, production capacity and patterns of demand, it was inevitable that there would be massive implications for the UK steel industry. The key political issue was not about change itself but about how such change was managed. 

For Margaret Thatcher’s government, wholesale redundancies and the destruction of local economies were seen as ‘the price worth paying’. To add insult to injury, Thatcher then blamed the victims and used that as a justification for minimising investment in managing the transition. It is little wonder that anger about those policies is so ingrained in Sheffield, South Yorkshire and other communities which were similarly affected.

As a matter of interest, a few years’ later I visited Anshan – Sheffield’s twin city in China – which is dominated by coal and steel production. I met the small team from Davy’s (now DavyMarkham) in Sheffield who were installing some modernised plant to improve efficiency in the steelworks. They explained that the plant they were installing was by no means cutting-edge; it was 20 year old technology. However, its installation would ‘only involve the redundancy of about 10,000 steelworkers, which was the maximum number that it was felt could be redeployed and retrained over the course of the next year’. In other words, continuous improvement in efficiency and effectiveness, but at a pace which could be managed. 

Let us roll forward to today with is devastating news that the decision to end 170 years of steelmaking in Redcar has resulted in 2,200 direct job losses, 1,000 onsite contractors have been laid off, and 6,000 job losses are expected in the local economy. The decision by TATA Steel to close its Long Products business has resulted in 900 jobs being lost in Scunthorpe, and the closure of plants in Dalzell and Clydebridge in Scotland, with 270 job losses. Caparo Industries have also filed for administration which puts at risk 1,700 jobs across the country.

In addition to the immediate job losses, the British economy can ill-afford further loss because steel is fundamental to a number of important sectors in which the UK is world-leading, including aerospace, automotives, defence, construction and energy infrastructure.

The industry faces a number of key challenges which can only be overcome by adopting a co-ordinated and active industrial strategy for steel, aimed at securing a long-term future for the industry. The industry is also being adversely affected by Chinese dumping of low-price steel.

But, this Conservative government has not only been sleeping on the job, it is reluctant to become involved at all. The Business Secretary has made it clear that he is ideologically opposed to having an industrial strategy. The contrast with Germany and other European steel producers is dramatic.

To my mind, it is absolutely clear that Government needs to rethink its approach and take an active role in supporting industry and high skilled jobs. These are the actions that the Government, as a minimum, should be taking:

First, implement immediately the Energy Intensive Industry Compensation Package, which would address the high energy costs the sector faces; UK energy prices are far higher than our European competitors face, let alone those in SE Asia and S America;

Secondly, take action to stop low-cost dumping. The Government must work with the EU Commission to back anti-dumping measures and review how effectively the Commission responds;

Thirdly, the Government should explore what other support the industry could be offered, including temporary action on Business Rates, reviewing how regulatory frameworks impact the industry, and promoting local content and sustainability in procurement contracts.

Fourthly, as a matter of long-term security, we should ensure that the UK continues to have the ability and capacity to produce a minimum amount of steel for the UK economy.

Fifthly, we need an urgent assessment of the impact of the loss of bulk-steel production on the long-term prospects for the production of specialist steels and alloys and engineered products for which the Sheffield City Region is renowned.

Contradictions

Over the years, many people have drawn my attention to polls which suggest that a significant majority of people would be prepared to pay more tax or higher charges if the extra money raised was being directed to the NHS. As it happens, I support that view.

Unfortunately, the same people want to ignore all the research evidence which shows that, when actually offered that choice, people don’t vote to pay more. When challenged about the contradiction, people explain their decisions by saying “I didn’t believe the extra cash would go to the NHS” or “I would pay more…….. but only when the number of managers is cut, or there isn’t any waste,”.

Of course, we have the right to expect that all our public services are run efficiently, effectively and responsively and that there is a continuous quest for performance improvement. Actually, the evidence suggests that they are, despite the relentless flow of stories to the contrary from some parts of the media which are determined to promote a particular view of the world.

