The Downing Street Years, 1979-1990

BRITAIN’S INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS

In the years since the war British politics had focused, above all, on the debate about the proper role of the state in the operation of the economy. By 1979 and perhaps earlier, optimism about the beneficent effects of government intervention had largely disappeared. This change of attitude, for which I had long worked and argued, meant that many people who had not previously been Conservative supporters were now prepared to give our approach at least the benefit of the doubt. But I knew that this entirely justified lack of faith in the wisdom of the state must be matched by a renewed confidence in the creative capacity of enterprise.

A sort of cynical disdain, often disguised as black humour, had come to characterize many people’s attitude to industry and unions. We all enjoyed the film I’m All Right, Jack, but the problem was no laughing matter.

British goods will only be attractive if they can compete with the best on offer from other countries, in respect of quality, reliability and price, or some combination of the three, and the truth is that too often British industrial products were uncompetitive. This was not simply because the strong pound was making it difficult to sell abroad, but because our industrial reputation had steadily been eroded. In the end reputation reflects reality. Nothing less than changing that reality — fundamentally and for the better — would do.

In spite of what might seem the more immediate and pressing problems of strikes, price competitiveness and international recession, the root of Britain’s industrial problem was low productivity. British living standards were lower than those of our principal competitors and the number of well-paid and reasonably secure jobs was smaller because we produced less per person than they did. Some twenty-five years earlier our productivity was the highest in western Europe; by 1979 it was among the lowest. The overmanning resulting from trade union restrictive practices was concealed unemployment; and beyond a certain point — certainly beyond the point we had reached in 1979 — overmanning would bring down businesses and destroy existing jobs, and abort those which otherwise could have flourished. Outdated capacity and old jobs have to go to make the most of new opportunities. Yet the paradox which neither British trade unions nor the socialists were prepared to accept was that an increase in productivity is likely, initially, to reduce the number of jobs before creating the wealth that sustains new ones. Time and again we were asked when plants and companies closed, ‘where will the new jobs come from?’ As the months went by, we could point to the expansion of self-employment and to industrial successes in aerospace, chemicals and North Sea oil. Increasingly we could also look to foreign investment, for example in electronics and cars. But the fact is that in a market economy government does not — and cannot — know where jobs will come from: if it did know, all those interventionist policies for ‘picking winners’ and ‘backing success’ would not have picked losers and compounded failure.

Because our analysis of what was wrong with Britain’s industrial performance centred on low productivity and its causes — rather than on levels of pay — incomes policy had no place in our economic strategy. I was determined that the Government should not become enmeshed, as previous Labour and Conservative administrations had been, in the obscure intricacies of ‘norms’, ‘going rates’ and ‘special cases’. Of course, pay rises at this time were far too high in large parts of British industry where profits were small or nonexistent, investment was inadequate, or market prospects looked poor. Judged by relative labour costs, our level of competitiveness in 1980 was some 40 to 50 per cent worse than in 1978: and around three-fifths of this was due to UK unit labour costs increasing at a faster rate than those abroad, with only two-fifths the result of exchange rate appreciation. There was little, if anything, we could do to influence the exchange rate, without allowing inflation to rise still further and faster. But there was a great deal which trade union negotiators had it in their power to do if they wished to prevent their own members and others being priced out of jobs; and as the scale of union irresponsibility grew apparent, talk of the need for a pay policy began to be heard.

So it was important that from the very beginning — even before we had realized the extent of the pay explosion which was under way — I stood firm against suggestions of pay policies. Some senior colleagues supported a return to incomes policy: shortly after we took office Jim Prior argued for early talks with the TUC and CBI about pay. We had already had vigorous disagreements on the issue in Opposition. The Right Approach to the Economy had gone further than I would have liked in proposing a ‘forum’ for discussion between employers and unions of the pay implications of government economic policy. A far weaker reference had been included in the 1979 manifesto. I had now come to feel that all such talk was at best irrelevant and at worst misguided.

Of course, it is of great importance that all those involved in wage bargaining should know and understand the economic framework in which they are operating and the facts of life confronting their particular business. Within a given money supply (provided that the government sticks to it), the more taken out in higher pay, the less available for investment, and the smaller the number of jobs.

