House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Jan 1992

Column 559

Mr. Lang : I just wish that someone on the Opposition Benches could help us. Perhaps next week at Luigi's the Leader of the Opposition will manage to extricate himself from the spaghetti in which he is entangled.

Mr. Dewar : The Secretary of State has been adamant that Government intervention and attempts to influence these matters are wrong as a matter of principle. Does he remember when his immediate predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland said that the decision to close the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig was wrong and should be reviewed and reversed, and that his policy was to achieve that? Did the right hon. Gentleman support that?

Mr. Lang : Of course I did. I should have liked to see it happen. However, I do not believe in intervening in the steel industry to do it ; nor do I believe that the Labour party believes in that. Certainly, its leader does not believe in it. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has a Welsh interest to protect. Perhaps it is asking too much to expect him to rise above the Welsh interest and look to the Scottish, let alone the United Kingdom, interest. The Labour party must be in a great shambles when we hear that nationalisation is no more than a slogan and that the entire history of the Labour party's commitment to nationalisation not only of the steel industry but across the board is abandoned. The Leader of the Opposition says :

"it isn't intervention that the steel industry needs some civil servant or Minister sitting on their shoulder saying to them well, strategically this is what we think you should do."

I am grateful to the Labour party for calling the debate tonight, even though it is a half-day debate on a Thursday, so that we could obtain that revelation about its policy on nationalisation. I want to make a little progress on the positive measures that the Government are taking to meet the difficulties that Lanarkshire faces. It is important that we recognise the position as it has developed. When we came to office in 1979 we found an industry which was over-manned, under-invested, uncompetitive and riven with industrial dispute. Funds were being poured into it by the taxpayer at the rate of £100 million a month at today's prices. That not only failed to solve the steel industry's problems but damaged the interests of the taxpayer, other industry and the economy in general.

Some contraction was inevitable with the industry in such a state. It would not be particularly rewarding to reflect on how or why the Ravenscraig problems developed--whether the cause was the original decision of the Conservative Government to encourage the industry to locate the mill at Ravenscraig, the decision to split the effort between Scotland and Wales, the location 40 miles from the sea, the separation from the cold strip mill or the loss of Linwood. At Linwood industrial disputes eventually destroyed one of the major markets for its product, just as they destroyed many of the shipyards on the upper Clyde. We could reflect on whether nationalisation destroyed the old Scottish companies by moving their control to London and creating such a mess that it was impossible to reprivatise them on a Scottish basis.

The Labour party owes it to the House to tell us even now what it would do. We have heard what it would not do, but it must tell us what it would do if it were to win the election. It may find itself in office with four or five months

Column 560

to go. If it does, it will owe it to the people of Scotland to tell them what it will do. We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Garscadden.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : Is the Secretary of State telling the people of Scotland that they will need to wait almost 10 years, as the people of Linwood had to wait, to see anything come into that massive empty factory space? Surely the Secretary of State has more to offer the people in Lanarkshire than he offered the people of Renfrewshire- -nothing.

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a well-timed intervention which enables me to describe the initiatives which we are taking, have taken and will continue to take.

Mr. Oppenheim : Surely it would be within the power of the Opposition spokesman, should he ever become Secretary of State for Scotland, to take powers to insist that Ravenscraig should remain open. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for Garscadden is so unwilling to make that pledge?

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish that I knew. Some two and a quarter hours of the debate remain and I hope that the Labour party will make its position clear as the debate advances. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I entirely share the general disappointment and dismay at the effect of the loss of jobs in Lanarkshire as a result of the closure of Ravenscraig. But what matters is action, not words, and it is action that the Government have been taking.

Mr. William Powell (Corby) : My right hon. Friend knows that I have many thousands of constituents who have brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers who live in the Motherwell area and are involved with Ravenscraig. He will also be aware of the massive assistance that the Government granted to my constituency by creating the enterprise zone, by granting assisted area status, by a massive infusion of derelict land grants and of money for new roads and infrastructure, through European grants. They made available many millions of pounds for retraining and so on. My constituents in Corby would like to hear from my right hon. Friend that the same range of incentives will be made available to Motherwell.

Mr. Lang : I am grateful to my hon. Friend who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, speaks with direct and substantial personal experience of the beneficial effects of the Government's measures. He knows the benefits that will flow from the Government's measures in Lanarkshire.