There is an irony in the fact that, as an important part of our democratic process, we devote resources to exposing and making transparent any failure in public performance. I’m the chair of an all-party select committee part of whose remit is to hold the government’s performance to public account and quite right too.

But, just imagine the outcry there would be if there was a proposal that all companies were required to fund overview and scrutiny of every aspect of their own performances and that all the information and findings had to be made public. 

I wonder what Volkswagen’s scrutiny committee would have disclosed about the technology for assessing noxious emissions? Or what would Tesco’s scrutiny committee have told us about its accounting practices? Or what would the banks’ scrutiny committees have told us about the integrity of their activities? 

As a matter of interest, the world’s biggest 20 banks have now paid getting on for £200bn in fines alone since 2008. But, despite the extent of public anger about the banks’ activities, in true contradictory style, when faced with the choice, the same people express reluctance to regulate to intervene.

It’s good to talk………..then act

In the recent cyber-attack on it's service, TalkTalk reported that the personal and banking details of up to 4 million UK citizens may have been accessed by hackers. This was the third time that the company had suffered a large scale data breach in the past year. TalkTalk have since said that the number of people affected is “materially lower” but they still do not know exactly who is affected and to what extent.

Over the weekend, there have been a number of media reports that TalkTalk customers have suffered a range of consequential damage including that their bank accounts have been cleared out. Other customers report that they have been harassed by criminals. Actually, I think it’s unlikely that these events are related to this data-loss; they are more likely to be coincidental. What we do know is that stolen data is sold and re-sold, even rented, many times and over many years after the original theft.

The only thing that is clear is the widespread confusion about the extent, timing and consequences of the breach and about the various responsibilities and actions to be taken by the Information 

Commissioners Office and the Police. It is obvious that the Government has to do more to ensure confidence in this vital industry and to protect the personal and sensitive data of millions of UK citizens from cyber-criminals. 

In answers to parliamentary questions last week, the Conservative government Minister, Ed Vaizey, said that guidance to companies experiencing a data breach is issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). But the ICO guidance is vague. It simply does not answer customers’ legitimate concerns and entitlement to compensation where appropriate. Whilst the ICO require businesses to notify them of breaches, they do not insist on customers being informed. This is clearly unacceptable. In this case, 4 million customers must wonder who they can trust with their data.

The inability of TalkTalk’s Chief Executive to confirm that, after the previous hacking attacks, she had acted to ensure that customers’ data was properly encrypted was telling. TalkTalk’s share price is down 10%. I expect that shareholders and customers will insist that heads roll in the boardroom.

Open or closed?

Transparency or confidentiality?

All too often we hear people talk about human rights as though they are clear principles and requirements which will take you to a logical conclusion about a particular issue.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there are a variety of human rights – often spelled out in conventions or legislation – which set out principles, but often in practice, there is a conflict between particular human rights.

One simple example, which we see played out every day in the media, is the conflict between the right to privacy and a public right to know. The media will attempt to justify an intrusion into an individual’s right to privacy by arguing that publication is in the public interest. Actually, too often, it seems more to be justified on the basis of the prurient interest of the public – who doesn’t like a bit of gossip? – than in the public interest itself.

It was a debate that was partly played out in the Leveson Inquiry, as the media sought to justify all sorts of hacking and abuse of the right to privacy in the public interest. Incidentally, I don’t think we have yet heard the last about the extent of hacking over the last twenty years.
There has been a lengthy on-going debate about transparency and confidentiality in the courts that deal with family matters – divorce, adoption, care proceedings for children, protection proceedings for vulnerable adults.

In some ways, life is slightly easier since the establishment in 2014 of a single Family Court for nearly all family proceedings to replace proceedings which had formerly taken place in magistrates’ courts, county courts and the High Court.

