§ 3.57 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the future strategy of the British Steel Corporation. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future strategy of the British Steel Corporation.
"The House is already aware that the crisis affecting the steel industry worldwide poses severe problems for the British Steel Corporation. Last spring, BSC just about broke even and the prospect for the current year, 1982–83, was for a very small profit before interest. However, following the American protectionist measures and the sharp downturn in world markets for steel. BSC is again making heavy losses, now running at over £7 million a week. The management has therefore been engaged on an urgent reappraisal of its prospects and of the steps necessary to stem these mounting losses.
"In my speech to the House on 9th November I made it clear that the BSC management had the responsibility for taking such steps as were necessary to achieve this but that any question of a closure of one of the five main integrated steelworks would have to be considered in conjunction with the Government.
"The recent BSC management decisions involving closures and redundancies illustrate the scale of the problem and the immediate measures necessary to stem the losses. In preparing their new corporate plan for the three years 1983 to 1986, the BSC chairman Mr. Ian MacGregor has been discussing with me the furthur options open to him. including the option that one of BSC's five major integrated steelworks might be closed.
"In considering the future of these five works, the crucial question is how much capacity is likely to be needed in the foreseeable future. Compared with a manned liquid steel capacity last year, 1981–82, of 14.4 million tonnes a year, BSC's current output is running at a rate of below 10 million tonnes of liquid steel a year. If there were no prospect of any increased output, there could be no economic justification for retaining all five integrated steelworks.
"However, the position is not as bleak as that. There are a number of factors which should result in some increase in BSC's steel production in 1983, and this is indeed the corporation's latest forecast. How far demand is likely to recover beyond that is, of course, difficult to predict. Much depends on external factors, notably the success of the ECSC steel rségime, the future trends of world trade, and perhaps above all the international competitiveness of the main steel-using industries in Britain and of British Steel itself. And, while the world export market for steel is bound to remain difficult, further 868 substantial improvements in BSC's competitiveness could offer improved prospects for exports.
"Moreover, as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the United Kingdom steel industry has made far greater cuts in capacity than the steel industries in other European Community countries. It is the turn of member states to close steelworks and cut back capacity as we have done.
"It remains the Government's firm resolve that the corporation should return to lasting viability, free of Government subsidy. This is the only way to have an efficient steel industry, providing steel at competitive prices to the market, and the only way to achieve secure employment in steel. Moreover, the Community steel régime requires operating subsidies to be eliminated by the end of 1984. Although it will not now be possible for BSC to become profitable this year, as had been hoped, the corporation have accepted that their aim should be to return to breakeven before interest in 1984–5.
"The problem, therefore, is what strategic decisions should be taken to achieve our commercial and financial objectives in the longer term.
"The Government believe it would be wrong to take irrevocable decisions on future steel capacity at a time of such major uncertainty. I am, therefore, asking BSC to prepare their plan for the next three years on the basis that steelmaking will continue at all five major integrated sites. This must, however, depend on each site performing effectively and upon future demand and output. I must also make it clear that this does not imply that BSC will be required to maintain manned capacity at the current level of 14.4 million tonnes; nor that all the facilities within each of the five major integrated sites will necessarily remain in operation. The corporation will continue to be free to take management action to cut costs where necessary in order to maintain efficient operations and to move steadily towards the objective of viability. Indeed, in the case of Ravenscraig, BSC management are at present considering the closure of the slabbing mill because of the general reduction in steel demand coupled with growing customer preference for lower-cost slab produced through the continuous-casting route. This is entirely a matter for the corporation's management, and they will make their decision in the next few weeks in the light of a careful examination of the prospects for this mill.
"There is also the question of future major investment. The Port Talbot works has been substantially modernised in recent years, but the hot strip mill, which is now 30 years old, is in need of modernisation and a project proposal has been put forward by the BSC. The Government fully appreciate the importance of the mill operating to the highest standards of quality and efficiency. We are discussing the details of the project with the BSC in the light of the latest estimates of demand for strip products; it will also need to be discussed with the European Commission. I will announce the Government's decision as soon as possible.
