18 NOVEMBER 1949, Page 67

THE UNITED STEEL COMPANIES

NATIONALISATION THREAT SIR WALTER BENTON JONES'S VIEWS Tim annual general meeting of The United Steel Companies Limited was held on November 16th in London.

Sir Walter Benton Jones, Bt., the chairman, in the course of his speech said The directors told you in their report that the output of two million torn; of steel was believed to be the highest ever obtained by any company in the United Kingdom, which means also that it is the highest reached by any company in the Commonwealth. This high rate of production was due to some extent to improvements and extensions to plant, but perhaps more to careful organisation, adequate and regular supplies of materials, co-operation between management and employees, pride in their work, good attendance, good temper and persistent and regular concentration by everybody on the job they had to do.

It is sometimes said that Britain is not working seriously. It is true there are unofficial strikes, that great interest is taken in football and in all forms of sports and recreation, but because men enjoy relaxation it dues not follow that they do not take work seriously nor apply themselves to their daily task. In our own case we believe that the employees of cur company arc making a full contribution to the country's production.

The volume of sales recorded in the report at over L50,000,000 is a record. In recent months the change from a sellers' to a buyers' market has become a factor which causes widespread questioning, if not anxiety.

NATIONALLSATION

We are all greatly concerned about the proposal to nationalise iron and steel both because the proposal is part of a national policy of unlimited nationalisation of industries, which we think is a wrong and harmful policy, :-.nd because it involves the confiscation of private property.

Your directors are unalterably opposed to the nationalisation of our industry. When we met a year ago the Bill to nationalise iron and steel had just been introduced. Stockholders no doubt have followed the course of the Bill through Parliament and will be aware that'in order to force it through without the approval of the Second Chamber, the Con- 'titution is to be altered by limiting the power of the House of Lords.

It is now possible for the Iron and Steel Bill to become law by January, 1950. If and when this happens the proposed Iron and Steel Corporation can he set up and the securities of the companies named in the Bill, including our company, may be taken over by May, 1950, or, at the discretion of the Minister of Supply, at some date not more than eighteen months later. We know, therefore, that unless Parliament is dissolved in the meantime, or the Bill is dropped or amended, our securities may be liken' from us in May, 1950, or within eighteen months thereafter.

OPPOSMON TO BILL

The Bill has aroused 'great opposition both in Parliament and in the country generally, and this opposition becomes progressively greater as time goes on. Year by year and month by month the industry has pro- duced record outputs, no strikes have interrupted its progress, its approved development schemes have progressed as fast as possible in present con- ditions, and it has continued to observe the requirements of the Govern- ment in the matters of distribution and price as heretofore. In other words, the proposed nationalisation of the iron and steel industry will not serve .the country better than it is served under private enterprise.

The Iron and Steel Bill and the Acts which have nationalised other activities illustrate the enormous power which is given by electors to Parliament in a single life. It is said that unless electors change their stews about the way the country's affairs should be conducted, the next Parliament will continue to confiscate more and more of the properties which private individuals have built up and which it may be said without question have served the country welL For this and many other reasons the next election will be critical.

In the opinion of the Right, and many who do not see very clearly the full implications of Right and Left, but rely mainly on intuition, unless Britain returns to a policy of self-help and freedom not only Britain, but Wcstern Europe will be overcome. From these fears grow lack of confi- dence in Britain, without which we cannot trade to the full and without which we cannot again become self-supporting.

The future policy, therefore, which this country is to pursue is not confined to the subject in which this meeting is immediately interested, vii the nationalisation of our own and other industries, nor is it a question of personalities or parties ; it is a national question, and if it sounds rhetorical to talk of freedom or slavery or life or death, no thinking Isison can doubt that the stake is our standard of living. Is it to rise or i‘ it to tumble down ?

The report was adopted.