House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1990

Column 21

Points of Order

3.32 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : One at a time, please. I call Mr. Thompson first.

Mr. Thompson : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. As you will know, tomorrow we are to discuss the community charge. A recent poll in my local newspaper has stated that most of my constituents are in favour of community charge capping. However, as there will be some legal action about community charge capping in either the near future or the far distant future, will we be in order if we discuss all aspects of the community charge tomorrow if we manage to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that question and I can give him the answer. The motion has not yet been tabled, and until I have seen it I cannot consider the scope of the debate or whether it would be appropriate for me to exercise my discretion with regard to the sub judice rule.

Mr. Thompson : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that the leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats has not yet tabled the motion?

Mr. Speaker : That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Energy given you notice that he intends to come to the House to make a statement about the future of the coal industry? If reports from the British Coal Corporation are to be believed, we are threatened with the extinction of the coal industry in Scotland, the north-east and Wales and with savage cuts in the coal industry in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. The Secretary of State for Energy has apparently been appointed to take charge of co-ordinating Government publicity, but we should like him to come to the House to tell us what he is doing to co-ordinate the Government's energy policy.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. No, I have not had any request for a statement on that matter, which I understand arose because of a leak in one of the newspapers.

Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask a question about the consistency of the use of parliamentary language? You, Mr. Speaker, are rightly quick to complain when hon. Members attack Members of the other place. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) to refer to the Bishop of Oxford as "mischievous"? Is that parliamentarily acceptable?

Mr. Speaker : I understand that the Bishop of Oxford is not at present a member of the House of Lords, although he may become one in due course.

Column 22

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Further to the point of order of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson). First-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Hughes : First, in accordance with normal procedure, tomorrow's motion will be tabled early this evening in the Table Office. That is often done on Opposition days by members of all parties. It will be available for the hon. Member for Calder Valley and others to view there, and it will give ample opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to criticise the community charge as a whole, as well as specific details of it.

Mr. Speaker : I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is for the convenience of the House if motions are tabled as early as possible, as it gives the entire House the opportunity to consider the motions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you were given notice by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he would like to take time this afternoon to make a statement about the appalling events that have occurred in the past few hours in Israel and the occupied territories? Not only were seven unarmed Palestinian labourers shot, but now the Israeli defence force has put 1 million Palestinians under curfew in the Gaza strip and on the West Bank.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have not had such a request.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask Opposition Members who are rising to remember that there is a great demand to take part in today's Opposition day debate, especially from Scottish Members who wish to refer to Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman may finish his point of order, but it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Nellist : I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be brief. Many hon. Members, perhaps on both sides of the House, would have wanted to make representations through the Foreign Secretary on how it is possible that, according to the IDF, one in a thousand people in the Gaza strip were wounded last night and this morning. That is 622 people out of a population of 650,000. That is horrific.

Mr. Speaker : It is indeed a very serious matter, but I have received no request for a statement.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that is directly for you, Mr. Speaker, related to the tabling of questions, on which hon. Members need advice, and it follows points that have already been made. I understand that the Secretary of State for Energy has been given an additional responsibility relating to the co-ordination of Government publicity. That is clearly outside his remit within that Department, and outside the work of the Department. What opportunity is there for hon. Members to table questions to him about his carrying out of that function?

Mr. Speaker : I am not certain that co-ordination of policy is a matter that is normally raised in the House. The

Column 23

hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench --the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)--also co-ordinates policy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising from question No. 73, you will have heard the Leader of the House announce that the Select Committe on Members' Interests has carried out an inquiry into the conflict of interests in the case of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) between his interests as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and his commercial interests. That information has never been revealed by our Committee. The statement of the Leader of the House was a clear breach of privilege, as he has no right to make it. It has been the Committee's aim to retain as much secrecy as possible on those matters ; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did precisely what the Committee has been trying to avoid for the past month.

Mr. Speaker : I am afraid that I did not quite get the thrust of that point of order-- [Interruption.] I think that it is fairly common knowledge that that Select Committee is examining those matters.

CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read .

Ordered ,

That the Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

Column 24

Opposition Day

[12th Allotted Day]

Ravenscraig

Mr. Speaker : I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I repeat what I said a moment ago, that there is great demand to participate in the debate. Although it is not possible for me to put a limit on speeches because this is a half- day debate, if hon. Members limit their speeches to 10 minutes, many will stand a good chance of being called.