Some people offered what they thought of as the ‘German model’. We were all conscious of Germany’s economic success. Indeed, we had helped create the conditions for it after the war by introducing competition and restructuring their trade unions. There were those in Britain who went further than this and said that we should copy the German corporatist tendency of making national economic decisions in consultation with business organizations and trade union leaders. However, what might work for Germany would not necessarily work for us. The German experience of hyperinflation between the wars meant that nearly everyone there was deeply conscious of the need to keep inflation down, even at the expense of a short-term rise in unemployment. German trade unions were also far more responsible than ours, and of course the German character is different, less individualistic and more regimented. So the ‘German model’ was inappropriate for Britain.

In any case, we already had the National Economic Development Council (NEDC) in which ministers, employers and trade unionists met from time to time. And so I was quite sure that we should not proceed further with the idea of a new ‘forum’. In fact, I felt that we should do all that we could to reinforce the contrary view: the whole approach based on prices and incomes controls should be swept away. The Government would set the framework, but it was for businesses and workforces to make their own choices, and to face the consequences of their actions, good and bad. In the private sector rates of pay must be determined by what businesses could afford, depending on their profitability and productivity. In the public sector also affordability was the key — in this case meaning the scale of the burden it was right to ask the taxpayer and ratepayer to bear. Given that government was the ultimate owner and banker, however, the mechanism by which these disciplines could be made effective was bound to be less clear and direct than in the private sector.

THE 1980 BUDGET AND THE MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY (MTFS)

The income tax cuts in our 1979 budget were intended to give more incentives to work. But the budget of 1980 was still more directly focused on improving our underlying economic performance. Towards the end of February Geoffrey Howe came to see me to discuss the shape of it. We were agreed entirely about the monetary and fiscal position: we would continue with the present money supply targets, which were still not being met, and keep the PSBR at the same level as the previous year.

However, I was more concerned about his tax proposals. There was no doubt about the difficulties industry was facing. Very high pay awards had left firms short of cash, though oil companies were in a better position due to the oil price rise. There was, therefore, a strong argument for a budget which helped business. On the other hand, I certainly did not want to see personal incentives diminished. It was going to be difficult to get the balance right. In any case, there was also a question of the precise means to help industry. My instinct was to go for a lower PSBR and so bring down interest rates. But many in industry wanted us to cut the National Insurance Surcharge (NIS) — a tax introduced by Labour, which had substantially raised business costs. Geoffrey had also been pressing from the previous December for a package of capital tax cuts and reliefs.

In the end we settled on a ‘budget for business’, but only by fairly modest and inexpensive measures. Geoffrey Howe’s second budget on 26 March 1980 helped small businesses through enterprise zones,[26] gave tax relief to encourage the investment of venture capital, and introduced building allowances for small workshops.

As regards income tax, personal allowances generally were raised in line with inflation. But the lower rate band of 25 per cent, which we had inherited from the Labour Party and which complicated the tax system, was abolished. To balance this we raised the thresholds of the higher rate bands by about seven percentage points less than inflation. The budget also announced difficult and unpopular measures on prescription charges and social security benefits.

However, the most important aspect of the 1980 budget related to monetary policy rather than taxation. We announced in the budget our Medium Term Financial Strategy (quickly known as the MTFS), which was to remain at the heart of our economic policies throughout the period of their success and which was only relegated in importance in those final years, when Nigel Lawson’s imprudence had already begun to steer us to disaster. A little historical irony is provided by the fact that Nigel himself, as Financial Secretary, signed the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR), or ‘Red Book’, in which the MTFS first burst on an astonished world, that he had contributed much to its preparation and that he was its most brilliant and committed exponent.

The MTFS was intended to set the monetary framework for the economy over a period of years. The aim was to bring down inflation by decreasing monetary growth, while curbing borrowing to ensure that the pressure of disinflation did not fall solely on the private sector in the form of higher interest rates. The monetary figures for later years that we announced in 1980 were illustrative rather than firm targets — though this did not prevent commentators poking tiresome, if predictable, fun when the targets were altered or not met. The 1980 MTFS figures for the money supply were expressed in sterling M3 (£M3), though the Red Book noted that ‘the way in which the money supply is defined for target purposes may need to be adjusted from time to time as circumstances change,’ an important qualification.[27]

