§ 2.43 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent discussions the Government have had with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation about the 10-year modernisation plan announced two years ago and the review of it still not completed for Scotland.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick)My Lords, the most recent discussion was on the 17th and 18th April, when the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation led the Corporation's team at the tripartite conference on proposed closures in Scotland.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, after the apparently congenial meeting last Monday between the Minister and the Chairman, and the Chairman's further statement that substantial 1249 reductions in manpower would be necessary, do the Government regard the responsibilities of the Chairman as including the latitude to tackle this matter— which will so much affect the success of this industry in the future—and, in particular, to keep the public informed, besides holding consultations with the unions?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I think the noble Lord should put that question down on the Order Paper if he wants a considered answer. I have answered the Question that was on the Order Paper. Referring to the meeting, which he describes as "congenial"—indicating that he has been roused by the Press to some extent—may I say that there was no discussion at all then. The Chairman received a considered letter and has gone away to prepare a reply.
§ Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELANDMy Lords, I am rather bothered about this Question because it concerns redundancies. When redundancies happen in private enterprise, such as when AEI and GEC were amalgamated, or taken over —whichever way one likes to describe it —these are taken care of after consultation between the unions and the employers. When you come to deal with a nationalised industry—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
§ Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELANDMy Lords, I was coming to the question. When you are dealing with a nationalised industry, is not the situation very different? You are dealing with political considerations.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
§ Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELANDMy Lords, that is a question, is it not? I am going on to ask a question and I am not going to be interrupted. When you come to deal with nationalised industries, does not the difference lie in the fact that you get political questions entering into consideration as well as economic ones? Is it not a fact that on this occasion the Chairman of the Corporation made statements about redundancies which, while having a basis in fact, have been made without any consideration by the trade unions concerned in the industry? Is it not true that, if there are to be redundancies in the future, they will 1250 have to be dealt with in accordance with what the trade unions think? What will be the best way of dealing with these industries? Now, if—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I am sorry, but I hope my noble friend will appreciate that his question is directed more to the House than to the Government, and also it is slightly over-long. Perhaps my noble friend will allow the Minister to reply and then, if he wishes to put a supplementary question, I hope he will do so briefly.
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I am certain that when one deals with a very large industry such as the steel industry, any decision taken has social and political overtones as well as industrial ones. I agree with my noble friend about that point. On the second part of his question, the best way of dealing with redundancies is by means of negotiations with the trade unions themselves. The difficulty arises in this case because the Chairman, instead of continuing negotiations with the trade union leaders as he was expected to do, made some public statements which many people think were unwise.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, did the noble Lord really say earlier that at the meeting on Monday there was no discussion and that the Minister merely handed a letter to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation? Is it normal Government practice to send for a chairman of a nationalised industry to hand him a letter?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Opposition and, of course, the Press. There was not an excited discussion on that occasion. It was simply an occasion on which a considered letter from the Secretary of State was given to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, is this a result of the postal charges going up to such an extent?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am sorry, and I am sure some of my noble 1251 friends will be also, that he was unable without notice to reply to my supplementary question which arose very directly from the Question on the Order Paper? May I try another? Do the Government approve of the Corporation's efforts to attract other industry to the areas where the redundancies are expected?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, first may I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this is not an issue about which Liberal-type jokes should be made.
§ Several Noble Lords: Oh!
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, we are dealing here with a very serious issue, which includes getting alternative work into those areas where there are closures, either expected or imminent. The Corporation is doing a certain amount, but the Chairman has made it quite clear that it is impossible for the British Steel Corporation to do everything. We are therefore doing a lot together. Much work is now being done and we have had considerable success.
§ Lord LEE of NEWTONMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether any progress has been made in discussions with the EEC, in order to regulate the increase in capacity of the private sector of the steel industry so that the public sector will not be disadvantaged?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, as things are at the moment, it is difficult, if not impossible, to match capacity with demand because of the limitations placed upon us by the Paris Treaty. But Her Majesty's Government have indicated to the EEC that this is a subject to which further attention must be given.
§ Lord MAELORMy Lords—
§ Several Noble Lords: Order!
§ Lord MAELORMy Lords, I am not on the Bishops' Bench. Is the Minister aware that last Thursday I asked him to sack the Chairman of this Board. I should like to know what steps he has taken to give effect to my request.
§ Lord BESWICKThe answer is, None, my Lords.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, is the Minister able to tell us when our 1252 steel productivity is likely to be raised to the standard of either German or Japanese steel productivity?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, this is a matter which gives serious cause for concern. The fact of the matter is that in the last year the output from the capacity in Scotland actually fell, although we are spending £100 million in improving the equipment at Ravenscraig. This is a matter which requires the utmost consultation between the Corporation and the workforce. It is because that consultation is not helped by certain Press interest and comment that I regretted the question which I thought the noble Lord put to me on the last occasion he raised this issue.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not true that the Minister or his Department is not responsible for the day-to-day administration of the steel industry?
§ Lord BESWICKThe answer is, Yes, my Lords.
§ Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELANDMy Lords, maybe I shall be able to come to the question I wanted to lead up to in spite of the opposition from the Opposition in this House. Are not the four questions which have been posed by the Minister to the Chairman of the Corporation questions which should be answered by the Minister himself, and not by the Chairman of the Corporation?
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, if my noble friend wants to read the questions he will possibly see that they deal with the intentions from the point of view of the British Steel Corporation, and it is perhaps better to have a clear understanding here so that there can be no possible criticism in the future.