There are rules concerning the disclosure of information from the Family Courts. They were last substantially updated in 2010. These allow the disclosure of information in particular circumstances to specified individuals, for example lawyers, social workers or other parties in the proceedings. The court itself can allow wider disclosure. But, beware, as disclosure outside these rules is likely to lead to a heavy fine or even imprisonment for the guilty.

Since 2009, accredited representatives of the media – but not the general public – have been allowed to attend court for some, but not all, proceedings in the Family Court. Nor are they allowed to identify children publicly. Further, since last year, new guidance has applied to the publication of judgements.

The current provisions have been criticised by the media, some MPs and some campaigning organisations. They suggest that confidentiality rules have prevented them from highlighting perceived injustices, especially in some care proceedings and adoption cases. Fathers’ rights groups claim that the rules just adds to the perception of court bias against fathers. However, too often the words secrecy and privacy are wrongly transposed.

In August 2014, the President of the Family Division published a consultation paper Transparency – The Next Steps. The consultation is still open. If you have any views on these issues, especially if they are informed by personal experience, it would be a good time to make them known.

You can find more information about the recent history about transparency and confidentiality in the Family Court:

Confidentiality and openness in the family courts: current rules and history of their reform
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7306

Transparency – the Next Steps

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/transparency-the-next-steps-consultation-paper.pdf

We should celebrate achievement much more

Immediately before Sheffield Wednesday’s home match against Fulham last Saturday, the players and officials arranged themselves around the centre circle.

It was announced that there would be a minute’s silence in remembrance of Ron Springett who had died aged 80.

Ron played 384 matches for The Owls before re-joining Queen’s Park Rangers in a unique deal which saw his brother Peter, another goalkeeper, come the other way. Whilst at Hillsborough, Ron had represented England on 33 occasions and was in England’s World Cup Squad’s in 1962 and 1966. Only the emergence of Tinsley, Sheffield-born Gordon Banks – England’s greatest ever goalkeeper – stopped him being on the pitch when England defeated Germany in the 1966 final.
At the proclamation, people stopped in their tracks. The crowd hushed. The referee blew his whistle to mark the start of the minute’s quiet.

The silence lasted precisely 1 second before the crowd burst into spontaneous applause. It wasn’t just the home supporters; the Fulham fans and all the players were just as effusive. They clapped and clapped and clapped until the minute was up and the referee’s whistle sounded again, and then a loud cheer rocked the ground.

For me, the moment was more emotional than for most. The 15^th of March, 1958 was my Dad’s 50^th Birthday. Ron Springett played his first game for The Owls against Bolton Wanderers that day. But he wasn’t the only one making his debut. My uncle and my cousin took me, aged 8 years, to watch my first Sheffield Wednesday match. We walked down the hill to Hillsborough from my council house home in Longley.


I seem to remember that Albert Quixall scored and Wednesday won 1-0. Whatever, I was gripped and, despite what I have to admit has been year after year of mainly disappointment, I still am. I’ve hardy missed a home match on the Kop since that date.

Ron’s contribution was considerable. Although he would have signed at the maximum wage then applying, it wasn’t that great. He certainly didn’t get the enormous financial rewards enjoyed by today’s top players.

Saturday reminded me that we ought to spend more time celebrating achievement.

Not just of individuals like Ron, but also of those citizens who give their time and energy – week in week out – to support other people and their local communities.

Open all hours?

David Cameron’s Conservative government seems intent on undermining the democratic process.
Bad news’ announcements (like the delay on rail electrification) are delayed, commissioned research remains unpublished if the conclusions are inconvenient, and there’s been a flurry of written statements on Fridays and at the very end of the parliamentary session in a way designed to prevent proper scrutiny. David Cameron himself has tried to turn Prime Minister’s Question Time into Questions to the Opposition Parties as a way of avoiding being accountable for his performance.


Therefore, it was entirely consistent that, after parliament had broken up for the summer recess and most of the public were thinking about their summer holidays, the government should announce a short consultation about changing the Sunday trading laws.

