§ 15. Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Iron and Steel Board and with the United Steel and English 449 Steel Companies, to ensure that the Baker and Bessemer plant at Kilnhurst will in the public interest be kept open by the companies until other suitable employment is provided within, or in close proximity to, the district for the 1,000 men, women and boys who will be declared redundant.
§ 4. Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had with the Iron and Steel Board, and with the United Steel and English Steel Companies, about the need to keep open in the public interest production facilities, and the need to retain employment, at their plants in Rotherham and Barrow-in-Furness.
§ Mr. ErrollI have consulted the Iron and Steel Board about the closure of Baker and Bessemer and am satisfied that I would not be justified in exercising my powers under the Iron and Steel Act to keep the works open; there is ample capacity at other British steelworks for the products made by that company. The Board tells me that the Barrow works will not be closed.
I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 18th November about the arrangements for providing other employment for workpeople declared redundant at the Baker and Bessemer plant; I am advised that the number of redundancies at Barrow is likely to be small and includes a large proportion of seasonal workers.
§ Mr. WainwrightMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account the indecent haste with which these two large firms closed this plant? Has he also taken into account the lack of consultation with those concerned, which has been much deprecated? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that on severance pay they indicated that there would be no consultation whatsoever, that the sums were fixed, and that the men who leave the plant now to obtain jobs elsewhere will receive no severance pay? There will be no jobs available for the 300 to 400 men who are to remain until the plant is closed. Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at this problem and keep this plant open until work is provided for everyone who is made redundant?
§ Mr. ErrollI think that the arrangements made are satisfactory, and in any case the matter is one for the firms concerned.
§ Mr. JayIs the right hon. Gentleman saying that he takes no responsibility at all for discharges of labour of this kind from iron and steel firms? If he is saying that, is not this a strong argument for public ownership of the steel industry?
§ Mr. ErrollNo, Sir. I do not think that it is an argument for public ownership of the industry to say that works should be kept open when their products are no longer required.
§ Mr. O'MalleyMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is not only the interests of the workpeople at the Baker and Bessemer plant which are affected by the proposed closures? Is he aware of the sizeable redundancies which are expected? Is he aware that 350 or more people are expected to be made redundant at Steel Peech & Tozer in the next twelve months, and that the 900 vacancies which his hon. Friend said would be available to the Baker and Bessemer workpeople include a considerable number of jobs which it had been widely assumed would be available to the Steel Peech & Tozer people who will become redundant? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to see that employment is available for these people who would have got the jobs had it not been for the situation at Baker and Bessemer? Can the right hon. Gentleman come to any other conclusion than the one which has been arrived at in all the steel constituencies, namely, that the shady machinations of the steel consortia are once again a strong argument for public ownership of the steel industry?
§ Mr. ErrollMy right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has gone very carefully into this question of redundancy, and he dealt with it in his Answer and supplementary answers on 18th November. Further Questions about it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend and not to me. The basic point is that what the firm has been making is no longer required in the same quantities, and I do not regard it as sensible or 451 efficient for Britain to keep open factories to make things for which there is no demand.
§ Sir C. OsborneBefore my right hon. Friend yields to the temptation to extend public ownership to this industry, will he bear in mind the complaints made by one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite this afternoon about the ill working of the nationalised industries that we already have?
§ Mr. JayDo not the right hon. Gentleman's answers make a strong case for the public ownership of this industry? Is not the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Iron and Steel Board, and does the Board accept no responsibility for seeing that labour is not discharged unnecessarily in areas which need more employment and not less? Surely that is part of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility?
§ Mr. ErrollI have no power to require companies to keep plants open.