We are making good progress in providing assistance for Lanarkshire. Our plans are going forward in a businesslike and sensible way. As soon as we heard that the closure of Ravenscraig was to be announced, we accelerated the consideration, already well advanced, of the case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire. The Government quickly concluded that the case for such a zone was strong. I announced our intention to seek EC approval for the establishment of the zone on the day that the closure was announced.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) challenged the Prime Minister. He said that there was good information that the Prime Minister knew about the

Column 561

closure of Ravenscraig 14 days before the announcement. How many days before the announcement was the Secretary of State told about the closure?

Mr. Lang : I will not answer for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I heard about the closure on 20 December. I made that clear as soon as the announcement took place. There is no great mystery about that.

Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East) : What did the Secretary of State do about it?

Mr. Lang : I advanced consideration of our preparation of our application for enterprise zone status and I persuaded my Government colleagues that that was a desirable step forward. On the day of the announcement I was able to write to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner, to alert him to the fact that the United Kingdom Government would seek the Commission's agreement to the establishment of such a zone.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang : No, if the hon. Lady will allow me, I must make progress. I will give way to her later.

Mrs. Ewing : My point is about the enterprise zone.

Mr. Lang : Let me first say what I have to say about the enterprise zone. I will then give way to the hon. Lady if she still feels that it is necessary.

I spoke to Commissioner Brittan yesterday and I am pleased to confirm that formal notification of the Government's case for an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire was made to the

Secretary-General of the European Commission this morning. I know that the Labour party does not understand much about enterprise zones--after all, they were created by the Government--but they involve an enormous amount of preparation. That preparation has been carried out extremely thoroughly. When asked yesterday whether he thought that he had been informed of our intention at an adequate time, Commissioner Brittan replied that he considered it "pretty prompt". He added :

"Time spent in preparing well prepared applications is not prevarication or time wasted Time spent now in amassing detail could save time in the long run."

Mrs. Ewing : Although I do not wish to interfere in the argument about which of the Front-Bench spokesmen could more speedily achieve an enterprise zone, I believe that they should be fighting for the retention and expansion of the Scottish steel industry. Is it true that the condition that there will be no steel-making capacity in Lanarkshire will be attached to enterprise zone status?

Mr. Lang : That is the first time that I have heard the suggestion. It is highly unlikely. However, it is for the Commission to pursue and develop any conditions that it thinks appropriate.

I believe that our case is strong and that the zone will be of great help to north Lanarkshire, attracting many thousands of new jobs in a range of companies, thus broadening Lanarkshire's economic base.

I can also announce that I have approved the commissioning by Lanarkshire development agency of a consultancy study of the long-term economic development

Column 562

opportunities, to follow on from the immediate work in hand arising from the Lanarkshire working group's report.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I am grateful for the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way. I sincerely hope for the sake of the people of north Lanarkshire that the enterprise zone which is to be created there is given far more financial and other support by the Government than was the case with the Inverclyde enterprise zone. That so- called enterprise zone has proved to be a bitter disappointment and failure for thousands of my constituents who are unemployed.

Mr. Lang : While the Inverclyde enterprise zone has not yet made a substantial breakthrough because of the difficult circumstances in which it operates, it substantially enhances the opportunity to bring employment to Inverclyde. The hon. Gentleman was keen enough for it to be established. The Government were glad to be able to secure that for him and I should have thought that it was in our interests for both of us to work together to make it a success.

The resources and investment by Government in an enterprise zone take the form of income forgone, in terms of capital allowances, exemption from rates and other benefits. The estimated costs to the Exchequer from the enterprise zone in Lanarkshire are about £50.5 million, which is expected to trigger about £250 million of private sector investment and to create a substantial number of jobs.

Mr. Dewar : Perhaps the Secretary of State would write to me, as I am interested in his remarks. The basis upon which that figure has been arrived at means that he must be able to calculate the revenue loss, which presumably means that he has made assumptions about the size and occupation of the zone. Would he be prepared to put those calculations in the Library?

Mr. Lang : I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman whatever information is available to the Government, but when one sets up an enterprise zone, one does not know the nature of the employment which will come into different parts of it. The zone is based on six areas, which add up to almost 500 acres. The Government's experience and estimates have been carefully negotiated and calculated as accurately as possible, and they are based on our experience in other enterprise zones and upon expected take-up of opportunities there.

Today I wrote to Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, to say once again that he should release sufficient evidence about the world domestic market situation in the steel industry and about Ravenscraig's costs and other circumstances to shed light on the factors which led the British Steel board to take its decision. I pressed British Steel to help deal with decontamination of the Ravenscraig site and its restoration to industrial or other use by granting Lanarkshire development agency immediate access to site records and by funding and other support for a site assessment to gauge which parts of the site could be quickly redeveloped and which need special or prolonged remedial treatment.

