Tata Steel Is Set To Pull Out Of All Its UK Operations…

Bruce,

Indeed much has changed in fifty odd years but, not human nature, always looking for a short cut or two.

CD

My last paragraph was a hypothetical example – heavily qualified to emphasise the principal point. You either couldn’t see that or, chose to ignore.

I don’t think that you understand the alleged problem. Making “a mistake with a steel specification”, “hardly constitutes fraudulent certification”. You appear to be linking the two events together as one seamless operation.

The mistake with the steel mix was FOLLOWED by the alleged fraudulent certification. Let us give the benefit of the doubt and comment that the inferior quality steel was a genuine mistake and that quality control procedures were either not in place or. were ignored. That makes the issue of quality certification even more serious as it would have appeared to have been issued as a ‘rubber stamping’ process.

On the other hand, the steel quality might have been checked, found to be inferior and still been issued with the appropriate certification.

Either way, there appears to be something going on that is not quite right, hence the attention of the SFO.

John,

Thankfully, much has changed in 50 odd years. It is much, much less likely for things like that to happen than ever it was in the past. I am sure we all well remember seriously rusty Fiats from the 1970’s, which of course is where the less well informed get their idea about different countries manufacturing inferior steel.

The point of my comment was not the quality of the armour of British tanks it was the apparent issue of fraudulent certification regarding steel quality!

I added the comment about the tanks to emphasise the point.

Personally, I’ve always thought points were best emphasised with fact…..rather than fantasy!

Sounds like mistakes were made with steel specifications but that hardly constitutes fraudulent certification. You’d have to be an absolute idiot to deliberately sell sub-specification steel on a large scale (why would you bother on a small scale?), especially to defence or aerospace companies. High-specification steel is specified for a reason and in no industry is sub-specification steel more likely to be detected; and in no industry are the consequences likely to be more catastrophic.

No, TATA aren’t the enemy here; even if the Daily Telegraph needs them to be so it can indulge in a little jingoism!

Naivety knows few limits.

It reminds me of a story set back in the late 1960’s perhaps early 70’s concerning the Morane Saulnier Rallye aircraft, I don’t know which series. Evidently – I’m weak on detail – a production run of aluminium destined for the manufacture of the Rallye had been badly smelted. Some ingredient had been added or removed which weakened the grade down from what it should have been.

A number of years later it emerged that numbers of Rallye’s all made from the same aluminium batch had been found to contain significant corrosion in various stages of progression. I believe that for a time, this information once it had become known to the aviation world, impeded Rally sales, not only new, but also secondhand.

I became aware of all this because I was much taken with the aircraft having seen it demonstrated at one of the Biggin Hill airshows during the 70’s.

The ramifications of poor quality control and/or/maybe fraudulent certification are not new.

Bruce, I find your faith in procedures very touching. If only…..

Quite so, Bruce – must be the season for it!!:(

As long as the recipients have been notified, they would have quarantined the steel in question, and withdrawn any part made from it, if it had got that far. Records would show if any had made it past the front door in a finished product, and it could be changed if necessary. Sounds like a non story to me – there’s a lot if it about…

If TATA did that then they did the right thing. That wasn’t mentioned in my copy of the D.Tel. published either Wed. or Thurs. of this week. The piece that I read mentioned the likely recipients of the dodgy steel ! So, it could not have ALL been withdrawn from sale.

Reading rather more deeply than your headlines suggest, indicates that Tata dealt with the matter rapidly and informed the SFO and other competent authorities as soon as the fact of the certification was confirmed and all the suspect product from the Sheffield factory was quarantined.

I tell you there’s ‘nit picking’ and real ‘nit picking’ and this is the latter.

The point of my comment CD was not the quality of the armour of British tanks it was the apparent issue of fraudulent certification regarding steel quality ! Gordon Bennett !!!

I added the comment about the tanks to emphasise the point.

Really? Who says so? You may be comforted to know that Britain hasn’t produced a single ‘tank’ since TATA owned any British steelworks. Well, not one with steel armour anyway! :rolleyes:

It might not be a happy ending for TATA. Aside from the questions being asked about the missing pension millions, the Serious Fraud Office are now investigating allegations that inferior steel masquerading as superior steel has, with the help of imaginatively produced certificates, been sold to our defence manufacturing concerns.

