| Home Page |
Column 247
House of Commons
Wednesday 2 December 1992
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Selective Assistance (London)
1. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regional selective assistance has been given in the past 12 months in (a) west London and (b) Greater London, and in respect of how many intended new jobs ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : The locations identified are not at present designated as assisted areas and, therefore, projects in those areas do not qualify for regional selective assistance. The assisted area map is being reviewed.
Mr. Greenway : Does my right hon. Friend accept that we in Ealing respect his effort for jobs in the east London corridor, but ask him to remember west London? Is he aware that 10 years ago all the Hoover jobs were sucked out of Ealing and went to Scotland and Wales and that it has taken us 10 years to get jobs back on that site, which we did last week with the opening of a Tesco store? Will he try in any way that he can to give proper help to west London, and especially to Ealing where we can do with it?
Mr. Sainsbury : I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I am looking carefully at the submissions from his London borough of Ealing and other west London boroughs. Those submissions will be carefully considered and the requests from west London will certainly not be overlooked.
Mr. Soley : Is the Minister aware that London has never before needed the special pleading that it now needs as a result of the Government's economic policies? Will he bear in mind the Engineering Employers Federation view about London, which I fully share, that the lack of an industrial base is at the root not only of Britain's economic problems but of those of west London and London in general? Until the Government take engineering and manufacturing seriously and put real money into them, as other countries do, we shall continue to have a weak pound and a weak economy.
Mr. Sainsbury : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the performance by British manufacturing industry and the extent to which it has improved not only its productivity but its output and, in particular, its exports over the past decade. He will be aware that manufacturing employment is important in London, but that it forms a
Column 248
lower proportion of total employment than in most other areas. We shall certainly take account of unemployment in London and all other relevant facts when reviewing the matter.Leicester
2. Mr. Janner : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide extra assistance for Leicester's traditional industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh) : The DTI already has in place a number of schemes thaare helping traditional industries and other companies in Leicester and elsewhere.
Mr. Janner : Is the Minister aware that those schemes are totally inadequate and that while in previous recessions Leicester's traditional industries--knitwear, footwear, hosiery and
textiles--survived well, they now face catastrophe and high unemployment, and businesses are closing by the day? What practical measures, if any, do the Government propose to help pull those industries and those who work in them out of this misery?
Mr. Leigh : Leicester's economy has successfully diversified over the years and its unemployment rate is below the national and the regional average. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention in his usual litany of lament about Leicester that textile exports by one of Leicester's traditional industries jumped by 8 per cent. in the first half of this year to a value of £1.4 billion. He did not mention the measures in the autumn statement. We now have one of the lowest rates of inflation in the EC and the lowest rate of corporation tax. Those are the sort of measures that will promote business in Leicester, rather than the measures promoted by his party to allow secondary action and a minimum wage. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to name one business man who is currently asking for a minimum wage.
Mr. Jim Marshall : May I ask the Minister to allow his blood pressure to come down a little? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the textile industry being able to export in the manner in which he has outlined is that it has been assisted by the multi-fibre arrangement? There is some concern in the local textile industry about the phasing-out of that agreement as part of the new GATT arrangements. Could he tell the House and the industry whether that phasing out period started at the beginning of the present GATT negotiations or whether it will commence when the new agreement as a whole is signed?
Mr. Leigh : The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the textile industry in the period until the GATT review is agreed. Over the years, the textile industry has successfully restructured and that is how we have ensured its record level of exports in the first half of 1992.
Pit Closures
3. Mr. John Evans : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the review of the 10 collieries threatened with closure.
Column 249
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) : My right hon. Friend and I have meetings with the chairman of British Coal, as necessary, to discuss a range of coal industry matters.
Mr. Evans : Before the President of the Board of Trade next meets the chairman, will he publish the Boyd report and then demand of the chairman why he included among the 10 pits for closure five collieries, including Parkside in my constituency, which that report identified as profitable pits with a viable future in Britain's deep-mine industry? Will he also use the meeting to condemn the chairman of British Coal for his niggardly and Scrooge-like attitude in stopping the attendance payments to the miners at the 10 collieries?