3.39 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : I beg to move, That this House deplores the decision by British Steel to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig with major job losses ; recognises that the hot strip mill and a major new investment programme for Ravenscraig are essential to ensure a viable future for the Scottish steel industry ; calls upon British Steel to reverse its catastrophic decision ; and urges Her Majesty's Government at every level to unite in opposing British Steel's decision and to do everything possible to reverse a closure which threatens the future of the steel industry in Scotland.

I do not need to spend much time convincing the House of the importance of the issue and of the significance of Ravenscraig to the Scottish economy. It is easy to draw unpleasant conclusions and predict dire consequences of the recent developments and the announced closure of the strip mill. We on this side try to avoid the doomsday argument and try not to proclaim daily that the end is nigh. Too many people in Scottish politics see disasters as a political opportunity privately to be welcomed, even if publicly deplored. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a question mark and genuine anxiety not just about the 770 jobs whose loss is immediately threatened, but about the whole future of the Ravenscraig plant. If, at the end of 1994, it is producing steel and slab alone, incomplete and vulnerable, clearly problems will arise. That fact is bluntly recognised in the press release of 16 May issued by British Steel, which made the announcement about the strip mill :

"The impact of the continuous casting investments at Port Talbot and Llanwern will, in due course, also affect steel production at Ravenscraig so that production of steel at that works beyond 1994 will be dependent upon the economic and commercial scene and the demand for steel slabs."

In the context of what has happened, that is less than a ringing commitment to the future of the Scottish steel industry.

Certainly everyone in Scottish politics will be uncomfortably aware that the Arthur Young report, which was produced in February 1988, set out what it saw as a possible scenario, leading the total dismantlement of the Scottish steel industry. So far, it is unpleasantly and uncannily on course to become reality.

Other important plants in Scotland--Clydesdale and Dalzell--have their problems and will undoubtedly be the subject of debate on another occasion. The House, and certainly the men who work at Clydesdale and Dalzell, will forgive me and will understand if I focus on Ravenscraig's future.

The mood of Scotland is undoubtedly that we should unite to fight the possible closure and the immediate threat

Column 25

to the strip mill. I have no wish to make an abrasive speech. Like everyone else in Scotland, I seek co-operation and the widest possible coalition from which we can attempt a counter-attack on this issue. However, the Secretary of State would not expect me to fail to record my disagreement and, indeed, dismay at the way in which the matter has been handled until now. We are paying the price for the Government's hands-off attitude, for their insistence that this is a matter simply for the commercial judgment of British Steel and for giving the impression that they have no particular remit or responsibility for the matter. All too often Ministers have looked like passive spectators.

On Wednesday there were supplementary questions on the private notice question from the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is in his place, for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), who I am glad to see has come to listen to the debate, and for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I should like to suggest that they in their enthusiasms were fringe figures and that in suggesting that Government involvement in the future of Ravenscraig was improper, they were ploughing a lonely course. The trouble is that they seem to reflect the views of the Department of Trade and Industry all too accurately. That is one of our problems.

For a long time it has been clear that British Steel has a less than full commitment to its Scottish operations. If we are to avoid the disaster that the Arthur Young report predicts, there must be a sustained and urgent effort. My charge against the Secretary of State for what happened in the past is that there is no evidence that that effort was made.

I met the right hon. and learned Gentleman in December 1989--I remember the conversation well--when a number of colleagues and I expressed our keen alarm about what was happening to the three major steel-making centres in Scottish industry. There were also a number of occasions when the Secretary of State was pressed again during Scottish Question Time--I rehearsed that during the questions following the private notice question--and he told us that he would meet the chairman of British Steel in the relatively near future or shortly. Unfortunately, on 2 May the term "shortly" had a particularly sinister significance, because the Secretary of State was summoned for the wrong reasons--to be given, in effect, formal intimation of execution.

Press speculation--the Secretary of State will know of the article that appeared in The Observer --has suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew well what was going on. That article stated : "Inquiries by The Observer reveal that far from learning for the first time last Tuesday of plans to close the plant, Rifkind and the Scottish Office had been fully appraised of British Steel's intentions as they developed."

The Secretary of State has strongly and hotly denied that, and I am very happy to accept his assurances on that point. However, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that, if he did not know, he should have done, and that if he had asked, he might well have been told. The long period of inaction that led up to last week's meeting with Sir Robert Scholey left British Steel unhindered in its plans to put in place an unsound strategy, which had disastrous consequences for our cause. I believe that the Secretary of State posted himself missing from the field of action during that time.

Column 26

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : Although accepting the Secretary of State's assurances, does the hon. Gentleman find it extraordinary that, given that the chairman of British Steel had made it clear two years ago that, eventually, he wanted to close the hot strip mill and that, in the past few months, he refused to meet either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, the Secretary of State did not wonder whether something was up? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather amazing that it came as such a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of the day?