I have further suggested that British Steel might wish to enter into early discussions with the public agencies involved about the future of buildings on the site and

Column 563

about future site ownership and development, aimed at making the most of potential public and private sector contributions. I pressed Sir Robert to say by how much the funding of the British steel industry will increase to take account of 1,200 additional job losses since its £10 million programme was announced in north Lanarkshire last June. I emphasised the importance of training measures, as they would give much valued flexibility in tailoring training and retraining to meet likely future needs.

During the past decade, in a sustained and systematic way, the Government have developed a programme to help Lanarkshire. The House will be familiar with the Motherwell project, which has run for about eight years, in which the Scottish Development Agency had invested about £56 million by 1987. That project is estimated to have created or saved about 4,000 jobs. The partnership and commitment to Motherwell established by the project is being maintained through the Motherwell enterprise partnership, led by Motherwell Enterprise Development Co., which had a budget of £930,000 last year. There is also the Coatbridge project, which ran from 1983 to 1988, in which SDA expenditure totalled £22.8 million--a project judged to have created or safeguarded about 2,500 jobs. A number of enterprise trusts are operating, many initially 20 per cent. funded by the SDA, which now deliver services under contract to the Lanarkshire development agency.

Last year, in response to the developing situation, I set up a working group under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary--my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)--to review Lanarkshire's immediate needs and to develop projects. That was an immensely successful initiative, for which I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am grateful also to the many public sector individuals and bodies which came willingly and co- operatively together to develop effectively the sort of plans which are now being implemented--16 early action projects--

Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride) : On East Kilbride development corporation--

Mr. Lang : I have not come to East Kilbride development corporation yet. If I have time, I shall do so.

Sixteen early action projects--mostly industrial site

developments--were identified and work has already begun upon 13 of them ; two more medium-term projects are moving ahead ; and five others are subject to feasibility studies.

The remedial measures range across a wide spectrum of commitment in terms of finance and skill. Lanarkshire development agency had a basic budget of almost £3 million last year, to which was added an additional £15 million allocation, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May, and a further £4 million allocation for extra training. Scottish Enterprise was allocated about £5 million for use in Lanarkshire in 1991-92. Those resources were used by the SDA largely to develop sites purchased by the SDA in March 1991. Further resources, amounting to about £1 million, were put into employment action and training programmes.

East Kilbride development corporation's capital programme for the year in question was about £26 million.

Column 564

In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry, under the iron and steel employers re-adaptation benefit scheme for 1991-92, expected to spend about £28 million. The capital allocations to local authorities for factory building were set at £4 million, to enable a response to be made to the needs of the area.

Mr. Ingram : Hon. Members will recognise the importnt role that East Kilbride development corporation has played in the regeneration of the economy of Lanarkshire and Scotland and the role that it will play in the years ahead. Why is the Secretary of State proposing to wind up the development corporation within the next four years ?

Mr. Lang : Such is the success of East Kilbride that it has reached a level of maturity where it no longer needs the special commitment of resources--which might be better used in other parts in Lanarkshire--to maintain and continue its development. East Kilbridge development corporation has handled its opportunities extremely well and has succeeded in attracting about one in five of all inward investment cases coming to Scotland. That, too, is for the benefit of Lanarkshire.

Lanarkshire has important advantages--it is well-located, with good communications, and the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that those are improved. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed the decision by British Rail to locate its Mossend channel tunnel freight terminal in Lanarkshire. Considerable benefits will flow from that. The Government have also substantially expanded the roads programme to take special account of the needs of Lanarkshire with regard to the M8 and A8 and--most important of all--the improvement of the A74, which is being developed into a motorway.

The Government have a sustained, well considered and broad-ranging commitment to Lanarkshire. We are implementing policies that have proved effective and successful in Brigg and Scunthorpe, Corby and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Lanarkshire has got advantages and we are doing our best to help the people there to capitalise upon them.

Our amendment to the motion describes the

"extensive and effective nature of the measures already being undertaken by the Government as part of its continuing commitment to improve the economy and infrastructure in Lanarkshire".

I urge the House to reject the motion and to conceal it from the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition, who signed it. Instead, the House should endorse the words of the right hon. Gentleman which appeared in the Financial Times today, and support the Government's amendment.