"The House will wish to know what the financial consequences of these decisions might be. Our preliminary view is that the additional costs can be 869 contained within revised EFLs for this year and for 1983–4, which will maintain the downward path of Government funding of the corporation, albeit at a slower rate than we had previously envisaged, reflecting the inevitably slower progress to breakeven that we now expect. I shall announce revised EFLs for this year and 1983–4 as soon as possible.
"I must, however, stress one point. The decisions which I have announced today do not mean that any particular works or plant is safe. That must depend on future markets and on plants being operated to the highest efficiencies. Massive sums have been invested by the corporation in modern plant, amounting to over £3,000 million over the last 10 years. Although immense progress has been made in raising productivity to levels approaching the best European standards, Mr. MacGregor has made it clear to me that there is still quite a long way to go before BSC matches the productivity records of its major competitors. Quality, efficiency and service are also vital.
"The decision I have announced is a challenge both to management and men."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. While we welcome the Government's change of course, the Statement does expose a very grave situation indeed. We also believe that the Government's obstinate pursuit of deflationary policies which have been followed by other Western countries with disastrous consequences is to a large extent responsible for this unhappy decline in the steel industry as in other industries. Would the noble Lord not agree that the state of the steel industry is one of the barometers of our economic condition, as well as the raw material of our engineering industry, including the motor car and shipbuilding industries? Is he aware that the steel industry has been cut to the bone already in this country and that it is an efficient industry now?
Is the noble Lord further aware that 151,000 workers in the EEC have lost their jobs in the last four years, that another 80,000 are on short time, and that half the jobs lost have been in this country? There has been a 52 per cent. job loss in the steel industry in Britain, 26 per cent. in France, 10 per cent. in Germany, and far less in other EEC countries. Is it not a dismal commentary that Italy produces almost twice as much steel as the United Kingdom at the present time? To what extent has this been taken into account in the current calculations? The noble Lord said last week that we must all share the misery, and I was glad to hear what he had to say today on that point. Will our sacrifices over the last four years be taken into account in these further cuts? Since 21st October last, 10,286 jobs have been lost in the steel industry, and that includes jobs in the private as well as the public sector.
Is the noble Lord further aware that the decision not to close further plants is the one comforting aspect of the Statement he has just made? Will he confirm that the Government's intention and that of BSC is to return to increased production in these plants as the economic position improves, and that this is in fact a 870 permanent arrangement? It is not good enough for the Government or BSC to say that this is a temporary arrangement. There cannot be security and certainty in the steel industry unless the workers in the industry know what lies ahead. That assurance would at least provide some glimmer of hope for the future.
As to the still further redundancies which are implicit in this report, these are extremely serious in areas where job prospects are virtually non-existent. Can the noble Lord say what plans the Government have in mind to deal with these new redundancies? When will BSC publish their revised plan and will this problem of redundancies feature in that plan?
What further consultations are the Government and indeed the EEC itself having with the United States on the international implications of the steel crisis? Is it not the case that the American Trade Commission is, at the request of President Reagan, now monitoring imports of special steels from Europe worth one billion dollars a year? What implications does that have for the United Kingdom? The noble Lord will know that, although production of special steels does not employ-as many as the steel industry itself, it is nevertheless important in various parts of the country, and particularly, if I may say so, in Panteg in South Wales. Is it not also the case that the United States are now signing agreements with developing countries like Brazil to keep steel out of the United States market? Will this steel, which will require new outlets, be diverted to Europe, and, if so, what will be the consequences of that for British steel production? Have the Government any plans to limit new imports of this kind?
Finally, is the noble Lord aware that the acute problem facing the British steel industry will not be resolved, and may indeed worsen, unless the Government, the United States, and our partners in the EEC modify their economic policies, and do that very soon indeed?
