Bombardier Spotlight

Bombardier.

Northern Ireland's biggest

manufacturing employer.

But its future is in doubt.

Up to 4000 jobs at the Belfast

factory of the Canadian-owned

Bombardier plane maker are under

threat after a trade ruling

by the US Government.

US giant Boeing says Bombardier

is using government subsidies

to sell its C Series planes below

cost in America.

Essentially Bombardier

are offering new airplanes

at used airplane prices.

The US wants to hit

back with tariffs that

will hurt jobs here.

Could my job be on the line?

Yes, it could, like

anybody else's job.

The Government has promised

unrelenting action.

We will leave no stone unturned.

But have they ducked

a fight with Trump?

And have their backers in the DUP

been kept in the dark?

The UK Government argued that it's

not a legally proper party

to the dispute and it almost seemed

to be suggesting the dispute had

nothing to do with them.

Were you aware that that was

the legal argument they were taking?

No.

I'll be very interested, then.

If you've got that information then

please share it with me.

Everything hinges on a final

decision this Friday and I've been

to the US capital to delve deep

into the case.

Well, it is clear that

the UK Government has

not come in full force.

This is what the UK

Government submitted.

With 4,000 jobs at stake,

there's four pages of argument.

As they say here...

You do the math.

You said that evidence has

indeed been provided,

is that not misleading?

No, it was completely right.

Tonight on Spotlight...

If Trump's tariffs take hold,

how safe are jobs in Bombardier

and the Government?

I think legitimate questions will be

asked about their fitness

to remain in government.

It's going to be only America First.

This global story begins

where its most dire

consequences could be felt

- in Belfast.

Thank you very much,

much appreciated, thank you, now.

Gaye Partridge is a Bombardier

worker and union rep.

She was in lobbying mode just before

Christmas at Belfast City Council -

seeking support for the 4000 jobs

that are on the line.

Support she believes could be vital.

And one Northern Ireland party,

the DUP, was enjoying

some global clout.

There was no deal agreed in Brussels

today after an intervention

by the Democratic Unionist Party.

We have even seen today

that the DUP can call a halt

to the Brexit negotiations,

so do you think the DUP can persuade

Theresa May to persuade Donald Trump

to get rid of these tariffs?

So we are hoping that their clout

will mean that, yes,

the DUP can deliver this for us.

Under political pressure,

in September even the Prime

Minister intervened.

I've spoken to President Trump more

than once on this issue.

I had a meeting with him

where I raised this issue.

The DUP urged the

Government to do more.

It's time, I think,

for the British Government

and the Canadian Government

to up their game.

Within days, Government support

was on display in Parliament.

We will leave no stone unturned.

We have had 24 calls or meetings

with the US administration,

12 with Boeing executives,

20 with the Government of Canada.

The DUP seemed reassured

that the game was,

indeed, being upped.

I as the representative

of East Belfast greatly appreciate

not only the work thus far but even

the presence today of

the Northern Ireland Secretary,

the Business Secretary,

the Business Minister,

the Defence Procurement Minister

and indeed the Foreign

Secretary, Mr Speaker,

who was present - showing

just how much support

there is politically for us.

Another political chamber and Gaye

Partridge seeks similar support.

We need your support to urgently

call on Boeing to drop this case.

If Bombardier were to pull

out of Belfast it would

have a serious impact

on the Northern Ireland economy.

I am therefore calling on you,

on this council, to support

the motion to support the skills

and jobs of Belfast.

Thank you very much.

Presentation over, she joined me

in the public gallery.

Did it go OK?

It's really nerve wracking

down there, so it is.

No need to worry,

the backing was unanimous.

This is one of those

occasions where we can

and we have united.

And, Lord Mayor, our party will also

be supporting this motion tonight.

The entire number of members

here voted for the motion,

and so the motion is carried.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

The hopes of the workers now rest

in the hands of politicians.

It's over to the

Government now to act.

Economist Richard Ramsey believes

the huge size of Bombardier

in Northern Ireland means that if it

sank it could bring so much down

with it that everyone

would feel its effects.

It's one of our top exporters,

top R&D spenders, top employers

and you take Bombardier out

of the equation and that would blow

a hole in our overall performance.

Ultimately you're then going to see

less money going through

the Northern Ireland economy.