8 pm

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South) : For the people of Motherwell, and for Ravenscraig steel workers and their families, this is a sad occasion. They have worked hard and loyally, they have learnt new skills, developed new methods, pioneered new technologies and triumphed over disasters. They have acted intelligently, with foresight, courage and integrity. They have achieved unequalled levels of performance.

Steel is the most dramatic of industries, but it is not an industry for drama. It is an industry for steady, careful, considered judgment, because a worker's life and those of his work mates depend upon what he does. Because the steel workers have felt, worked and argued their case in

Column 565

that steady way--not just for our own interests as a steel community, but for the public who invested in the plant, for the customer and for the end consumer--they have seen the direction in which British Steel was taking us since the closure of Gartcosh in 1985, and even before that. It has been a long planned closure and now the workers have been told that British Steel is planning, finally, to close the works in September.

On Second Reading of the British Steel Bill in February 1988 I pointed out the likelihood that the privatisation of British Steel as a monopoly producer in the United Kingdom would lead to the closure of Ravenscraig, as British Steel exerted its unfettered monopolistic power to restrict capacity. I argued how a competitive solution, with the separate privatisation of Ravenscraig, Shotton and Dalzell, would give Ravenscraig a chance to demonstrate its market strength. But the Government would not listen. I said :

"If Ravenscraig is to be killed, it will die with dignity. But the House will understand the politically explosive effects in Scotland if our largest fully competitive industrial unit were closed with the Government having denied the test of the market, in which they believe".--[ Official Report, 23 February 1988 ; Vol. 128, c. 215.] That effect will soon show in the ballot box.

First, is there any possibility of a phoenix operation now that British Steel is pulling out? The chances are slim, but they must be pursued until all reasonable possibilities are exhausted. The search must be taken up again for a steel business elsewhere in the world that has the finishing mills which British Steel has stripped from Ravenscraig. It could be supplied with high quality slabs from Ravenscraig at lower cost than by building itself a new modern steel-making plant. Scottish Enterprise must explore all possibilities. It will not be easy, and the chances of success are not high in view of the excess slab capacity elsewhere in Europe seeking distress sales.

I put the different proposition of using Ravenscraig as a demonstration plant for introducing thin slab casting into the integrated steelwork BOS-- basic oxygen steel--route. Arthur D. Little endorsed it as the other option worth exploring. It would be a world first, with a new product and a new process. The Secretary of State and the Government have never understood that the last thing that British Steel and other conventional steel producers want is a new process which will undercut their costs and make their plants obsolete, so it has been a mini-mill in NUCOR in the United States that has pioneered the new thin slab technology. Without the research and development resources of a big steel company, there are still surface quality and other problems that need ironing out before the product can sell as top quality strip. There is no problem about installing it on a BOS plant ; the quality problems will be solved there. There were similar problems with thick slab casting when it was introduced and it was Ravenscraig that pioneered that and strip products in this country. In some respects thin slab strip has inherently superior qualities, with its finer grain from more rapid cooling.

NUCOR and its plant builder, the German firm, Schloemann Siemag, is ready to assist in the examination of possibilities at Ravenscraig. I have suggested that the most likely way forward would be with a consortium of at least three steel producers interested in a full-scale demonstration of the process on a BOS plant. The process is long past the pilot plant stage. Because of the reluctance of British Steel and perhaps other European steel

Column 566

companies to encourage a new process in their own market, the first member of the consortium might have to be a non -European steel company. Once it was apparent that the demonstration was likely to go ahead, European steel companies and, I suspect, British Steel- -I have told it so--might have second thoughts. They might like to look at what is happening with the Japanese car plants.

There is precious little time to explore the options. I am going to NUCOR on 5 February to discuss the possibilities with the chairman, Mr. Kenneth Iverson. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing an executive from Scottish Enterprise to come to NUCOR with me. British Steel has told me that its offer to sell the Ravenscraig plant will expire in September when it closes the plant. It has pointed out that the one remaining blast furnace will then be allowed to cool, which normally results in the collapse of the brick lining, making the furnace inoperable until it has been re-built at a cost of £50 million. The coke ovens would also collapse, and their replacement would cost £150 million. To continue operating Ravenscraig from September, it would have to use the existing thick slab concast, so only slab sales would be possible and that faces the difficulty of the present depressed state of the steel market. However, the blast furnace lining and the coke ovens are coming to the end of their useful life--that has been a careful part of British Steel planning--so little would be lost if there was a break in production while a new thin slab plant was built, but it means that a new operator would have to spend at least £250 million putting the steel making end in working order. People in Motherwell would have no wish to keep a derelict steel plant lying around. They are not interested in a Mickey Mouse gimmick to keep the plant stumbling along for a year or two. They would also not wish the liability for the costs of the reclamation of the steel sites to fall on a shell company with no resources, which would not be able to meet the costs. There is therefore no interest in keeping British Steel waiting indefinitely against the contingency of a buyer turning up at some indefinite time in the future.