The current Sunday trading laws were established in 1994. Basically, whereas small shops can open all day, large stores were newly allowed to open for 6 hours a day. It is undoubtedly the case that retail shopping has dramatically changed over the last 20 years. Out-of-town malls have threatened city centres and, more recently, there has been a significant switch to internet shopping.

The big retailers were never satisfied with the 6 hour limit and would like to see the abolition of all Sunday trading laws. They use international comparisons to suggest that deregulation would lead to a significant increase in some types of shopping.

I think this is mostly poppycock. People don’t suddenly have more money to spend because the shops are open longer! In fact, if stores are open longer – with all the associated costs – but spending does not increase, prices will necessarily rise.

However, changing opening hours will undoubtedly have an impact on the distribution of spending. The big retailers will want to buy market share, whilst small retailers are likely to suffer.


The government is suggesting that, in different ways, some decisions on Sunday trading could be localised. Superficially, that might look attractive but, in reality, it might be difficult for one area to resist change if its neighbor is open all hours.

Working on justice for all

In July 2013, the last coalition government, led by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, introduced charges of up to £1,200 for individuals who wanted and needed to take their case to an employment tribunal.

It appears that this is just part of a relentless Conservative attack on the ability of ordinary working people to be supported and represented in the workplace – especially when things go wrong.
It is clear that these charges have become a significant barrier to securing justice where people have been treated unfairly and improperly. The introduction of these employment tribunal fees has seen the number of new cases plummet.

In the six months up to March 2014, new cases were down 62% on the same period in 2012-13; cases involving unfair dismissal were down by 64%, those involving alleged sex discrimination by 80%, and those relating to equal pay by 84%. They haven’t recovered since with the number of new cases in the last two quarters of 2014-15 down 69% on the same period two years ago.

Recent statistics also show that fewer than one in five applications for employment tribunal fee reductions are successful. Less than 4,000 of the 21,000 cases, where fees were required, were awarded a full or partial remission in 2014/15.

When giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee in July, the Conservative Justice Secretary Michael Gove said that “a simple reduction in the numbers of people going to employment tribunals is not in itself proof that there’s been any injustice visited on anyone.” He added “….. there is no evidence yet that the bar being set at a high level has meant that meritorious claims by people who feel they’ve been discriminated against aren’t being heard.” That is not a view shared by those now being denied justice.

I think the employment tribunal system does need reform so that workers have access to justice, employers get a quick resolution, and the costs are controlled. Following much pressure, the government has now announced a review into these fees.


If you have been affected, or you have ideas for improvement, please let me know.

Franco would be proud

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Cameron’s Conservative government is pursuing a wide-ranging agenda designed to curb democratic rights, suppress civil liberties, and silence the voices of ordinary working people.

This government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act, has introduced fees denying women the chance to sue for equal pay in tribunals, has slashed legal aid, has disenfranchised millions of voters through ill-thought out changes to electoral registration and has stifled the ability of charities to campaign and challenge government policy.

In addition, it is now attempting to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to prevent people from gaining access to information about policies and performance which should be in the public domain. I know from personal experience just how hard it can be to get basic straightforward information out of this government’s Ministers. For example, Eric Pickles persistently refused to answer questions about the number of households receiving a weekly all-purpose refuse collection service because he didn’t want to admit he’d wasted £250 million.

Now Cameron has launched an attack on the basic rights of 6 million members of trade unions. They are workers in a wide range of industries and services – from engineers to shop assistants, teachers to bakers, office workers to nurses.

The Trade Union Bill presents a threat to activity and campaigning by trade unions – which is entirely unrelated to party politics. Things that will be stopped or hampered include Usdaw’s ‘Freedom From Fear’ Campaign which seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against shopworkers, and the ‘Hope Not Hate’ campaign which works to build community cohesiveness, and efforts at increasing electoral registration. 

This Bill risks damaging industrial relations and the proposals will undermine constructive employment relations. It’s likely to result in more, not less, industrial action as the provisions risk extending disputes and making it more difficult to reach settlements.

