HC Deb 07 July 1966 vol 731 cc662-3
Q1. Sir C. Osborne

asked the Prime Minister why he rejected the proposals put to him by the British Iron and Steel Federation for a new statutory authority with wide ranging control over the industry, and state shareholdings in the major undertakings; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 21st June by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to a Question by the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn).

Sir C. Osborne

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what precise detailed parts of the Federation's plans he considered were against the national interest and so caused him to reject them?

If there was none, why did he reject the proposals altogether?

The Prime Minister

The Answer by my right hon. Friend to which I have referred gave reasons, not in detail but in general terms, why it was not possible to accept these recommendations, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will hear this subject argued in greater detail when the Bill is debated in the House.

Mr. O'Malley

Is it not significant that the B.I.S.F. proposals for the reorganisation of the industry have only come in May and June of this year, whereas it has never previously condemned the serious consequences of the 1953 Act; that the Rationalisation Committee has still not reported; and that proposals for changes in the pricing system came only after the condemnation of the Restrictive Practices Court?

Mr. Barber

Will the Prime Minister just for once give a straight answer to a simple question? [Interruption.] Is it the Government's position that they are not prepared to consider any compromise which does not involve outright nationalisation of 90 per cent. of the production of the industry?

The Prime Minister

We have made clear all along—in the White Paper last year and in the Answer I have just quoted—and it is not my fault if the right hon. Gentleman cannot read it—that a partial solution on these lines would not secure the necessary reorganisation of the industry and would be monstrously unfair to the minority shareholders.