Mr. Eggar : As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, as part of the review that is being carried out, Boyd has been engaged to give a full review of each of the collieries, both the 19 and the 21, and, as has already been made clear, that will be published as part of the review.
Mrs. Peacock : Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the 10 collieries have specialised markets for their coal--I think that it is called niche marketing in anybody else's industry--and that there is great interest from the private sector in purchasing some of the mines? Is he also aware that British Coal is refusing to give any information about the collieries and is therefore making it difficult for people to put in bids?
Mr. Eggar : I am very much aware of a point made by my hon. Friend, which has been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a matter for British Coal, but it would not be appropriate for British Coal to be considering the sale or the licensing of pits in advance of either the statutory consultation period or the end of the review. Once that consultation period and the review have been completed, then, in the light of the review and the interest in the private sector, British Coal will have to consider how to respond. I dare say that, as a result of the review, the Government will make clear their position.
Mr. Tipping : When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal to talk about the 10 pits, will he remind him of the commitment given in the House that the review will be open and honest ? Given that commitment, why will not the Minister instruct British Coal to share with the work force the financial statements--the F23s--for those pits ? If the work force are to be able to put up a case for keeping those pits open, they need the figures. If the Minister is open and honest, he should give them.
Mr. Eggar : As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matters to which he refers are the subject of a judicial review, so I must be careful about what I say. However, both my right hon. Friend and I have stressed that there must be full and proper consultation. It is our understanding that that is exactly what British Coal has pledged to do.
Mr. Cash : When can I have a reply to the letter that I delivered to the President of the Board of Trade on the day of the pit closure debate, in which I asked a number of questions that, as yet, remain unanswered ? Will my hon. Friend let me know whether any Minister has signed a public interest immunity certificate to prevent the disclosure of information that is relevant not only to that matter but to both the Select Committee review and the Government's review ?
Column 250
Will my hon. Friend make certain that the response that I had from the Secretary of State for Wales in an intervention during that debate, that British Coal must prove its case, will be carried out to the letter, and that those completely failed consultation procedures will be sorted out so that we know that the people who work in those pits are being properly looked after ?Mr. Eggar : A reply to my hon. Friend's letter is on its way. [Laughter]. I may tell him and other hon. Friends that it may literally be in the post. A number of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, particularly with regard to Trentham, will be covered in the statutory consultation that is under way between British Coal and the unions. As to public interest immunity certificates, there has been a considerable degree of misreporting by the press in respect of the current judicial hearing, and I assure my hon. Friend that no such certificate has been signed by Ministers.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce : Does the Minister accept that many of the pits threatened with closure have substantial reserves? Does he agree that the cost of mothballing the pits would be between £3 million and £6 million a year, whereas the cost of reopening them would be about£400 million? Will the Minister ensure that an independent review of reserves will be undertaken and published before any pit is closed--and that if British Coal is not prepared to operate those pits, they should be offered to others who may be able to do so?
Mr. Eggar : I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about mothballing, but the figures may be rather lower and rather higher, depending on the particular pit. Mothballing will be considered in the review, and I presume that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry also will examine that aspect.
Mr. Moss : Given that the electricity inter connector with France, through which we import huge amounts of subsidised French nuclear electricity, displaces the equivalent production of coal from the 10 pits in question, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly popular in coalfield communities and the country as a whole if that contract were renegotiated?