Conversely, it would not be in British Steel's interest to be over-hasty in the demolition of Ravenscraig if the effect was to incur the heaviest possible claim for the most expensive kind of reclamation and restoration of the site as a country park. The Government's consultants, appointed by the Lanarkshire development agency on the prompting of the Scottish Office, have estimated that that would cost about £200 million.

My experience of the operating management of British Steel is that, within the limits of their job, they are reasonable men acting in a reasonable way, and I am sure that it is in our interests in Motherwell to deal with them as such. I am sorry that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office have not done that. There have been no informal meetings and no serious discussion, and now the Secretary of State has written formally to the chairman and wielded the big stick.

Everyone in Scotland supports the case for the modernisation and extension of the Dalzell works to the limits of its capacity as British Steel's lowest-cost option for the development of plate, and that is not now affected by the closure of Ravenscraig.

The Scottish National party policy for nationalisation as a solution does not add up, as The Glasgow Herald shows in articles today. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will show that clearly, if he

Column 567

is successful in being called to speak in the debate. Once the election is over, Dalzell workers will be seen to be getting on with keeping their plant the model of efficiency, which is best calculated to win the long life for the plate mill that Motherwell desperately needs.

We must explore all possible avenues for steel, and we are doing so. The Secretary of State is utterly wrong to accuse us of not having specific proposals. We have some of the most specific and practical proposals, and I have the full support of the shadow Secretary of State, of the Leader of the Opposition, of the whole shadow Cabinet and of all my colleagues in Scotland in making these comments. It is therefore utterly preposterous for Conservative Members to think that my hon. Friends and I can be embarrassed on the token issue of nationalisation. We are not in that kind of political debating area. We are dealing with the serious business of industry.

Mr. Lang : I, too, am dealing with the serious matter of industry. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would say which of his leader's policies he supports. He cannot support them both.

Dr. Bray : Just prior to the debate, I was at a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition at which I went over the grounds of our case. He gives us his absolute, full and unqualified support. We must explore all possible avenues for steel. Everyone in Motherwell accepts that our future lies in new jobs, new industries and a new image of Lanarkshire.

The Government's antics have been pathetic. I shall not go into the details of the enterprise zone because, from what the Secretary of State said, it is clear that he has not been informed about the way in which matters have been developed and formulated.

The Secretary of State did not even mention the new link that is needed between the M74 and the M8, running through the Ravenscraig site, a matter which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked by the Prime Minister to investigate when we met the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman failed to do that to the extent of writing to me afterwards, saying that it was a matter for Strathclyde regional council.

We need the image-changing impact of a new Motherwell Parkway mainline station on that new motorway link and on the electrified Glasgow-Edinburgh mainline, with its InterCity services. We need that opening up of the steel sites as a new central Scotland business site linked to the overcrowded centres of Edinburgh and Glasgow. We need a new role for Motherwell and Bell colleges in providing vital new skills. We need the core developments that will launch new growth, with the encouragement and involvement of the private sector, which the Government have been totally inept in seeking.

We get none of that. We get, instead--this is typical--a cut in the housing capital allocation for Motherwell district council from the £25 million in the five-year capital programme to an appalling £15 million. What is the Secretary of State up to? Is he counting on the depopulation of Motherwell?

Mr. Lang : The hon. Gentleman is making an incorrect claim because he is comparing the provisional allocation figure for 1992-93 with the final allocation for 1991-92. One must compare like with like. The council's housing

Column 568

revenue account gross provisional allocation for 1992-93 totals £14.767 million. When expressed on a per house basis, far from being a decrease it represents an increase to £451 per council house.

Dr. Bray : I will not pursue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman at this stage. I will follow it up in writing.

Motherwell people hesitate to put to the Secretary of State any of the lively suggestions now being made because he simply strangles them at birth. He has made a total shambles of the redevelopment of Lanarkshire. Now that he has demonstrated the depth of the Government's incompetence, the people of Motherwell just want to get rid of the Government so that we can get on with building a new life for a viable and worthwhile comunity.

