SIR,—:I appreciate that the special report on steel pub- lished
on March 13.is the responsibility of the Com- mission that compiled it and not of the Spectator. However, I hope that you will not object to the use of your columns to seek clarification of a point in the argument that puzzles me and may also have been noticed by other readers.
In the section headed 'The Case Against Nationali- sation' we read on p. ix that the recent modification, downwards, of the 1962 steel capacity target is 'made necessary by the difficulty of raising finance under the threat of nationalisation and the delay in secur- ing a decision from the Government on the fourth strip mill.' Since, on the insistence of the BISF, the Development Plan and its target never included a fourth strip mill by 1962, the omission of the mill can- not have been responsible for any 'modification' of the target. However, it is the statement about finance that is most confusing, for on p. x we rcad: 'It' (i.e., the BISF) 'points out that it knows no instance of a project's being abandoned or delayed for lack of finance.' This is clearly incompatible with the statement on p.. ix that* revision of the plan for more steel capacity is due to difficulty in raising finance, although this statement is also evidently intended to,represent the point of view of the BISF. Could the Commission, or the BISF, inform us which of these statements they adhere to as represent- ing the views of the BISF, as they cannot maintain both propositions?—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