§ Lord Lloyd of KilgerranMy Lords, may I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement? It is a Statement on the future strategy of the industry. Of course, one understands that it must in some ways be cautious, but I find it very depressing and, in many places, ambiguous. I welcome, of course, the retention of the five steelmaking centres mentioned in the Statement. I also welcome the reference to a further injection of cash, and I particularly welcome the proposed new project to be considered at Port Talbot. However, I am gravely suspicious of that part of the Statement which indicates that Mr. Ian MacGregor is to advise on further selective cutbacks. Such cutbacks would appear to be contrary to other aspects of the Statement referring to the Government's hopes about future action by other countries in the EEC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, referred.
I am sure that many of your Lordships will endorse the basic theme behind the bitter comment in The Times article on steel today—a comment with grim, tragic and even threatening undertones which I heard given months ago in parts of Wales with which I am familiar—that Mr. Ian MacGregor will never get into hell because the devil is scared that within days he would close the furnaces. This is not a laughing matter. The basic theme of that statement has very considerable and even threatening undertones.
871 I put two questions to the Minister relating to that part of the Statement where the Minister said that:
the United Kingdom steel industry has made far greater cuts in capacity than the steel industries in other European Community countries. It is the turn of other member states to close steelworks and cut back capacity as we have done".If that means anything, why is it necessary now to make further cuts, or threaten further cuts, in the United Kingdom's steel industry, as envisaged in the Statement, in view of the admitted past failure of the Government to persuade the EEC to cut back its capacity?Then, does the Minister agree that, as stated in The Times today, there is great admiration in the Community and the Commission for the great sacrifices made by the United Kingdom steel industry in closed plants, in thousands of redundancies, in the untold misery caused by unemployment and in the threats of unemployment in the steel and mining industries of the United Kingdom? If the noble Lord agrees with that, I must ask him what positive steps (not vague statements, as in the one we have heard today) the Government will now take to ensure that as the EEC's productive capacity has still to be reduced—figures of 30 million to 35 million tonnes have been mentioned—most of that further reduction will be fairly loaded on to the other EEC countries?
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also raised a number of pertinent questions, particularly in relation to the position of the United States. I confine my questions to asking as vigorously and as firmly as I can: what are the positive steps that the Government will now take in order to ensure that it is the turn of other member states in the Community to close steelworks and cut back capacity, as we have done?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked a whole range of supplementary questions, and I shall answer as many as I can. The noble Lord first asked what could be described as the root cause of BSC's problems. I remind him that one of the root causes lies, if I may say so, in the previous Government's failure to stop the United Kingdom manufacturing industry from pricing itself out of home and world markets. Between 1974 and 1979 wage costs per unit of manufacturing output rose by 54 per cent. in France, 32 per cent. in the United States, 15 per cent. in Japan. 12 per cent. in Germany, but by no less than 101 per cent. in the United Kingdom. That is the fundamental difficulty with which British Steel is now being faced.
The noble Lord asked in particular about the position of Italy. As I said in answer to a Question recently, Italy's position causes us some concern. However, I should say that that concern is shared by the European Commission, and in particular by Viscount Davignon, who is the Commissioner responsible for these matters.
In reply to the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, we certainly now take the view that the British steel industry has been subjected to all the misery to which it should be subjected, to use the words that I used recently, and it is now the turn of the 872 other European steel-producing countries to make appropriate cuts in their capacity, too. Whatever cuts are made in other countries' capacity, the fact remains that the market available to the British Steel Corporation for the present, at least, is substantially below the capacity that it has available—whether it be manned capacity or installed capacity. It is that short-term position which we must see is contained, and that is now the responsibility of the British Steel Corporation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked whether there were to be new redundancies. We shall now be waiting for the corporate plan referred to in the Statement, which we expect to receive towards the end of January or the beginning of February, to see what further proposals are brought forward in this connection.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also asked about the international implications of this announcement. As the noble Lord pointed out, the United States are conducting an inquiry into stainless steel, which I understand is the product causing concern, and they have been seeking information about the production and marketing of stainless steel, particularly from the British Steel Corporation. We shall certainly be co-operating with those inquiries. At the moment, of course, we now have the benefit of a quota agreement between the European Community and the United States. That has solved the serious dispute that arose a month or so ago.
