by Pat Jordan
VER 50 trade unionists and socialists turned up for the conference organised under the auspices of the Voice of the Unions in Sheffield on Sunday, February 7th, to discuss steel nationalisation. Unlike many conferences of a similar type this one was dominated by workers in the industry concerned. Being in SheTield it was natural that trade unioaists from that City should predomirate but there were also people from Doncaster, Hull, Manchester, No.tingham, London, Scunthorpe and other towns. No credentials report was given but from opening statements of speakers it would appear that BISAKTA (British Iron, Stee! and Kindred Trades Association), had most representation; in addition, there were Forgeworkers. Boilermakers, Bricklayers, Blacksmiths, and AEU and ETU activists. The people there were from all levels in the union: from rank and filers to E.C. members. Among the nonsteelworkers were very active Labour Party members, including one M.P. and several people holding local government office. There was a sprinkling of academics who had made a special study of the problems of the steel industry. There had been misleading press speculation about the conference in the local press and even The Times had managed to misunderstand and misreport things. The first speaker in discussion made reference to this press campaign and criticised members of the Labour Party who had made irresponsible statements in the press. The first part of the discussion dealt with general questions and two major topics developed. Some speakers placed their emphasis on the political background to the fight for steel nationalisation. One speaker, a well-known left-winger of the Sheffield Trades and Labour Council, made the point that he was not so
convinced that steel nationalisation would take place unless a great deal of pressure was put on the Government, He added that as well as discussing details of the Steel Nationalisation Bill people should go into how this pressure could be mounted and how the whole idea of steel nationalisation could be popularised. He suggested a mass meeting in Sheffield on the topic. This contribution was echoed by many other speakers. Powerful backing for this line came from the’ M.-P. who said that in the discussion in the Parliameatary Labour Party, at least one figure of considerable influence had been in favour of back-pedalling after the Leyton by-election. The idea of back-pedalling was being canvassed widely. However, the speaker was convinced that these arguments had little support in the Cabinet. The M.P. also touched on the other major topic of discussion: workers’ participation in control, saying this was the most important part of the Bill. Views on the question of workers’ participation in control ranged from that put by an ex-executive member of BISAKTA, who whilst he used the term “workers’ control’’, defined this in terms of full consultation, to many speakers who wanted a very strong element of workers’ management. The point in’ the draft about nationalisation being confined to companies with a manufacturing capacity of over half a million tons of steel per year got short shift. Very convincing arguments were brought forward for changing this formulation, This was no academic exercise: if this criterion were used hardly any of the firms in Sheffield would be touched. Speakers pointed out that whilst Sheffield only manufactured one million tons out of the twenty-four million tons produced in Britain, this steel accounted for
Feb. 10. 1965 — THE WEEK
something like half the value of the
steel produced. If this figure were
adopted, it was added, the money-
spinning parts of the industry would
remain under private ownership.
Compensation, naturally, gave rise
to much discussion. Various schemes
were postulated by speakers, but the
general feeling was that on no
account must a millstone be put
arount the neck of the industry, and
the mistakes of previous Labour
nationalisation must not be repeated.
It was agreed that it would be better
if compensation were based on the
stock exchange prices two weeks
prior to the election rather than two
years. What compensation was paid
should depend upon the ability of
the industry to pay it and the word
“guaranteed” was removed from the
draft. The idea of giving directors a
‘golden hand-shake’ as some speak-
ers put it was thrown out altogether.
Instead it was felt that nationally
agreed redundancy payments would
be made to all. Former directors
should be treated like workers.
The meeting had to break up when
the vital question of the composition
of the Public Board was being dis-
cussed. Such was the interest in the
whole matter that a further meeting
was organised for the following
Sunday. Until then, of course, no
full amended draft will be available.
This was a stimulating and, especi-
ally for a non-steelworker, extremely
informative meeting. It was an indi-
cation of the interest and self-confi-
dence of the workers in the industry.
May there be many more efforts like
this!
Editorial Note: The draft referred to
in this article was published in
WEEK Vol. 3, No. 4. Information
about the Steel Campaign can be
obtained from Richard Fletcher, 71
New King’s Road, London SW6.
Next week’s issue of our journal will
contain a report of the second
meeting.
oe
THE WEEK — Feb. 10, 1965