Mr. Eggar : That undertaking, which was entered into by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), has potential consequences for the amount of coal burn in this country and is bound to be considered as part of the review. I dare say that it will also be taken into account by the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
Mr. O'Neill : Does the Minister appreciate that there is widespread cynicism about the manner in which the 10 collieries appeared on the list? We know that negotiations about which collieries were to be included went on until 10 o'clock in the evening, or certainly until 4 o'clock in the afternoon-- [Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker--I was thinking of another debate. Obviously the price was not high enough for a number of hon. Members who took part in the coal debate, as it was in the other debate. Seventy per cent. of Grimethorpe colliery's output does not go to the electricity industry, and that is true of 90 per cent. of Houghton Main's output. Betws produces anthracite and has no need to take account of the electricity generating industry. At least three of the 10 mines are completely independent of the electricity supply industry, so there is no reason why they should be
Column 251
considered in any way uneconomic. They should immediately be reconsidered for inclusion among the 20 pits that are considered possible contenders for a long life in the coal industry.Mr. Eggar : I do not know the source of the hon. Gentleman's information, but given the accuracy with which he put it across at the Dispatch Box, I am sure that it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Betws is an anthracite mine, and he will have noted the exchange between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself during the debate on pit closures. As to the two other mines, the hon. Gentleman may be correct in claiming that some of their output potentially goes to domestic and industrial markets rather than to generators, but a significant amount goes into the generating market. None the less, I can categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that when the statutory consultation period ends--I am sure that he accepts that it would not be right for British Coal actively to consider the sale of either the 10 or 21 pits in advance of the consultation period for the 10 or the review of the 21 mines --British Coal will remain responsible for licensing coal mines and must consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences. That must of course be subject to the current statutory limitations. It is a complicated subject, but I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Cormack : Does my hon. Friend realise that the answer that he has just given and that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) begs a central question : will those 10 pits be in a state to be taken over? We do not want to leave it until too late. Will he please assure the House that if at the end of the review the 10 pits are still up for closure, there will be an opportunity for them to be taken over in a working condition by private owners?
Mr. Eggar : I have heard what my hon. Friend said. British Coal has given a quite categorical assurance that the decision as to reopening will not in any way be influenced by any deterioration that may or may not have happened during the closure period.
Mr. John Evans : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, it is my intention to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
Export Credit
4. Mr. Raynsford : To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms export credit guarantees are offered to British industry in respect of major south American countries.
Mr. Leigh : Short-term credit insurance is available from the private sector. ECGD medium-term cover, on credit terms of two years or more is available for British exports to Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay. At present, medium-term cover is not generally available for other south American countries, but the position on individual markets is kept under regular review.
Mr. Raynsford : Does the Minister accept that the absence of export credit guarantee support in respect of Brazil and Argentina has severely prejudiced the prospects
Column 252
of a world-beating firm that is based in my constituency--STC--which has sought to win an international submarine telecommunications contract in those countries? Will he review urgently the nature of the export credit guarantee scheme to ensure that British firms are no longer left at a disadvantage as against their overseas competitors, whose Governments give them far more effective support than ours do?Mr. Leigh : The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to my right hon. Friend about the issue on 26 November. We replied to him yesterday. I hope that by now he has received the letter. I think that I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. What I said in that reply was that of course we keep all these matters under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have already intervened on behalf of STC and that I wrote to the procurement group of companies to see whether any help could be given to the company, for which it was grateful. To put the matter into context, £800 million of Brazilian debt and £150 million of Argentinian debt has been rescheduled. There has to be a real possibility of the debt being repaid. It does not help UK Ltd. if exports are not paid for. To ignore economic reality would, to quote the hon. Gentleman's article on the anaesthetised, torpid Labour party, be to sleepwalk into oblivion. We are not prepared to do that.
Mr. Jacques Arnold : May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that we are losing many opportunities in the major countries of Latin America, due to the lack of capacity and flexibility of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department? I draw his attention also to the major city of Sao Paulo in Brazil which has always used the River Tiete to get rid of its sewage, with very smelly consequences. It is looking to Britain, to the example of what we have done to the River Thames, as a means of improving the position. That gives great opportunities to British water companies and to British technology. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Britain is at the forefront of this activity in Brazil?
Mr. Leigh : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House recognises his expertise in south American affairs. The Minister for Energy, who is sitting on my left, met the governor of Sao Paulo last week. The competitive nature of ECGD generally has been improved by the additional £700 million of cover that has been obtained by the sterling efforts of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Of course we shall keep these matters under review, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the difficult economic situation in Brazil.