As far as third countries are concerned, the position is perhaps less difficult than some people imagine, although it is not entirely satisfactory. The importation of steel from third countries into the European Community—with one exception, and I refer to one of the eastern European countries which has a unique quota arrangement—is governed by voluntary restraint agreements. The present volume of steel imported from third countries into the United Kingdom is only about 8 per cent. of European Community consumption, which we believe is a proper price to pay for being able to maintain these matters through the VRA and not by having to impose formal quota agreements. To impose formal quota amounts on third countries is a form of trade restriction which, in general, we deplore. Although that cannot be ruled out in specific cases, such as the eastern European example to which I referred, in general it is not a course we seek to follow, and the VRAs are for the moment meeting the problem.
I believe that I have covered all the points that have been put to me by noble Lords, but if there are any others I shall be happy to try to deal with them.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords——
§ Lord Harris of GreenwichMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware——
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware——
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way?
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, I will be quite short.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way?
§ Baroness GaitskellNo, my Lords, I do not want to give way, I was first up; I have been waiting to speak.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, it is usual first to have the spokesmen from the two Official Opposition Front Benches. It is not absolutely agreed that the Social Democrat Bench should come next, but it is also thought that before any other Members of the two Official Opposition Parties speak, a "go" should be had from this side. Perhaps noble Lords can ask their questions fairly quickly. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, starts and then my noble friend and then the noble Baroness, the questions will be put quite quickly.
Lord Harris of GreewichMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, on the basis of the Statement that he has made today and the very careful qualifications into which he has entered as far as the five steelmaking centres are concerned, many will come to the very clear conclusion that sentence of death has been suspended only until the next general election; that the Government have used such careful language as to keep all the options open after that; and that, notwithstanding the Statement that has been made today, what has been said will cause deep anxiety in probably all five steelmaking centres in this country?
Secondly, I should specifically like to ask the noble Lord as far as the hot strip mill at Port Talbot is concerned where the BSC have put forward a specific proposal to the Government, when are we going to get a clear decision from the Government as to whether they will accept this recommendation or not? Will it be a matter of weeks or months? Will we hear by next Easter? Can the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne give us some clarification as to what this precisely means?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as regards the first point put to me by the noble Lord, this has nothing to do with the next general election. The problems are caused by the sharp decline in the markets in which British Steel operates and the serious financial difficulties in which they now find themselves. These problems, as I said just now, are of comparatively recent making. Indeed, during the earlier part of this year we thought that they would not arise. As for the question which the noble Lord put to me about the Port Talbot strip plant, decisions on that will be taken in the context of the corporate plan which, as I have said, we expect to receive within a month or two.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords——
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware——
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords——
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, I am delighted to give way to the noble Baroness.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, if the noble Baroness will give way——
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, I thought the noble Lord said that I could speak.
§ Lord DenhamNo, my Lords; after one of my noble friends. That is the normal procedure.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, I am so sorry that I am taking precedence over one of my favourite colleagues in this House. Is my noble friend aware that people recognise the catastrophic effect that the world depression is having upon this vital steel industry; that they would like both Houses of Parliament on all sides to appear to be dealing with it bereft of any sort of party advantage or party propaganda? Is he aware that that is the spirit in which I believe the nation expects Parliament to face up to this matter? The Statement that my noble friend has made——
§ Lord DenhamOrder! Will my noble friend ask the question?
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, I prefixed the whole thing by asking if my noble friend was aware, and that is a question.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, a brief question for elucidation.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the one point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is one which comes from all parts of the House and from all parts of the country——
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, will my noble friend give way? He is slightly trespassing on the rules of order. The Companion to Standing Orders does say that brief questions should be asked for elucidation. I think that questions that comment on another noble Lord's question do not come under that heading.