This small economy is suddenly

caught in a dispute involving one

the biggest companies in the world,

Boeing, and one of the biggest

forces in global politics.

We want products

made by our workers.

In our factories.

Stamped with those four magnificent

words: "Made in the USA."

We've seen that Northern Ireland has

become at the frontline of

Donald Trump's America First policy.

So how did this happen?

It's all to do with the UK

and Canadian government money used

in making the C Series plane

and its Belfast-built wings.

A heart-warming sight

for Northern Ireland -

a 100 tonne transport aircraft.

If the planes achieve the expected

demand, it means a lot

of employment in Ulster.

Big aviation projects always promise

plenty of good jobs,

but they often require plenty

of Government support.

Bombardier's C Series -

a 21st century airplane

designed for 21st airlines.

-- 21st-century airlines.

A brand new plane with the wings

designed and made in Belfast.

I want to congratulate

the workforce on everything

that they have achieved.

It has made it possible for us

to give the grants and help.

This help for the C Series

wings was £113 million

from the Government.

A repayable loan or a subsidy?

It's that Government money which is

now at the heart of this dispute.

And here's what that

money helped build.

Swiss, one of the few airlines

with C Series already in service.

So, the head height is good.

Even for someone tall like me.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Those Belfast-built wings help make

the plane more fuel efficient,

saving money for airlines.

This plane can fly transatlantic,

but it may never reach the US.

Unexpected turbulence

amid political climate change has

hit the C Series hard.

Call it Storm Trump.

We are going to enforce our trade

rules and stop foreign cheating.

Tremendous cheating.

Tremendous cheating.

But who's cheating on whom?

Labour fears Belfast workers have

been sacrificed by a Government

focused on Brexit and

cosying up to Trump?

Are they afraid of being exposed

in Northern Ireland

for their failure to protect jobs

or are they so keen to score

a sweetheart trade deal

with the US that they simply

want to wash their

hands of this matter?

It's a charge the Government

strongly rejects.

But Labour has demanded evidence.

In this key exchange,

the Business Secretary was asked

in October if he had engaged

with the US authorities

who will ultimately decide the case

- the Trade Commission.

What attempts have the Government

made thus far to provide evidence

to the US independent Trade

Commission?

In terms of submitting evidence

to the Trade Commission

in the United States,

this has indeed been provided.

I wanted to find out what evidence

was submitted because it's the US

Trade Commission that decides

on Friday if sales of

the C Series harmed Boeing.

If there's no harm, the case ends.

So how the UK Government

argues its case is vital

for workers in Belfast.

Ian Mullan works in the warehouse

and helps load the massive

C Series wings for delivery.

It's a very good job to have,

and I am classed as unskilled

and I have managed to get a mortgage

and a car and everything out of it

and support a family with it.

My dad worked here with me,

I have uncles that work

here and have retired

from here as well.

Thousands more jobs

outside of Bombardier also

benefit from its work.

Here is Marlborough Engineering,

that's a company that is based just

round the corner from here,

and just behind us on another

staging there's a sign

for Barbour Engineering,

based in Bangor.

It's jobs here versus

jobs in the US.

The argument from Boeing

is that this place was built

with the help of public money

with handouts, a subsidy

and therefore it's not fair.

Well, I think they're wrong,

because the UK Government did

give Bombardier money

to build this factory.

However, it was not a given,

it was a loan and we have

to repay the money.

So why do the US authorities

think the loan is unfair?

I went to Washington to find out,

and see what the UK

Government had been doing

here for Bombardier workers.

It's not the first time the US has

expressed concern about that

Government money for Bombardier.

US trade representatives threatened

action nearly a decade ago

when it was first revealed,

but nothing happened.

Until in 2016 Bombardier won

a major order from a US

airline for C Series planes.

Now they were entering American

airspace with help from foreign

governments, and US rival

Boeing wasn't happy.

It compiled a petition

alleging unfair competition.

And fired it straight into the arms

of the Trump administration.

It landed first at the

Department of Commerce.

Their job is to promote

the US economy.

And this time the authorities

sprang into action.

Remember that repayable loan from

the UK Government to Bombardier?

What if it's not,

in fact, repayable?

Buried within around 7000 pages

of documents the UK Government

submitted to the Commerce Department

I've discovered a key

fact about that loan.