Mr. Dewar : The hon. Gentleman has given a summary of my remarks and I agree with him.

The tragedy upon which we must concentrate is the fact that it will not be easy now to divert British Steel from its chosen course. Privatisation has weakened the public interest that can be brought to bear and the leverage that could be exercised. The prospects for altering the decision would have been infinitely better if those chances had been taken before that decision was publicly announced. The Secretary of State must bear some responsibility for that. I welcome the fact, however, that the Secretary of State had been converted by circumstance to a more positive attitude in the past 10 days. He has made clear his concern and the fact that he wishes to see the decision reversed. I understand that he had a positive meeting with the stewards from Ravenscraig this morning and that they took some encouragement from what he had to say. I would be unhelpful and churlish if I did not welcome that.

The debate will give us the chance to clarify not only the Secretary of State's position, but that of the Government. It is extremely important that that opportunity is taken. The Secretary of State has used words such as "deplore", and said that he is "disturbed". He has stated that the Scottish Office

"seek to persuade British Steel".--[ Official Report, 16 May 1990 ; Vol. 172, c. 887.]

That is all right as far as it goes, but Scotland will demand something a little more positive and energetic than is suggested by those words. If we are to have any chance of success in our task, we cannot go at it by way of apology, afterthought or on a "sorry-to-bother you" basis. That will not impress Sir Robert Scholey and Mr. Llowarc of British Steel. We cannot have a Secretary of State who speaks in constrained language and leaves the impression, at least with some of us, that, while he is certainly trying to satisfy Scottish opinion, he is also keen not to sacrifice the good opinion of colleagues who may not agree with him.

There has been an attempt at various times to downgrade the issue. It has been suggested that the future of Ravenscraig is of importance to Lanarkshire, but not to the Scottish economy as a whole. I have been told by journalists of the words used by the Secretary of State at a press briefing--I hope that I have got the words accurate--when he said that the job loss was not

"dramatic in itself although disappointing to those affected". It seems that the Secretary of State is trying to put a pedestrian cloak over an industrial crisis of sharp proportions, which also involves a number of personal tragedies. What we seek from the Secretary of State today is a definition of where he stands and, more importantly, what he intends to do. We are looking for a commitment by the Government as a whole that goes well beyond simply polite and cursory inquiries at British Steel headquarters.

Column 27

My second point to the Secretary of State--I hope that he will be able to help me--is that he needs allies in every part of his party, the Government and the country. If he knocks on the door of Sir Robert Scholey, he may well be seen as a predictable visitor--a dutiful nod to Scottish opinion--and discounted as such. If representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry or the Prime Minister were to come and argue the case, say that Ravenscraig was something of central importance to the Scottish economy and there should be reconsideration, that would shake British Steel's complacency, and be a central part of the campaign.

We have been told be the Secretary of State that his Cabinet colleagues are in total agreement with his line. Indeed, the vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, at a meeting of the steel core group in Strathclyde region on Saturday, said that there was total agreement among Cabinet colleagues. I hope that that is true, and welcome it because I recognise that in Scotland there is an almost united opinion.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is just leaving the Chamber, was quoted as saying :

"The future direction of the campaign should be to persuade British Steel to invest in Scotland and to take advantage of the magnificent workforce."

I agree with that and think that almost everyone in Scotland would do so. I hope the fact that the words came from the hon. Member for Stirling may reassure some of the Government's Back Benchers that my position is not ideologically unsound, on that issue.

We need evidence of positive support beyond the Secretary of State for Scotland. If hon. Members remember what the Leader of the House said last Thursday and the previously expressed views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, they will understand why there is a great deal of doubt about whether that support is forthcoming in Scotland and I suspect, possibly just as importantly, in British Steel headquarters.

I hope that the Secretary of State will not think that I am making a cheap point--it is not meant to be--but I cannot help thinking that it is of some significance that there is no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry in the Chamber to listen to this debate. At best, that is discourteous and I fear that it may confirm the political signifiance of the split that I believe exists. I hope that my fear can be laid to rest by the Secretary of State. I want the Secretary of State to be successful in this matter, but he needs the help and support of his colleagues. He must not approach the task as someone who has been given a licence to argue a case because of his special difficulties, while the Government's general line remains unsympathetic. That would be a recipe for a cosmetic exercise bound to failure.

I shall briefly outline the reasons why the Government should be involved. I do not think that British Steel is just another private sector company, as has been again and again suggested by Conservative Members. Ministers hold a golden share. I appreciate that they say it is for limited purposes, but it exists and they do not normally hold golden shares in just another private sector company. They are responsible for the guarantees that have been given.

