| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former general secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the leading union in the steel industry. I agree with the sentiments expressed that the unions fully endorse the actions of the Government on the tariff question. But is my noble friend aware of the great concern of the trade unions in the steel industry and indeed elsewhere in manufacturing that, whereas in mainland Europe unions meet employers and discuss strategic changes, in this country nothing of a similar nature occurs? Bearing in mind the international context of the steel industry and others, does the Minister agree that our situation is untenable? Furthermore, the chairman of Corus is to receive in excess of £500,000 a year while the workers are experiencing a pay freeze? Does my noble friend agree that that is not helpful?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's position is clear. When important strategic issues are involved they want to see that there have been serious discussions between management and unions. So far as concerns Brian Moffat's salary, we do not comment on individual cases. The setting of executive pay is a matter for the company and its shareholders. But we have been consulting on strengthening the disclosure requirements for directors' remuneration. Legislation will be introduced shortly for a compulsory annual shareholders' vote on the directors' remuneration report.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the obvious illegal actions by the United States, for which undoubtedly it will be penalised in due course, the worse thing that Her Majesty's Government could do at the present time is to attempt to promote a tariff or a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States as that would cause damage to the steel industry and other industries? Does he further accept that the major requirement of the UK steel industry is a strong and healthy UK manufacturing industry which can purchase steel products? What do the Government propose to do to arrest the steady erosion and decline in the manufacturing base of this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that we do not want a tit-for-tat war taking place, but the Government fully support the action taken by the European Commission in invoking the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement and in requesting consultation with the US under the WTO safeguards agreement, including seeking compensation. We have every right to take firm action.
Of course, it is critical to steel producers that there is a buoyant manufacturing sector. The Government are deeply concerned to create the right environment for that, but it is not within the Government's scope to make certain that manufacturing industry grows. That depends on the performance of manufacturing industry. All that we can do is to set the right conditions for that, which we have done with our macro-economic policies.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is now more than 20 years ago that I represented the United Kingdom in the negotiations that concluded a steel deal in Europe to ban permanently, for all, the subsidisation of steel? Yet, as his Answer indicates, European countries are still subsidising their steel industries. In view of that subsidisation, contrary to the agreement of 1981, is it surprising that the American Government feel pretty unhappy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have not followed all the details of the noble Lord's career—especially in its early stages—but I think that he probably did a good job. It is a feature of the steel aid code of the European Coal and Steel Community
treaty that steel subsidies have largely been banished. The issue today concerns the position of the accession states and action is also being taken on that front.
Lord Jones: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us how many jobs remain in the British steel industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give an exact figure but I shall write to the noble Lord with it.
Courts Martial
3.23 p.m.
Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What their proposals are for courts martial in the future.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are considering whether any changes to the courts martial system will be required when the three service discipline Acts are replaced by a single Act covering all the services. We are also assessing whether changes will be needed following the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Morris against the United Kingdom. Any changes will reflect the need for service discipline to underpin operational effectiveness.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interim reply. Does he not feel a little embarrassed that the Government seem prepared yet again to tinker with what is fast becoming the fragile disciplinary system of our Armed Forces? Does he not recall how we pleaded with the Government to obtain a powerful opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights for our Armed Forces, as the French obtained for theirs?
We were told that there would be no significant effect on service discipline. When that turned out not to be the case, does his department not remember introducing a new disciplinary procedure which, although inhibiting and time-consuming, was accepted on the clear understanding that it was copper-bottomed from any further inroads from European legislation? They now appear to want to move again. What are we to believe?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I know that the noble and gallant Lord has raised this and related issues on many occasions. He is right to say that this is an interim reply because we do not know precisely what will be required following the Court judgment in the Morris case that I mentioned. However, to gain the exemption that he describes the French as having would require us to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and renegotiate entry terms. That would be not only a long and complicated procedure but, if I can anticipate the future a little, an
unnecessary one. The assumption is being made that the Morris judgment will result in major changes. I do not think that it will.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord enjoys—and, if I may say so, deserves—a reputation for good sense. I hope that he will try to use that good sense to stop uninformed interference in sensitive matters and pay due attention to the opinion frequently expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on a matter about which he knows a great deal.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his assessment of my sensitivities and sensibilities. He makes a generous observation.
Obviously, I recognise the tremendous wealth of experience that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, brings to these matters. However, I appeal to the House to acknowledge that the test for the Armed Forces and of their discipline is their operational effectiveness. Does any Member of the House have any reason for doubt, having seen the performance of our Armed Forces in recent years, about their being supremely operationally effective? That is the test and that is how they must be judged in respect of any judgments of the European Court or any Government reaction to those judgments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the judgment under the Human Rights Act 1998 is upheld, does the Minister agree that a system such as the German system, which divides court cases between civilian and military cases, should be introduced?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am always wary about making comparisons between different systems. However, whenever a judgment of this sort is made there is a tendency to over-dramatise its consequences. We must wait to discover precisely what changes, if any, are needed. I can say that in respect of one aspect of the judgment, which concerned the independence of the courts martial, we have already been able to make the necessary changes through Queen's Regulations.
The House will know that there was a suspension of courts martial. There was no suspension for the Navy; for the Army, they were resumed on 3rd April; and I can tell your Lordships that on 23rd April, Royal Air Force trials will resume. So I repeat: let us not overestimate the drama, if there is one, of the judgment that has been reached.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I moved the opt-out amendment for the Armed Forces? It was withdrawn on the undertakings of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, which are fully recorded in Hansard. Those were acceptable to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall, and Lord Inge, and other noble Lords. It was on that basis that the amendment was withdrawn. Will the noble Lord approach the matter
with considerable care? It is absolutely essential that those undertakings are honoured, because that was the only basis on which I withdrew my amendment.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am indeed aware—having, as the House would expect, read the papers beforehand—of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, if it is felt that any changes are needed—changes are obviously being considered in respect of the Morris judgment—we intend to introduce a tri-service Bill that will take account of the various different systems in the three services and, sensibly, attempt to make them compatible with each other. If further changes are needed, we should make them at that point.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page