And it may hold the secret of why

the Commerce Department believes

the Government money to Bombardier

was unfair to Boeing.

And what this document reveals

is that if something goes wrong

beyond Bombardier's control it's

the Government, not Bombardier,

that is on the hook for the lot.

In that case, the repayable

loan won't be repaid.

This is the seal of

the International Trade Commission.

It really does stand for that notion

of equality, justice,

fairness.

Professor Jennifer Hillman

is a former judge at

the Trade Commission.

She feels what I've uncovered

is key to the case.

In US eyes the loan isn't

commercial - it's a handout.

If the repayable launch

investment isn't ultimately

repayable, is that relevant?

Yes, it is.

By guaranteeing in the end

of the day that if all else fails

the UK Government will step in,

the Government is

assuming a lot of risk.

The fact that the Government

is taking on that risk turns it

from being a commercially viable

loan into a subsidy.

So that's why the Commerce

Department wants tariffs

of nearly 300% to remain.

But the final decision has now

shifted to the ITC and another UK

Government tactic won't help.

Can Theresa May phoning

Donald Trump stop this case?

No.

It is decided by an independent

agency, the International Trade

Commission, and there is literally

nothing that Donald Trump

can do to stop it.

But if a US President can't stop it,

could a European giant?

Bombardier's chief exec celebrated

as Airbus agreed to take a majority

stake in the troubled

C Series jet project.

Airbus plans to partner

on the C Series and avoid tariffs

by assembling the planes in America

in two years' time.

But the ITC is dealing

with the here and now,

it decides if Boeing was harmed.

That's the decision that is pending

right now and in front of the ITC.

They will make that determination.

Regardless of the Airbus deal?

Regardless of the Airbus deal.

So it's bad news for

Bombardier on three fronts -

the Airbus deal may not get

round the tariffs, the political

lobbying of Trump and others

can't stop the case

and because the repayable loan isn't

necessarily repayable it gives

Boeing a strong argument

for imposing tariffs.

The painful irony is

that the money that helped

bring those C Series jobs

to Belfast could now spell disaster

for the entire operation.

At the final ITC hearing in December

the UK Government stood accused

of promoting unfair competition.

So everything now hinges on the ITC

and what they decide.

They're holding a public hearing,

and we're off there now.

The room is packed to capacity.

Trade disputes don't get

any bigger than this.

It doesn't work when foreign

governments tilt the field

for the benefit of the C series.

A plane that wouldn't

even exist were it not

for government subsidies.

The Boeing boss highlights the tough

action Canada has taken directly

in reponse to the case.

Last week, Canada

cancelled a $5 billion

order for Boeing fighter jets just

because we brought this case.

But, unlike Canada, the UK has not

taken tough action against Boeing

and hasn't cancelled contracts.

The UK ambassador, Sir Kim Darroch,

instead argues that

Boeing, not Bombardier,

is the one receiving handouts.

Boeing argue that they are attacking

bad subsidies including a UK

government loan for the development

of wings in Northern Ireland.

Yet Boeing itself enjoys

billions of dollars of US

Government subsidies.

But, fair or not, US subsidies

aren't under scrutiny.

In the US, most legal papers

are publicly available,

So, I want to take a deeper dive

and find out exactly what the UK

government has done.

The key submissions to the ITC

are lengthy and detailed,

well - most of them.

This is Bombardier's latest

submission to the ITC -

its pre-hearing brief.

It's almost 800 pages,

and it's quite heavy.

This is the Canadian government's -

more than 170 pages here.

And this is what the UK

Government submitted.

With 4,000 jobs at stake,

there's four pages of argument.

As they say here, you do the math.

Unlike at the ITC, there were 7000

pages submitted to the Commerce

Department, where the UK lost

the argument against tariffs.

In documents there, I found

bizarre excuses from UK

officials for late replies.

Like this one.

It says that the Department

for International Trade

is a new department moving

into a new building and that it

hasn't unpacked all of its files.

A month later, the UK Government's

legal team writes again

asking for more time.

This time, the lawyers tell the US

Commerce Department that they can't

meet the deadline because

Northern Ireland civil

servants are on holiday

because of the Twelfth Fortnight.

And there's a strange phrase

that keeps cropping up.

It first appears in this letter

of the 26th of May but it's

in almost every piece of UK

Government correspondence.

"The British government does not

consider itself a legally proper

party to this matter."

Time and again, in black and white,

the Government seems to be saying

this case is nothing

to do with them.

So, what does former ITC judge

Jennifer Hillman make of this?

Is it unfair to compare 175 pages

from the Government of Canada

with four pages from

the UK Government?

Well, it is clear that

the UK Government has

not come in full force,

certainly not at the

International Trade Commission?

Is it good enough to state

we are not part of this?

No.

Any questions that you leave

unanswered, the presumption will be

that the reason you didn't answer

them is it is bad news.

And what about those excuses

for late responses offered

by the UK, the unopened boxes

- the 12th Fortnight?

All of the deadlines are literally

carved into the statute,

so the deadlines are very real,

they are absolutely set by the law

and are simply never missed.

Home time for workers in Washington.

Can the Bombardier workers dare

to hope their dreams won't end here?

Could the ITC still vote no

to tariffs and save the day?

Jennifer Hillman says they could.

The ITC at this point is absolutely

critical and there is a good chance

that the ITC could vote no.

Historically, 60%

of the cases go no.

In which case, the case stops.

Before I left Washington,

I called Gaye.

Hello, Jim.

Hi, Gaye.

How are you?

I'm very well.

Thank you.

To reveal that the repayable loan

was being treated as a subsidy.

Well, what are your thoughts?

That is a surprise.

Oh, that is the first

time I have heard that.

But i did reasure her that there

was still hope with the ITC.

Bombardier is based in East Belfast

MP Gavin Robinson's constituency.

His vote at Westminster,

and that of his DUP colleagues,

keeps the Government in power.

I wanted to know if he

was fully aware of how

the Government had behaved.

It turned out, he wasn't.

You did at the time back

in October call on both

the Canadians and the UK

Government to up their game.

I have some documents

here I can show you.

This is the Canadian submission to

the International Trade Commission.

Have you seen that at all?

Literally, you can feel the weight

perhaps of their argument there.

That's what the Canadian

Government submitted.

But let me just show you what the UK

Government submitted to the ITC.

Do you notice a difference there?

Well, there's a clear difference

in volume but this is a dispute

between a Canadian company

and a United States company.

But are you happy that,

for 4 000 jobs, the UK

Government's submission

to the ITC was effectively

four pages of argument?

Well, I don't think that's a fair

way to summarise it.

This is a Canadian company.

This is a Canadian aircraft.

So, leave it up to Canada

to sort this out?

No.

You're supposed to have clout

with the Government.

What have they done in this case

to protect those jobs?

I think, Jim, you are in danger

of trivialising what has been

going on over the last

number of months.

No, I'm not the...

I didn't submit the four pages that

government have submitted,

four pages of argument.

So, the question is who is

trivialising this?

Who has treated it seriously

and submittedm you knowm

170-plus pages of argument,

or who has

perhaps not treated it

seriously and submitted

four pages of argument?

But I think, to focus

on that submission

is to do a huge disservice.

Gavin Robinson is also

a qualified barrister.

I thought maybe the Government

might have briefed him

on their legal strategy.

They hadn't.

We interviewed an expert in

the United States, who was a judge

at the ITC for nine years,

and her view having looked at the UK

submissions was that it

hadn't come in full force.

In fact, the UK Government argued

that it's not legally proper party

to the dispute and it almost seemed

to be suggesting the dispute had

nothing to do with them.

Were you aware that that was

the legal argument they were taking?

No.

I'll be very interested then

if you've got that information

then please share it with me.

From my perspective,

all of this very useful for me

to take back and to make sure that

what we do

and what we engage in on behalf

of Bombardier in making sure

that we can stand up

for the company's successfully

is to have this sort of information.

So, belatedly.

It is publicly available,

if you know where to find it.

Belatedly.

Thank you for sharing it with me.

The Government's case to the ITC

doesn't appear convincing -

even to themselves.

Earlier this month, the Aerospace

Minister said he expected

to lose at the ITC.

My expectation is that things

will not be very different

from what's already been determined.

So, the Government has put together

a case it expects to lose.

And, it appears to have kept its DUP

partners in the dark.

That's bad enough.

But has parliament also been misled?

Remember this exchange.

Labour asks what evidence

the Governement has submitted.

What attempts have the Government

made thus far to provide evidence

to the US independent

Trade Commission?

