| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cameron: How does the Secretary of State define Mr. Mittal's steel company? Is it a British company, a British-based company, a company with British connections or none of the above?
Mr. Murphy: I think I understand what "phone a friend" means. I will come to the thrust of my argument in a moment, but first I shall touch on what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course the company has a British base, a headquarters in London and employs people in Britain. The Prime Minister wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister some days before the signing ceremony—but after a decision on the Sidex plant had been taken. If the Romanian economy prospers, develops and becomes part of an enlarged Europe—I will come to the European loan in a moment—companies in Great Britain and Wales will benefit.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I have the highest regard for the Secretary of State, so I am sorry that he is the fall-guy who has to open the debate; there are others who should be at the Dispatch Box instead.
It is widely believed outside the House and on the Opposition Benches that the Prime Minister intervened only because of Mr. Mittal's very large donation to the Labour party. To prove me wrong, would the Secretary of State be good enough to consult the fat red file in front of him and tell us which, and how many, other companies with small interests in our country—like Mittal's—the Prime Minister has made representations about to the leaders of other countries?
Mr. Murphy: I completely reject the accusation that the letter had anything whatever to do with a donation to the Labour party. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] He said what he said because it is true that the donation was in no way linked to the letter to Romanian Prime Minister. I shall come to what the letter was about in a
moment, but I should point out that it dealt with nothing other than the absolute need to ensure that Romania becomes part of a new and energetic Europe.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that neither the Prime Minister nor any Government Department was aware that Mr. Mittal was a donor to the Labour party?
Mr. Murphy: I am certainly telling the House that the donation had absolutely nothing to do with the letter. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Of course I am saying that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): It is with some trepidation that I intervene in what is essentially a Welsh debate. I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend's remarks. The whole House will agree that it is in the long-term interests of the rest of Europe that the Romanian economy and steel industry be restructured, but in the short term Mr. Mittal's interests clearly run contrary to those of the British steel industry. It remains a conundrum to many people inside and outside the House that the Prime Minister should sign that letter, as in the short term he has signed up to interests contrary to those of the British steel industry.
Mr. Murphy: I shall come to that point in a moment, but first I propose to address the relationship between the British steel industry—particularly in Wales—the letter and the development of the Romanian economy. That is why I am here. I am here at the Dispatch Box, not because I am a fall-guy, but because I am interested—as I am sure are all those who represent Welsh constituencies—in the development of the Welsh economy, including the Welsh steel industry. There are not many Opposition Members who represent as many steelworkers as I do. I represent a steel constituency and I know about the position of the steel industry.
Mr. Murphy: I wish to continue the thrust of my argument, which I have only just started.
Mr. MacKay: In the heat of the debate, the Secretary of State inadvertently failed to answer my principal question, but I am sure he will wish to do so before he moves on. How many other small companies has the Prime Minister made representations about to other heads of state, and who are they?
Mr. Murphy: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman about correspondence between Prime Ministers, which is governed by international convention and commercial confidentiality. When his Government were in power, they did exactly the same for company after company. There was a time, when I was a younger man, when I could not go into a high street and buy produce that did not come from a firm that gave money to the Conservative party. However, I am also sure that both Labour and Conservative Governments helped those companies, to the benefit of the British economy.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire): I am amused by some elements of the exchange that has just taken place. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House
which Government introduced legislation to bring transparency to donations to political parties? What was the attitude of the party that has chosen the subject of this debate, and how did it vote on the issue? If the official Opposition are so concerned about the issue, why did they not do something about it during the 18 years they were in government?
Mr. Murphy: The irony is that the debate would not be taking place if it had not been for legislation introduced by this Labour Government. That is the reality.
Mr. Murphy: I must move on; otherwise, other hon. Members will not have an opportunity to make their contributions.
During last week's Welsh affairs debate, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said that
- "many things are happening in the world that will be detrimental to the prospects for Welsh companies in a range of sectors. However, should our Government actively support such developments?"
- "jobs in the Welsh steel industry will be endangered."—[Official Report, 28 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 917.]
In a written answer recently, the Prime Minister said:
- "Privatisation of its steel industry through the sale of Sidex is an important element in its economic reform which will help to establish a level playing field between EU and Romanian steel producers and should lead to a reduction in levels of state subsidies which disadvantage UK steel producers. The privatisation did not threaten British jobs."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 612W.]
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State's central point is that the privatisation of the Romanian steel industry was of benefit to a British company. The letter written by the Prime Minister to the Romanian Prime Minister clearly stated:
- "I am particularly pleased that it is a British company which is your partner."
- "This should send a very positive signal to investors and businessmen"—
- "in Britain and more widely. Together with the other measures you are taking, I hope it will stimulate renewed interest by British business in Romania."
Mr. Murphy: Of course it does not. The hon. Gentleman omitted to quote from the beginning of the letter, which said:
- "I am delighted by the news that you are to sign the contract for the privatization of your biggest steel plant SIDEX, with the LNM Group. This represents an important step forward in the efforts you and your government are making to restructure and modernise your country's economy."
Mr. Murphy: No, I shall not give way.
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My copy of the letter that I prayed in aid and which the Secretary of State relied on comes from www.guv.ro, which is the Romanian website, as the Government refused to give it in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price). Hon. Members may not have a copy of the letter. Will you ensure, Mr. Speaker, that a copy is placed in the Library?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |