Remediation of contaminated sites
50. We raised with Sir Brian Moffat the question
of cleaning up the contaminated sites which Corus had left in
the recent past, would be leaving as a result of the plans announced
in February, and might be vacating in the future. Sir Brian told
us that —
"Wherever we vacate
sites our policy has been the same right the way through";
the company would abide by the law in cleaning up
sites where necessary. He gave as an example the efforts devoted
to cleaning up Ravenscraig and the "total scaremongering"
at that time which had suggested that the site was irremediable.[122]
51. We have no independent evidence as to the scale
of the remediation required as a result of the 1 February 2001
announcements, nor any reason to doubt the commitment of Corus
to its statutory duties. Following our recent visit to the North
East, however, it has become plain to us that there is genuine
concern that the scale of cleaning up the older steel-making sites
in particular may be such as to strain the resources of the company.
The liabilities arose in part when under public ownership. There
is some uncertainty as to the nature and extent of the legal and
financial obligations on Corus to clean up vacated sites, and
as to the role of public finances. A clear statement by Government
of the legal and financial framework for remediation of steel-making
sites, including the powers to enforce clean-up of a vacated site,
would be helpful. We would also welcome the prompt publication
by Corus of plans for their evacuation of redundant sites, and
a proposed timetable for their remediation, so that they can be
put to other uses as soon as possible, in consultation with the
regional and local authorities.
Conclusion
52. We have the strong sense that the 1 February
announcements by Corus of radical restructuring had their roots
in the 1990s, when tough decisions on the number of integrated
production sites were avoided, and in the City which sensed that
Corus was under-performing and had failed to fulfil the promises
made at the time of the merger in October 1999 of British Steel
and Hoogovens. The value of the euro against sterling evidently
made exports to the eurozone the harder, but it has been a short-term
phenomenon which a large well-managed company could have been
expected to weather. Price fluctuations are as normal in the steel
business as the operational production setbacks to which the company's
difficulties were in part ascribed in its half-yearly report in
September 2000. The car industry's woes scarcely explain such
a decision; overall 2000 car production in the UK remains relatively
steady. Car manufacturers have always used imported as well as
UK steel. Nothing we heard from Sir Brian Moffat has led us
to believe that the cuts announced on 1 February are part of a
long-term strategy for the company's survival, nor that there
have been Government economic policies which could have produced
a different short-term outcome.
105 Eg Q 123 Back
106 Ev,
pp 57-60 Back
107 HC
Deb, 10 January 2001, cols 217-239 WH and ibid, 7 February
2001, cols 233-253 WH Back
108 Second
Report , HC 110 of session 2000-01, Corus plc - Research and
Development Back
109 HC
Deb 24 January 2001, cols 941-2 Back
110 Ev,p
21 para 5.7 Back
111 Jeremy
Fletcher of CSFB, Brett Olsher of JP Morgan, Richard Biggs of
ABN Amro, as quoted in newspapers, passim Back
112 Eg
Financial Times, 26 Jan 01 Back
113 HC
Deb, 12 February 2001, col 20w Back
114 Qq
114, 129-130, 151 Back
115 Qq
124-6, 131 Back
116 ibid
and Q 134 Back
117 Ev,
p 18, paras 3.1- 3.10 Back
118 ibid Back
119 Qq
118-122 Back
120
Qq 127, 148-9 Back
121 Ev,
p 81, A2 Back
122 Qq
198-200 Back