Column 28

Those guarantees, particularly on the issue of the possible sale of assets in Scotland, require considerable clarification.

I have looked carefully at the statement made by the present Minister for Health, then Minister with responsibility for industry, in the House, and it is not clear whether that guarantee applies only to a closure at the end of 1994 or would apply after 1994. Having discussed such matters more recently than many other people with British Steel, I suspect that there may be potential for a dispute about what that undertaking is worth. That should be clarified. The golden share and guarantees are evidence that we are considering a sensitive issue with widespread economic importance. It is not a routine, undramatic loss of another 770 jobs, even with all the pain and bitterness that that would produce. It will have a knock-on effect on all the steel industry in Scotland and the Scottish economy as a whole. Sir Robert Scholey, with his narrow and no doubt legally justified point of view as chairman of British Steel, may want to shrug off some of those effects, but the Government cannot.

I am told today by ScotRail that 50 per cent. of the revenue of British Rail freight in Scotland is produced by Ravenscraig. There will be a substantial impact on the brave new world of privatised electricity of Scottish Power if it loses what I suspect is the biggest customer in its portfolio. I know that the new private company which is to replace the Clyde port authority in a few months, if the private legislation gets through the House with the continuing support of the Government, will depend heavily for income on the landing dues at Hunterston, the loss of which will knock a massive hole in its financial position. I mention all these because they are examples of the wider public interest which have clearly not been taken into the reckoning by British Steel when reaching its decision but which should be dealt with by the Government.

Everyone who has followed the debate will understand what I mean when I say that national press reaction to what has happened in Scotland has been particularly unfortunate. The dismay with which the news has been greeted in Scotland has met with some derision in the press. The decision to close the strip mill has been seen as a virtuous exercise in commercial realism.

That point of view has been put in trenchant terms by the Financial Times and The Independent, and in offensive terms by the Evening Standard, which some hon. Members will know as London's local evening paper.

"Ravenscraig must close",

it tells us. Perhaps I can give a flavour of the article : "The Scots, who have become subsidy junkies as successive Governments have tried to bribe them with ever larger handouts at the expense of the comparatively little- subsidised English taxpayer, will no doubt wail like a trampled bagpipe at the removal of British Steel's financial support for Ravenscraig."

That is in no way a useful contribution to the debate.

By way of a corrective, I made some inquiries in the Library which referred me to an interesting debate in the House in which a Transport Minister pointed out that subsidy for transport in south-east England will rise from this year's £387 million, in constant terms, to £669 million in 1992 ; and that the underground in London will get £2.2 billion investment over the next three years. I make no complaint about that ; I accept that it is necessary. I make the point only by way of a corrective against those who call

Column 29

our legitimate anxieties the tortured wail of a bagpipe. It might be of interest to some hon. Members to know that the Scottish Office budget for industry, energy, trade and employment this year is £251 million. That begins to show why we do not sympathise with some of the harsh and crude language, bordering on the insulting, which has entered the debate.

I warn the House that it is a comforting theory to say that there is no need to look at the merits of a closure of this sort--that management has decreed and management must always be right. But in this case the management has got it wrong. There was a letter in The Scotsman today from Cardinal Gordan Gray, a much respected leader of the Roman Catholic community in Scotland. He described himself as appalled by what has happened, and protested that there was no morality in the market place. I recognise that that is a controversial view, but I stress that one does not need to agree with the cardinal on that point to agree with those of us who argue that it would be tragic and deeply wrong to close the strip mill at Ravenscraig.

This is not a smokestack industry to be decently buried ; it is not a lame duck industry producing an unwanted product at an unacceptable price. We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister herself that the work force have done well--they produce steel at 2.33 man hours per tonne, which is as low as any plant in Europe. The workers are not going because they are inefficient or because they are loss-making. I cannot quote figures on that, but I believe that it is true. They are going because British Steel has made an assumption that the capacity is not needed and it can cut it because the market will remain depressed. That assumption can and should be challenged. Strip production in British Steel at the moment is about 5.5 million tonnes. Strip capacity at the two Welsh plants will be about 6 million tonnes. We must bear in mind the fact that the number of car units to be produced in this country will rise from 1.2 million to 2 million with the arrival of Japanese firms ; we must remember the increase in North sea activity ; the prediction that the European market over the next four or five years will grow by 1 per cent. a year ; and the fact that we have a substantial direct deficit in steel trade with the rest of Europe, and with Germany in particular. So is it right to cut our capacity calculations so neat and assume that we cannot put any of these things right and pick up an increasing share of our own market?