It seems that TATA have been selling steel of an inferior but usable grade to defence users and confirming that the steel is the special grade that has been specified for a particular function. The confirmation comes via a Certificate of Authenticity, now alleged to be fraudulent. Two of the buyers mentioned were Rolls and BAe.

So, if your son or husband, in a conflict situation, is sitting in a tank comforted by the knowledge that he is protected by an impenetrable and wholly adequate thickness or armour, he might be in for a surprise as an armour piercing round richochets round the inside of the turret, courtesy of TATA.

Doesn’t this rather make a mockery of being in the EU.
We should all be buying and selling EU steel, not Chinese.
If everyone is buying Chinese what exactly is the point of being in the EU when our industries can go to the wall?

BTW as alight hearted aside did anyone hear the news reporter slip in what appeared to be an obvious joke when he said,
“A TATA source said today…”

There are some industries that are so essential to the well being of this nation that we have to control them ‘in house’. Steel is one of them. Anything less will be disasterous…

Whilst I agree in principle with much of what you say, what use is a ‘steel’ industry without any ‘iron ore’ industry?

MrBlueSky

I wholeheartedly support your comments, particularly the last sentence. The whys and wherefores of the decline of the steel industry are one thing, far more serious, is the catastrophic consequence of the loss of military hardware manufacturing. That is what matters and should be to the forefront of any debate about the future of steel making.

Charlie,

I do not disagree with your first paragraph. Tho’ I think that in all probability all the elements come together.

I don’t know about the Swedes or the Dutch. I did mention the Germans in connection with hidden State subsidies, which provision would not surprise me.

The one aspect of this whole affair that grips not only me but, also Lord West and supported by a center page article in to-days Mail, is the thought of this country without the means to effectively defend itself. The closure of the steel industry in Britain means just that.

It is not the slightest use thinking that in a crisis we can rely on allies. When push comes to shove, we’re on our own.

John.

‘Selling England by the Pound ‘

Very apt when you think what successive Governments have sold to foreign countries, that Cherry pick all the best bits, then walk off back to their own country, discarding what’s left as a child would with a half eaten bag of crisps, thrown away in the street full of litter…

There’s a glut of cheap low grade steel now, but at some point prices will level out, and then without Steel works we will have to buy again, but at a vastly higher price.

But hey, so what, we’ll muddle through, just like we have by allowing our Nuclear and Coal power stations to run down over the last 30 years, so we have to rely on the likes of the French and Chinese to build them for us, as the people that use to build them have now long gone…

Once a skill section & infrastructure has been broken up by closure, it can’t be brought back again, instead the use of foreign expertise with all the costs that entails must be used and you’ve only got to look at the Hinkley Point C debacle and you’ll see that farming out keystones of a nation will never be a cheaper alternative in the long run…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35415187

If the powers that be ****** this up, this country will rue the day we let this happen.

Wish you were right, John, it would be easy then. Chinese dumping is a soft scapegoat to take the heat from the real reason. Pernicious UK taxation and punitive levies on energy and its concomitant byproducts.

If the Swedes, Dutch and Germans can do it so can we. A point to which I note you made no reference. In any case the case made by the good Lord is at worst arguable and at best refutable.

Charlie,

The former military ‘tub thumper’ is arguing what I’m arguing which is that steel production – come what may – is essential to the military capability of these islands.

I can give only a semi educated guess as to why the price of our home produced steel is so expensive. There is an obvious answer; dumping. Dumping by primarily, China. They are prepared to defend their steel production, and also America and quite probably Germany, thru’ State subsidy, carefully concealed within the ledgers from the probing eyes of the EU. Altho’ no doubt the EU are equally busy cooking their own books – as they’ve done for years past.

There are some industries that are so essential to the well being of this nation that we have to control them ‘in house’. Steel is one of them. Anything less will be disastrous.

Some things are beyond profit and loss – see NHS.

It is always ironic to listen to the ex-military tub thumping from the comfort of retirement. Perhaps he would utilise his knowledge and experience in suggesting a solution to the problem.

Perhaps he needs to ask himself WHY other countries are able to produce steel competitively when we cannot. The German Thyssen group is one such and a likely acquisition target for Tata, once it has dumped its UK operation.

In 2014 four EU countries produced more than the UK’s 11 million tons – Germany over 30 million. How and why?