HC Deb 23 February 1970 vol 796 cc796-8
8. Mr. Lane

asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the percentage dividend to be paid by the British Steel Corporation on its public dividend capital in respect of the financial years 1968–69 and 1969–70, respectively.

Mr. Harold Lever

The corporation has not yet made proposals though in its annual report it states its intention of proposing that no dividend should be paid for 1968–69.

Mr. Lane

To help the corporation towards profitability, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that in the remaining months of the present Government there will be less interference with the industry by the Government and other bodies than there has been in the past two years?

Mr. Lever

I am sure that for the remaining life of the present Parliament, and for the remaining period of the Government's occupation of office, which will presumably come thereafter, there will be no improper interference with the corporation, nor has there been anything more than the discharge of the statutory responsibilities which the House has placed on my Department.

Sir J. Eden

Does not the fact that again no dividend is to be proposed this year indicate that there is full justification for the Opposition's criticism of the p.d.c. device? What would have been the amount paid if the whole £834 million of commencing capital debt had been left as fixed interest charges?

Mr. Lever

To the contrary, the events of the past two years have shown how right we were in saying that the industry should not be burdened with fixed interest charges, especially in the first year or two of its life, and especially having regard to the cyclical nature of the steel industry. Far from justifying the hon. Gentleman's strictures, this completely negates them.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in spite of the last increase the price of steel generally is lower than that of our competitors abroad, and that it is far better sometimes to have a lower price to industry than simply to make a profit?

Mr. Lever

My hon. Friend raises wide issues difficult to comprehend within a supplementary reply. However, it is true that our prices, even after the recent rise, are below the world market price and that for a period before that British industry as a whole has had immense advantage from the low price charged by the Steel Corporation.

32. Sir G. Nabarro

asked the Minister of Technology why steel production in 1969, at 26.5 million tons, was lower than in 1965 at 27.01 million tons; and whether he will make a statement on nationalisation progress to date.

Mr. Benn

Output in 1969, the second highest ever, would have been a record but for losses of about 1 million tons, mainly from unofficial strikes. Nationalisation has enabled good progress to be made towards re-building and expanding the steel industry, as is shown in the annual report.

Sir G. Nabarro

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these turgid results from the nationalised steel industry compare very unfavourably with, for example, those of our principal shipbuilding competitor, Japan, which has increased its steel output from 25 million tons in 1962 to 72 million tons this year, almost treble in eight years, while we creep along a plateau?

Mr. Benn

If the hon. Gentleman thought that the annual report was likely to be turgid, he might have suggested to his right hon. Friends that they should await the report before debating the subject. There was a debate on the steel industry just before the annual report was made available.

Mr. Ronald Atkins

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why Japan is doing so well is that 15 years ago the Japanese Government encouraged private industry in Japan to invest in the steel industry, and that with that government encouragement Japan today can produce her present output? Would my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in government they did nothing to help to increase capacity?

Mr. Benn

It is true, as my right hon. Friend said during the debate, that the £900 million investment programme over the next five years, which has been approved by the Steel Corporation, gives us a real opportunity of catching up our backlog.

Sir K. Joseph

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? He completely evaded it.

Mr. Benn

During the eight-year period in which the hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between Japanese performance and our own, we were building steel with capital investment which had been authorised in earlier years, and no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from the nationalisation of the steel industry about the very poor performance of the steel industry in this country under private ownership compared with that of the Japanese.