Mr. Bell : The Minister has not yet answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He talked about competition from our European competitors--our European counterparts. Is it not a fact that their interest rates are lower than ours and that their time scales are longer than ours? As we now have the presidency of the European Community, can the Minister tell the House what initiatives have been taken within that presidency to bring those rates and time scales into harmony, in the interests of British industry?
Mr. Leigh : The Government continue to press ahead with initiatives in the EC and OECD to ensure that other agencies charge premiums that more closely reflect the
Column 253
risk. In recent months, a number of agencies in Japan, France, the Netherlands and Belgium have announced increases in rates or have advised that they plan to do so.Mr. Anthony Coombs : I recognise the generally excellent performance in the recession of British exporters to south America and elsewhere, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the representations made by the CBI in "Making it in Britain" and by the Engineering Employers Federation in "Industrial Strategy"? Both ask for a more level playing field for export credit guarantees compared with their European competitors.
Mr. Leigh : I take my hon. Friend's point, but repeat my point : my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade are committed to promoting British exports. In the spring, they secured the major achievement of cutting premium rates in more than 50 markets, since when we have obtained another £700 million of cover. They constantly strain every nerve to promote British exporters and exports. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that in these difficult markets there must be some realistic chance of the product and export being paid for ; otherwise the taxpayer will lose out considerably. There is about £4 billion worth of debt outstanding on ECGD.
Export Credits Guarantee Department (Civil Servants)
5. Mr. Michael : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to secure the future and effective deployment of civil servants in the Export Credits Guarantee Department who were not affected by the sale of the insurance section to NCM.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham) : I have endorsed the recommendations of the ECGD management board that there should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years.
Mr. Michael : Will the Minister acknowledge that moving jobs from Cardiff to London--now or in three years' time--would be against the Government's policy of dispersing civil service jobs from London to the regions, Wales and Scotland? Will he confirm, first, that the 200 jobs in Cardiff are safe and, secondly, that they will remain in Cardiff in the long term?
Mr. Needham : When NCM took over the short-term credit arrangements of ECGD, everybody who wanted to move to NCM was given the opportunity of doing so. These 200 jobs are for staff who decided that they would not go to NCM. They were aware that there was bound to be a reduction in the number of jobs because some of their work was being taken over by NCM. The functions have been reviewed by ECGD. There will be a further small reduction, but the jobs will be there for three years, after which we shall reconsider.
Magnox Power Stations
6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the potential for extension of the life of the seven Magnox stations.
Mr. Eggar : It is for the operators of Magnox stations to assess the practicality of life extensions, taking fully into
Column 254
account the safety requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate. The review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 October will consider the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.Mr. Hughes : Is the Minister of State aware that Nuclear Electric's latest annual report shows that almost two thirds of the subsidy to the nuclear industry goes to prop up the operations of the Magnox stations, which were described by the President of the Board of Trade in an answer in October as being "old and unsafe", and of advanced gas-cooled reactors? How can the Government justify spending £783 million a year of taxpayers' money to bail out and keep going an old and unsafe nuclear industry, when perfectly up-to-date and safe coal mines are paying the price and being carved out of the electricity supply market?
Mr. Eggar : The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the Magnox stations, the future of which will be covered by the review.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : When considering energy policy overall, will my hon. Friend not allow the very unfortunate events at Chernobyl, which not surprisingly raised considerable anxiety in the minds of the public, to colour our energy policy, and recall that nuclear power is the most enviromentally friendly power source?
Mr. Eggar : I have taken a careful note of what my hon. Friend said. Such issues will be covered by the review.
Mr. Beggs : Is the Minister aware that the high cost of electricity now poses a threat to the future viability of large energy users? How does he propose to help to reduce the high cost of electricity to large-user industries, whether future electricity is generated using Magnox or other means?
