Select Committee on Welsh Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360 - 379)




  360. May I put a hypothetical question to you? Just supposing you had decided not to give out the £700 million handout to British Steel shareholders on the amalgamation with Hoogovens, would you not then have been able to survive for up to two years?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) No, we would not have done the deal. Whereas we did not have the £700 million, we have had the support over the 15 months of many hundreds of millions of pounds for cash generated offshore.

Mr Smith

  361. With a company which is so obviously performing so badly and quite clearly has not been managed terribly well in the past, otherwise it would not have performed so badly, do you think it is wise to make large payoffs to former senior employees of the company?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) We made payoffs in accordance with our contractual obligations and not a penny more as far as the employees were concerned. I take exception to the question of the company not being managed properly. I think the management team and the people in it in the circumstances have done a good job, a very good job. I would point out that British Steel's track record in the 1990s was about the best in the world in steel.

  362. I should like to come back on that because I am afraid I do draw that conclusion.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) You may; I say I take exception.

  363. All I should like to say is that if a company is doing so badly, has such a poor profile in terms of public profile over the decisions it has taken, affecting thousands of workers, then I think somebody has to be held responsible and I think it is the leadership in such companies. If managers and leaders in that company have departed, I do not think they should get a payoff when they do.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) I do not abrogate responsibility and I as Chairman and Chief Executive would take responsibility for the situation in terms of trying to manage our way out of it. Much of the situation we are in is not of our making. That is a fact, a market circumstance, an exchange rate circumstance driven by a market scene as well, which we can only react to and try to dig our way out of. That is what we are trying to do and we are also trying to exhort people in power and influence to try to help not only sustain but grow manufacturing industry in this country. Most of my colleagues and myself have worked the majority of our careers and have been successful to date in that. It is only in the last three or four years that the situation has turned and continues to turn so dramatically differently. It is no use us just complaining about it, we have to try to do something about it.

  364. I certainly agree with most of that analysis. It is the job of a company to predict changes in market trends and to be able to respond to those in a global environment, not in a national environment, in such a changing world. However, I do believe passionately that if managers do not perform then they should not be rewarded in any way. I should like to repeat the question I asked earlier. I asked how long you think you will remain with the company. I shall ask it slightly differently. If this company does not start to perform as a result of these proposed changes, will you then step down?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) If the shareholders tell me to, yes.

Mr Ruane

  365. The packages for your senior managers, your retirement package, your payoffs, are quite handsome. Will they be as handsome for the workers you are making redundant?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) You know the answer to that because there are different rates. The answer is obviously no. All I would say again is that we paid the people you are talking about no more and no less than was in the contract. It is a different sum and I do not draw the comparison, but I would just repeat again that we will pay our workers, depending on their service, much more than the statutory redundancy, but I do not draw the comparison.

  366. May I extend the question? Because there seems to have been such a botched job over this from beginning to end, and because you were awarded your knighthood for services to British Steel, have you ever considered resigning your knighthood?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) No, I have not.

  367. Do you think you should?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) May I just correct you? I was not given a knighthood for services to British Steel. People have said that, but if you look it up, it was not given for that.

  368. Will you consider giving it up?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) Why should I? I have nothing to be ashamed of.


  369. As I understand it that was what you were given your knighthood for.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) The inscription I have says "For services to the steel industry". I do that not only in the UK.

Mr Ruane

  370. You were not awarded it from outside the UK.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) But it was for the steel industry, it was not for British Steel.

  Chairman: It was not the royal family of Holland who gave the award. I really do think that is splitting hairs.

Mr Caton

  371. I appreciate your resentment at questions of quality of management of Corus, but if the management has been so good, why did the former Chief Executives Mr Bryant and Mr van Duyne have to go?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) Because the board determined that they should.

  372. Presumably because the board were dissatisfied with the work they were doing.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) Correct.

  373. So there are questions about the management.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) I have made it quite clear why they went in the past and I said it to the Committee last time.

  374. That is why I was surprised that you made such a strong defence of the management of Corus.
  (Sir Brian Moffat) I am talking about the management that is. From time to time people do not live up to expectations. We all do that. It may affect us personally from time to time. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life.

Mr Ruane

  375. Do you think you have lived up to expectations?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) That is for other people to determine. I do not think I have anything to be ashamed of.

Mr Llwyd

  376. Do you not appreciate the sensitivity of the situation when two senior managers resign because of the quality of their leadership and the lack of progress the company made under their term of office? They are paid off extremely handsomely by any account, yet those 6,000 people who are now facing redundancy, who have been on many occasions told by you directly that they were doing an excellent job and that is on the record, are going to get just a bit above an enhanced state redundancy. Do you not find there seems to be a bit of a problem there and that is why people feel rather strongly about this?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) The contractual situation as far as the Chief Executives were concerned was approved by the shareholders in the meetings which consummated the merger. We honoured those agreements as we had to by law, no more and no less, but the shareholders approved that situation.

Mr Ruane

  377. Is there any proposal from the shareholders for an enhanced package for the workers you are sacking?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) No.

  378. Why not?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) Because we have no need to, it is within our authority. It is not within the authority of the directors to pay themselves, as you well know.

Mr Llwyd

  379. May I take you to two quick questions? You have told us that it is the fall in UK demand and the cost of exporting steel which led to the restructure in the UK rather than in Holland. Yes?
  (Sir Brian Moffat) Yes.

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 19 June 2001