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : The hon. Gentleman mentioned the expansion of the British car industry to 2 million car units per year. I accept that that is a realistic target for the end of this decade. Why did Scotland not want to be part of that development? Its work force rejected the setting up of the Ford factory in Dundee. Many of us would be more sympathetic to the Scottish cause if it did not turn its back on such high-tech industries.

Mr. Dewar : I shall answer that petty point with a rather more serious one. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the question why, when there is to be a big increase in demand for steel for the car industry, British Steel assumes it will not supply that demand. That is the case for the survival of Ravenscraig. My last point is rather unusual, because I shall conclude by looking at the motion and the Government amendment. This debate is not an end in itself. It should

Column 30

not be seen as an empty political exercise, which is how some of our debates are seen. I have concentrated on government and the parliamentary campaign, but every section of Scottish life, including, to be fair, the Scottish Conservative party, is anxious to contribute to the fight to save the strip mill at Ravenscraig. The work force, under the leadership of the shop steward, Tommy Brennan, and his colleagues, has led by example and deserves better than this announcement.

I shall conclude by speaking about the role of Government. I am depressed by the Government amendment because it will undermine confidence in the Secretary of State's good intentions and commitments and his readiness to go into battle on behalf of the plant. The Government amendment says that this is a matter for "commercial judgment". It certainly expresses concern about the job losses that would follow the closure of the strip mill. However, the only thing it does in terms of action is to invite British Steel to explain and defend its decision. It does not commit the Government to anything and does not promise any action. There is no hint of ministerial pressure or of the Department of Trade and Industry getting its hands dirty in a good cause.

In reply to a private notice question tabled by me, the Secretary of State for Scotland said :

"I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of doing that which can be done to reverse the decision."--[ Official Report, 16 May 1990 ; Vol. 172, c. 888.]

The key question that we want answered by the Secretary of State is, what can be done? He spoke about

"that which can be done".

Does that amount simply to inviting British Steel to explain and defend its decisions? If that is the strength of the Government's involvement and of Ministers' imagination and commitment, it will not do.

It is quite disgraceful that the shop stewards were given the news by the local director and have had absolutely no access to top management. They have not seen Jake Stewart, the head of the strip division, or anyone else of similar seniority. That should be put right. What could be more tentative than merely to invite British Steel to defend its decision? We are looking for positive evidence of Government action in support of the campaign. The Government's response will be seen as totally inadequate in Scotland, and the House should recognise it.

When we tackle British Steel, we want to know that the Government are fighting our corner. I say unashamedly that, if the Secretary of State wants to put himself at the head of that campaign, we will give him every conceivable support and will be grateful for that sign of initiative and energy. If he does not do that, it will mean that the Government propose to do nothing apart from saying to the work force of the strip mill in Ravenscraig, "Perhaps you would like to explain why you are about to be executed." When that little exercise has been carried out, that will be the end of the Government's involvement. That will not do, and it will be seen not to do.

Our motion calls for reversal of the decision to close, asks British Steel to think again, and asks the Government "at every level" to join the struggle to save the plant

"and to do everything possible to reverse"

the decision. The first part of that motion is not original. It is almost exactly the substance of an early-day motion signed last week by all Tory Back-Bench Members representing Scottish constituencies. The second part

Column 31

spells out the essential minimum and a Government commitment in which I understand the Secretary of State believes. It outlines what Scotland expects.

I know that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to do this, but I ask them not to oppose our motion and not to insist on their amendment. There is no heresy, there is nothing unacceptable or out of line with what the Secretary of State has represented as his position, at least in Scotland, in our motion. If the Secretary of State will not accept our motion, I urge him to spell out why he will not do so. If he did, it would unite Scotland and create the kind of platform from which we could mount a campaign which had a genuine hope of reversing the decision and saving the plant.

4.5 pm

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

recognises that British Steel's investment and operational decisions are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company ; nevertheless expresses its concern about the potential employment consequences of the company's decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig ; recognises the considerable productivity achievements of the Ravenscraig workforce ; invites British Steel to explain and defend its decision ; and deplores any attempt to extract political capital from this event rather than offering any constructive solutions.'.

I listened with care to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Despite all the fine rhetoric, the House waited in vain to hear exactly what he would have done in these circumstances if he were in my position. I am aware that we are in government, but the House and the people of Scotland are entitled to know what, if the Labour party believes that action from the Government is required and if this is meant to be more than simply empty rhetoric, a Labour Government would be doing in such circumstances. There was not a scintilla of information from the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Dewar : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Next Section

Home Page