Mr. Eggar : I am aware that that is a matter for considerable concern to large users, both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of the issues that will be covered by the review, and we had received evidence, especially from Northern Ireland interests, by the deadline that expired yesterday.
Mr. Mans : Will the Minister confirm that the cheapest electricity on the grid comes from nuclear power stations, and that by keeping them going longer we can spread the decommissioning costs over a longer period? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the safety standards in nuclear stations are higher than those in coal-fired power stations, and that their accident record is better than that of coal-fired stations?
Mr. Eggar : I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, safety standards are covered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. With regard to the statistics on the costs, it is true that Magnox stations have low current operating costs per kilowatt hour, but they have high front-end capital costs and high back-end decommissioning costs.
Mr. Miller : Is the Minister aware that trade unions representing workers in the nuclear industry have given their commitment in writing to support the future of the coal mining industry in this country, and that they and their coal mining colleagues want a strategic energy review to be published? Members of the House, too, want such a
Column 255
review to be published and want there to be a stated strategy, in the interests of supply from all sources throughout the energy industry.Mr. Eggar : I am aware of the concern expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman's constituents but by other constituents, especially those in the north-west, who are affected, especially with regard to their employment prospects, by the future of the nuclear industry--
Mr. Eggar : And, of course, by coal. That is exactly why the review that my right hon. Friend is currently conducting will cover all those issues.
Mr. Batiste : If the seven Magnox stations were closed, and the Government maintained their commitment to controlling atmospheric pollution, would not there be a threat to several coal-fired power stations and the pits that they support?
Mr. Eggar : Undoubtedly one of the many issues that we shall have to consider in the review is the interaction between methods of electricity generation and the environmental obligations into which we have entered. I believe that my hon. Friend is saying that if we had less nuclear-generated electricity, and therefore more coal-generated electricity, there would be an impact on emission levels.
Iraq
7. Mr. Heppell : To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade missions to Iraq have been authorised by his Department involving Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce in each year since 1984.
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : There were two in 1984,one in 1985, two in 1986, one in 1988, one in 1989, and two in 1990.
Mr. Heppell : Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that one of the authorised participants in the mission in 1989 was Sheffield Forgemasters, which was clearly against the 1988 guidelines, the 1985 guidelines and any other guidelines that the President may feel are in fashion at the moment? If there was no ministerial approval, will the right hon. Gentleman take action against senior DTI officials for breaching the Government guidelines, or will he turn a blind eye, as he and three other Ministers did in the past, to innocent business men who were set up, fitted up, in British courts?
Mr. Heseltine : I do not see the gain involved for the hon. Gentleman in peddling a totally dishonest interpretation of what happened, presumably in an attempt to get some cheap publicity in his constituency.
The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be fully examined by Lord Justice Scott, and I look forward to the report.
Mining Equipment Firms
8. Mr. Bennett : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance is currently given to United Kingdom firms that produce mining equipment.
Column 256
12. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the British mining engineering industry.
Mr. Eggar : The size of the domestic market for the mining equipment industry is largely determined by British Coal. Prospects in export markets are reflected in the 38 per cent. rise in exports last year.
The industry is eligible for a wide range of Government assistance for exports, research and development, and new investment.
Mr. Bennett : Does the Minister agree that the mining manufacturing industry in this country has an extremely good record in terms of exports? Perhaps he could tell the House how much foreign exchange they earn. If firms such as Oldham Batteries in my constituency lose the market for their mining lamps and helmets, they will find it increasingly difficult to compete on the world stage without that home market, because they will not have the money to invest in keeping themselves at the forefront of technology. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British coal mines, they also destroy an important part of our manufacturing base?
Mr. Eggar : I can confirm that the mining equipment industry has a good record. In 1991, it ran a positive trade surplus of some £46 million. It has been active in export markets.
When I was in China recently, I took the opportunity to promote British mining equipment there. There is no doubt that British mining companies have a good reputation. I am currently working with the Export Credits Guarantee Department to see whether we can support a major export drive in China with formal bank lines of credit to support its initiatives.