When it gets to the point that prominent right-wing Conservative MP David Davis calls some of the Bill’s measures “like something out of Franco’s dictatorship in Spain”, you know that the government should think again.

If you want to read more about what the government is proposing and some informed comment about the background to and detail of the Trade Union Bill, I suggest:

House of Commons’ Library Briefing
You can read a summary or download a detailed report about the Bill’s provisions at

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7295

Stop the union-bashing
An essay by Robert Halfon, Conservative MP for Harlow
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/stoptheunionbashing

Comprehensive briefing by the TUC and General Secretary Frances O’Grady

https://www.tuc.org.uk/tubill

Care not

The number of elderly people requiring residential and nursing care is rising, as are the costs of providing such care. The care costs for some people were wiping out the vast majority of their limited assets.

In 2011, the Dilnot Commission recommended the introduction of a cap on social care costs “to protect people from extreme care costs” in a range of £25,000 to £50,000, with a suggested rate of £35,000. It also proposed an increase in the upper capital limit for the means-test – below which people are eligible for local authority financial support towards their care costs1 – from £23,250 to £100,000.

That led to the Care Act 2014 and, in February 2013, the Conservative Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, announced that the Government would follow the Commission’s recommendation and introduce a £75,000 cap on social care charges in April 2017. He also announced that those with assets worth £123,000 or less would receive some degree of financial support for their care costs. Just a month later, George Osborne changed that to a £72,000 cap and a £118,000 upper asset limit. In January this year, the draft regulations were published.

In April this year, David Cameron promised – as set out in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the General Election - that a Conservative Government, if elected, would implement them and on the timescale already set.

On 17 July 2015, just 10 weeks later, the Government announced a four-year delay in the introduction of the cap on social care costs.

In this Ministerial announcement, reference was made to lobbying by the Conservative-led Local Government Association which had confirmed that the funding gap in adult social care is growing by a minimum of £700 million a year – fewer people are being cared for, home care charges are rising rapidly, hospital bed-blocking is at record levels, and Mr Osborne has already announced that he intends to make £9bn additional cuts in local services later this year – and suggested that the care cap costs would be better used to fund these services.

Unsurprisingly, the care cap has been delayed for a minimum of 4 years and there is no sign of the saving being used to support home care.

Are we seriously being asked to believe that Cameron, Osborne and Hunt had not already intended delaying the care cap when they made that manifesto promise?

FOR FOX’ SAKE

I’m proud of the part I played in getting The Hunting Act 2004 on to the statute book.

As well as being one of the Labour government’s best achievements, it is overwhelmingly supported across the country, in both urban and rural areas.  I’m pleased at a big poll last year confirmed  that a big majority of the British public are in favour of continuing to ban fox hunting (80%), deer hunting (86%), hare hunting and coursing (88%), dog fighting (98%) and badger baiting (95%).

It’s interesting to note that fox numbers haven’t increased since the hunting ban. Lamb loss due to fox predation is still evidenced to be less than 1% of all lamb deaths. And, contrary to the regular assertion, culling actually appears to increase fox numbers because it attracts foxes from surrounding areas and increases reproduction rates.

The Hunting Act 2004 is the most successful piece of animal welfare legislation. Recent Government figures reveal that a total of 590 prosecutions were made under the Act, with a success rate of 64%.

David Cameron – a huntsman himself - It appears to be one of the few manifesto promises he is trying to keep. The Conservative manifesto pledged to give ‘Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote government time’. 

However, David Cameron recognises that he does not have the required numbers for a full repeal. So he’s trying to wreck the Act with some ‘technical’ amendments.These are designed to wreck the Hunting Act 2004 using a back-door device in order to appease his supporters in groups such as the Countryside Alliance.

If, like Oscar Wilde, you think that fox-hunting is a case of ‘the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable’, it’s time to ensure that you speak out now…..and do it loudly!