In terms of submitting evidence

to the Trade Commission

in the United States,

this has indeed been provided.

But evidence from the Government,

all four pages of it,

wasn't submitted to the Trade

Commission until December.

Two months after the Minister

appeared to tell MPs

that it had been done.

Misleading the House can

be a sackable offence.

Labour's Owen Smith believes

the Prime Minister should take

action if Greg Clark

can't explain himself.

I think Mr Clark will have been seen

to have misled the House at that

juncture and I think Theresa May

will need to address that

So, how does the minister

explain himself?

I'm off to find out.

Why did you say that

you had submitted evidence

to the Trade Commission

when you hadn't?

The question in the House of Commons

was whether the ITC -

that's the Trade Commission -

had received evidence.

That was submitted to

the ITC, I think in May,

By whom?

That was submitted by

Bombardier during the periods

that it was required to be.

But the question to you was

what had the Government

submitted to the ITC

and you said that on

submission the evidence had

been provided to the ITC.

Why would your Shadow Minister

question you as to

what Bombardier had submitted?

They were surely asking

you what the Government had

submitted and you said that evidence

has indeed been provided,

is that not misleading?

No.

It was completely right.

It had been provided

through all of this.

But if the minister doesn't believe

he misled parliament.

Does he believe the four-page ITC

submission is sufficient?

When you did submit

evidence as a government,

it was four pages long.

Did a lot of work go into that?

The evidence that we

submitted was actually

over 7,000 pages.

Not to the ITC.

Those 7,000 pages went

to the Commerce Department,

where the Government first tried

the argument that they

weren't a legal party.

There are no planes that

are exported from Belfast,

to the United States.

That is clear.

So, the trade dispute is between

Canada and the United States.

But the UK argument failed

to persuade the Commerce

Department against tariffs.

So, will it also

lose out at the ITC?

We interviewed a former ITC judge

and they said it was clear

that the UK Government hadn't come

in full force at the ITC.

Quite the reverse.

Right from the outset,

we have worked vigorously.

Personally, I have never

seen such a high level -

consistent level - of engagement.

I would have thought that everyone

in the UK and everyone

in Northern Ireland would want

and expect the UK Government and UK

ministers to leave

no stone unturned.

They would,

but you say no stone unturned,

four pages looks like

no effort expended.

No, this is...

I think you are referring to

the final ITC, where it is looking

at the detriment to Boeing.

It is not about, it is not

asking questions as to

what the UK's involvement in that.

So, the Business Secretary rejects

the charge that the Government

didn't come in full force.

Labour's Owen Smith took a different

view when shown the ITC submission.

What are your thoughts?

That's all?

The evidence you have provided

today seems to bear out

that they have been more concerned

with the optics of looking

to be doing a good job,

defending jobs here in Belfast,

rather than doing so.

If this government is prepared

to stand by and see Trump put

America first, but Theresa May not

put Britain first, not put UK jobs

first, then I think legitimate

questions will be asked

about their fitness

to remain in government.

Crucially, how does this play

with the DUP, who keep

the government in power?

If you feel that you have perhaps

been led up the garden path

does that damage the relationship

between the DUP and the Government?

Well, our relationship is very clear

and it's very public and it's

on very particular things.

So, the Government can

do whatever they want

on Bombardier and you will have

to keep supporting them?

No, that's not the case.

There will be many

opportunities when given

the position that we have.

They will find that our support

could have been quite

useful and it may

not have been there.

But let's not get

ahead of ourselves.

Let's take account of

the information that

you're sharing and let's

see where that takes me.

I share the full picture

of government activity -

or inactivity - with Gaye.

Has it been no stone unturned

when you look at some

of the documents there?

Well, it doesn't look very good.

It's disappointing when you see

that they only submitted four pages.

It is disappointing.

We're not trying to

overhype the threat here

but it is a real threat.

100% it's a real threat.

Definitely.

And anybody who doesn't think

like that is very, very wrong.

It's 100% a real threat

to all the jobs within Belfast.

On Friday, the ITC will

make its final decision.

The future of Bombardier

and its workers in Belfast

hangs in the balance.

The Government promised them

and the DUP no stone unturned.

The question is, has that

pledge been honoured?

Meanwhile in the US,

there's no question where

political support lies.

May God bless the United

States of America and

God bless Boeing.