Mr. Hinchliffe : Is the Minister aware that since 1984 some 2, 000- plus manufacturing jobs have been lost in my constituency alone? Many of those jobs were related to the export trade, and were directly earning for Britain. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British pits, they also destroy the vital shop window that mining engineering companies need to display their products for the export market? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the 13 October announcement on coal, especially as it relates to the export trade and mining engineering?
Mr. Eggar : I have had meetings with individual mining equipment companies. I had arranged another meeting with MECO a week ahead. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment has asked me to attend that Committee, but we will be rearranging the MECO meeting. I am aware of the problem. I recognise that there is a role for the Government to play in assisting.
Mr. Luff : Will my hon. Friend confirm that representations from mining equipment manufacturers, such as MECO in my constituency of Worcester and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will be taken fully into account during the review of the coal mining industry? Will he further confirm that one of the major fears of mining equipment manufacturers is that the significant subsidies enjoyed by German coal producers
Column 257
enable German mining manufacturers to develop a home market, which enables them to enhance their penetration of export markets?Mr. Eggar : My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly sent MECO's evidence to the review. That evidence will be considered as part of the review. I have met the managing director of MECO on at least two occasions. Indeed, he accompanied me on a visit to the United States to see his and Gullick's equipment in operation in United States mines.
Mr. Robin Cook : I have visited three of the coalfields that are at risk. The more I visit pits that have spent millions of pounds in orders to the British mining engineering industry and, as a result, can cut coal at a profit and at a competitive price, the more I marvel at the decision to close them.
What would the Minister say to the men at Markham, who, as a result of that equipment and their efforts, have doubled productivity in eight years ? Why should that dramatic success be met by closure ? Will the Minister invite his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to go with him down some of the pits ? Will they see for themselves the orders that the pits provide to British industry ? Will the Minister then answer the question for the men whose jobs are at risk ?
Mr. Eggar : I imagine that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was referring to Markham Main. Of course, Markham Main is one of the pits that are covered by the statutory consultation period. The consultation will be genuine.
The Markham pit will be covered by the review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the review is a study by Boyds, which will be published. That study will make an independent assessment of the viability of the Markham pit.
Steel Production
9. Mr. Stevenson : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for steel production in 1992 and in 1993 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Sainsbury : United Kingdom steel production totalled 11 million tonnes in the first nine months of 1992, equivalent to 14.7 million tonnes in a full year. The industry expects United Kingdom steel production in 1993 to be at the same level as it was in 1992.
Mr. Stevenson : Is the Minister aware that his response will be seen as another example of the Government's attitude towards industry, which reeks of complacency? In the light of the recent statement by the chairman of British Steel that up to 50,000 additional jobs could be lost as a result of this Government-inspired recession and of the dumping of cheap steel imports, especially from eastern Europe, into the European market, will the Minister in his capacity as President of the European Council initiate an immediate inquiry into the dumping of cheap steel imported into the European market? In view of the similarities, will he do the same for cheap, dumped coal imports?
Mr. Sainsbury : I am a little puzzled about how giving the facts about production this year and the forecast
Column 258
production for next year could be complacent. We are well aware of the concerns about dumping. We also fully support the Commission's investigation into illegal state aids. We are working urgently with our European Community partners to explore what regime might be appropriate for the imports of steel from central European countries into the whole European Community from 1 Janaury next year.Mr. Knapman : Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that nationalised, subsidised Italian steel firms have gained the orders for the supply of steel to all the works in the second Severn crossing, in addition to embroiling British Steel, which stands on its own two feet, in a trade war with America? Will my right hon. Friend please intervene, if not before tea, at least before dinner?
Mr. Sainsbury : I am well aware of the concerns of the industry about the contract to which my hon. Friend refers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has already written to the British Constructional Steelwork Association on that. My officials yesterday met the director of the association and explained the Government's present action to address those issues.
| Next Section
| Home Page |