§ Lord Harmar-NichollsMy Lords, I do not want to quarrel with my noble friend, but that was not the attitude adopted by all previous questioners. However, I shall try to adhere to the general standard that he is asking us to accept. But this is an extremely important problem, particularly to someone coming from the West Midlands who has a very deep feeling about the consequences that can flow. Is my noble friend aware that the one point on which there is unanimity throughout the country is that our partners in Europe and our allies in the world should be forced to play their part in facing up to the world depression? Is my noble friend aware that while the strategy that is being adopted is the correct one, it will not be accepted unless it can be felt that the contribution is being shared by all of the countries who will benefit once we have got over this difficulty? I repeat the question: What are the Government prepared to do to insist that our allies and our partners play their part in helping the world to overcome this very disastrous consequence that is hitting at present?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the decisions on these matters will of course emanate in the first instance from the European Commission. But your Lordships will recall that present arrangements with the European Commission concerned with support for the steel industries throughout the European Community expire at the end of 1984, by which time we must have ceased national aids to the various steel industries. I think that the problem to which my noble friend points will be solved by that time.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, would it not be true to say that we should have made our own mistakes instead of importing Mr. Ian MacGregor because, from the moment he set foot in this country, 20 million, 30 million or 50 million workers were put out of a job? It may sound frivolous but I am quite serious about this. We could have done far better if we had remained on our own and made our own decisions and not followed the American, Mr. Ian MacGregor.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, if my memory serves me right, Mr. MacGregor is not an American by birth. But be that as it may, the Government have total confidence in Mr. MacGregor. We believe that he has done a splendid job and I ask your Lordships to reflect on what would be the losses today of the British Steel Corporation had he not been there.
§ Lord BoardmanMy Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, although there has been a helpful improvement in productivity within BSC, there is still a quite unacceptable level of absenteeism in a number of plants; and that, unless or until that situation is reversed, there can certainly be no safeguards for the five integrated works, for regaining our market share, or for safeguarding jobs within the steel industry and within those industries that are dependent upon BSC?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the long-term future, even the medium or perhaps the short-term future, of BSC rests with, first of all, the increase in the market for steel and steel products and, secondly, as my noble friend rightly points out, a continued improvement in the levels of productivity and efficiency of the corporation. There have already quite recently been some important improvements in productivity and in efficiency within the corporation. There is certainly room for more. However, these matters must really be left to the British Steel Corporation, and I know that they are very well aware of them.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what steps the Government are taking to promote the viability of the steel-using industries: engineering, construction et cetera? Hundreds of the firms and companies in that field have unfortunately gone bankrupt since the Government have been in office. May I further ask what steps are being taken to encourage our own domestic consumer to go for British tinplate and steel products? Finally, what is being done to help little towns like my home town of Llanelly, and other places which are being absolutely ruined by the disastrous effects of the steel shutdown?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the solution to the problems of British industry generally, about which the noble and learned Lord has asked me, of course lie in the restoration of the health of our economy, above all in containing inflation—and we have had some success in that—and in containing Government expenditure, public expenditure, which goes hand in hand with that, too. I do not, of course, deny that in some local towns in the country, including Llanelly—for which my father once had the privilege of playing as centre-forward in their football team—there have been serious difficulties, but I am certain that the future lies in the overall restoration of the health of the economy, and that is what our policies aim to do.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, we have been 33 minutes on this Statement. I know that it is a very important question and a very long one, but the Companion to Standing Orders does say that only brief questions for elucidation should be asked or very short comments made, and it is generally accepted that 33 minutes is rather long for a Statement of this kind. I wonder whether the House would not think that we should perhaps move on and return to the Northern Ireland business?