8.14 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : It is impossible to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) without appreciating his knowledge and sincerity. I assure him that we feel for him as he obviously feels for his constituents.

Before dealing with the subject of the debate, I must say that, on a day when we have had such wonderful news about Yarrow, it is important to put on record our congratulations to the management, work force and design team there on having produced a contract that was manifestly acceptable to the Government. It is right also to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the part he played in achieving this vital order for the west of Scotland.

I look on this debate about Ravenscraig, sadly, as a lengthy extension of the debates we had on Gartcosh many years ago, when I forecast--at that time I voted against the Government--that, if we gave way on Gartcosh, it would be the long-term beginning and end of Ravenscraig. I regret that that has turned out to be the case. That is why I am annoyed with the directors of British Steel for their action. We are talking of a great industry, and British Steel has a responsibility far wider than a normal public company with a board of directors responsible to its shareholders : it has a responsibility to the nation. It is British Steel, not Motherwell steel, Llanwern steel or Shotton steel. As British Steel, it has a responsibility to its work force, epitomised so wonderfully by Tommy Brennan over many years--I was delighted to see him mentioned in Her Majesty's new year's honours list.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : The hon. Gentleman said that British Steel was responsible to its work force. He will be aware that British Steel negotiated an extraordinary package of redundancy money, representing two years' pay for workers made redundant at Ravenscraig--double the amount paid in the strip or general steel division. If the plant had stayed open until 1994, British Steel would have had to pay wages for two years and, on top of that, redundancy money. So, in effect, the company has stolen, on average, £30,000 from every Ravenscraig worker.

Sir Hector Monro : I do not profess to be a great expert on the ins and outs of British Steel and its relationship with its work force. I want to talk about the future, and the direction in which we may have to go.

I am extremely disappointed with Sir Robert Scholey and his fellow directors, who had an equal share in the decision. They manifestly failed to produce the financial

Column 569

case. If they have such a case, let them publish it so that we may see the figures on which they based their decision. I also hope that they may in the not-too-distant future give some guarantee about investment in the Dalzell plate mill, so that there can at least be some confidence over the future of that plant.

I hope that the directors also appreciate the knock-on effect of their decision on local industry and concerns further afield. I also hope that there may be some way to save part of the plant, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South recommended. But if,

reluctantly--and, I must say, with some anger--we must accept the British Steel decision, let us concentrate on the future and consider how we can turn an area of desperate trouble into a thriving economic region. In that context, I want to see some useful precedents used in the future.

This is not the first time that an area in this country or in America has run into a major economic disaster. We all remember the Tennessee Valley authority's great restoration plan before the war. The present situation, which has been signalled for a considerable time, has many similarities to the cases of Corby, Consett, Shotton, Barrow-in-Furness and perhaps even Cornish tin and some of the Welsh valleys. So we know what can happen in large-scale economic disasters and that we should set about trying to introduce new jobs and industries as soon as possible.

Whether the problem is on a large scale, such as the Ravenscraig closure, or on a small scale such as I faced in Sanquhar and Kirconnel way back in the 1960s when the coal mines closed, we must do everything possible to build advance factories and bring in new industries. Those do not provide a complete answer, but at least they provide jobs and help to make rapid progress.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend set up the Lanarkshire working group, which is now the Lanarkshire development agency, because it has been a great success. He must use every possible form of assistance available to him, whether it is the local enterprise company, Scottish Enterprise, Locate in Scotland or Industry in Scotland. We must look urgently at what each of those agencies can offer and they must be co-ordinated. I hope that they will be co-ordinated in the enterprise zone. That will be the key, as was shown in Corby. I hope that Sir Leon Brittan and Bruce Millan, if their responsibilities overlap, will do all they can to help us to achieve the enterprise zone as quickly as possible.

I was a little worried when my right hon. Friend mentioned--perhaps off the top of his head--500 acres. I should have thought that we would need a much more substantial area. I suspect that the Ravenscraig site measures more than 1,000 acres.

Dr. Bray : I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Ravenscraig site is not even included in the enterprise zone.

Sir Hector Monro : I am glad to have that information. It worries me to an extent because of the future of the site, which I shall discuss in a moment.

I am also glad that the Secretary of State has been able to report success in attracting new industry to the area and that unemployment is now some 9,000 lower than it was four years ago. However, once we have that enterprise zone, it will need funding, leadership, speed and everyone

Next Section

Home Page