Lord Harmer-NichollsMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that although we have taken 33 minutes, most of it was taken up by the Statement itself? I should have thought that the Statement is important enough to be pursued.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I am, of course, in the hands of the House over this matter. If the House thinks that we should have a few more questions, that is up to the House. But what I have suggested is the normal procedure when questions have been going on for this length of time.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, in general terms I think that the House would entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said, but this is a Statement of outstanding importance and I wonder whether the House might not think that one or two more questions might be justified in the circumstances?
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I am certainly happy to meet the noble Lord over this. It is up to the House to decide and not up to whoever happens to be speaking from this Dispatch Box at the time.
§ Lord DrumalbynMy Lords, will my noble friend appreciate that the whole House entirely agrees with him in saying that it is the turn of our EEC competitors to make sacrifices? What steps can the Government take to ensure that they do so? Can the Commission require them to do so? Can representations be made to the Commission to ensure that it takes steps?—because surely it is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure fair trading in this matter.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, my noble friend is quite right. It is the responsibility of the Commission, anyway, in the first instance, to make the necessary arrangements, as my noble friend describes. There is, 877 of course, a system of production quotas within the European Community and we shall, of course, be very anxious to see that those are strictly adhered to.
§ Lord GormleyMy Lords, as a former president of the European Coal and Steel Community Consultative Committee, I have to disagree a little with one of the comments that has just been made, which is that it is left to the Commission. We spent months and months deciding the quotas for the steel industries of Europe and that decision was accepted by the commissioners. But unfortunately, it was not accepted by the Ministers of the countries concerned. That is the frustration that many of us found on the European scene. Therefore, I have a couple of questions to ask arising from these comments. First, it is said that Mr. MacGregor said that the cost of producing steel in Britain was so much more than it was in the rest of Europe, and he related it to wages, production, et cetera. I do not see any facts to prove that. It is easy to make a statement without any production of facts. I know that the wages in Europe are not lower than they are in Britain; they are higher than they are in Britain.
Secondly, is there any guarantee that the people who work in the steel industry today are any more enamoured by the Statement made today by the British Government? Can they be more certain that it will be stuck to than the quotas agreed upon not long ago by the European Community?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right; proposals that come forward for production quotas within the European Community have to go to the Council of Ministers. The noble Lord went on to ask me whether I could assure him that these new arrangements would be stuck to even if the old ones were not. As I said in the Statement, and as I have emphasised since then, the Government are absolutely determined that the required production capacity by other European Community countries will be reached and adhered to, and I am certain that that is the long-term future for these affairs.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when he read out the percentage figures of increases paid to metallurgists and skilled steel workers in various countries, the increase that the British received still keeps them well below half what other nations pay their steel workers? Therefore, the House must not be misled——
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think that he has misunderstood me. I know the figures to which he refers. I referred to the labour costs and not to the labour rates of pay. Labour costs, of course, relate not only to the rates of pay but also, for example, to efficiency of working.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, if the noble Lord is making a point against management, he may have a good point, but I think the house could be forgiven if we think that what he meant was that the wicked workers had had a massive increase of over 100 per cent. and that that was the cause of the plight in which we find ourselves.
878 With regard to what the noble Lord said, that we have to try to create markets, who is stopping the Government creating markets? Is the noble Lord aware that we have gone through this before? Is he further aware that why I have been the most persistent questioner on matters of steel in the past few months is because I was born and bred in an area that produced steel; then suddenly it was needed and we were lucky that the skills were still there.
I beg the Government to realise that there may come an occasion when we need British skills to produce British steel; that it is a national concern, not merely and only for those in the steel industry, both private and publicly-owned? Would he, therefore, take that on board and realise that this industry must be saved, because it is vital to creating the base of future industries upon which the wellbeing of our nation depends?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I, of course, recognise the importance of the British steel industry within the context of British industry as a whole. Indeed, the thrust of what the noble Lord has said is reflected, if I may say so, in the Statement, when we said that for the time being at least the five main integrated plants will remain open.