Not all of those who shared our fundamental economic objectives entirely welcomed the MTFS. To some it seemed like a new version of Labour’s 1965 ‘National Plan’. Others questioned whether it would succeed in affecting expectations in the economy as we intended, and wondered what would happen if it did not. But there was a crucial difference between the MTFS and the old style economic planning. We were seeking to secure greater financial stability, within which business and individuals could operate with confidence. We knew that we could do this only by controlling those things which government could control — namely the money supply and public borrowing. Most post-war economic planning, by contrast, sought to control such things as output and employment, which ultimately government could not control, through batteries of regulations on investment, pay and prices, that distorted the operation of the economy and threatened personal liberty. The MTFS broke with all of this. Certainly, no one could guarantee that people would adjust their behaviour to take account of the MTFS; indeed, pay bargainers, particularly in the public sector, conspicuously failed to do so, at least in the early period. The MTFS would only influence expectations in so far as people believed in our determination to stick to it: its credibility depended on that of the Government — and ultimately, therefore, on the quality of my own commitment, about which I would leave no one in doubt. I would not bow to demands to reflate: it was this which turned the MTFS from an ambitious aspiration into the cornerstone of a successful policy.

FIRST STEPS OF TRADE UNION REFORM: THE 1980 EMPLOYMENT ACT

A firm financial strategy was necessary to improve our economic performance: but we never believed that it would be sufficient, even with tax cuts and deregulation of industry. We also had to deal with the problem of trade union power, made worse by successive Labour governments and exploited by the communists and militants who had risen to key positions within the trade union movement — positions which they ruthlessly exploited in the callous strikes of the winter of 1978–9.

The economic effects of union power were still painfully clear. Pay rises were soaring while business prospects plummeted with the onset of recession. The engineering industry dispute in 1979 provided a good demonstration of how much poison excessive trade union power and privilege had injected into British industry — and not just the public but the private sector too. The engineering industry had every commercial reason to reduce costs so as to compete. Yet after a ten-week strike, the employers, the Engineering Employers’ Federation (EEF), conceded a 39-hour week, increases of £13 a week for skilled men and an extra week’s holiday phased over four years, all of this greatly increasing their costs. The EEF had crumbled and, because of the centralized system of pay bargaining, employers throughout the industry had also given in. The EEF had long accepted the closed shop as an unavoidable fact of life. So the unions’ power over their members was more or less absolute. Some employers, in search of a quiet life, preferred it that way. But it meant that when a dispute did occur the trade union was able to exercise what amounted to intimidation over its members — ‘lawful intimidation’ in the unhappy phrase coined by Labour’s former Attorney-General, Sam Silkin. Those who wanted to continue working could be threatened by the union with expulsion and the consequent loss of their job. The engineering strike was not a political strike, nor one which threatened to bring ordinary life to a halt. But it was precisely the sort of strike which no country fighting for its industrial future could afford — an object lesson in what was wrong. Its consequences damaged the whole industry for years to come.

Indeed, for the greater part of my term of office the need for new steps in trade union reform was repeatedly demonstrated by industrial disputes. The disadvantage of this was that, in a sense, we were always behind events, learning the lessons of the last strike. The advantage was, however, that we could point to recent abuses to justify reform and could therefore rely on public opinion to help us push it through.

On 14 May 1979, less than a fortnight after I formed the Government, Jim Prior wrote to me setting out his plans for trade union reform. There was a certain amount that we could do at once. We could set up our promised inquiry into the coercive recruitment practices of the printing union SLADE — which would deal also with the activities of the NGA in the advertising industry. We could also make certain changes to employment legislation by Order in Council, with the aim of reducing the heavy burden placed — on small firms in particular — by the provisions on unfair dismissal and redundancy. But we would have to consult with employers and unions quite extensively about our main proposals on secondary picketing, the closed shop and ballots. As a result, the larger changes we wanted would not be in place in time for strikes which might occur that winter. Jim Prior was optimistic that if the TUC was properly handled — and he thought that he could handle the TUC — they would not reject our proposals outright. The CBI was also, as usual, opposed to any ‘precipitate’ action. In reply I pointed out that they would be the first people to complain if secondary picketing started again. I also made it clear that I thought that a bill must be published by November, if at all possible, and should reach its committee stage in the Commons before Christmas. I had a further discussion with Jim about tactics on the afternoon of Wednesday 6 June. Jim said that for purposes of negotiation his proposals to the TUC would go somewhat further than those in our manifesto, but I insisted that our final position should not be less than the manifesto — a significantly different emphasis.

Two weeks later Jim set out his proposals in a Cabinet paper. These were very similar to those which were ultimately contained in the 1980 Act. They covered three main areas: picketing, the closed shop and ballots. We planned to limit the specific immunities for picketing, given under the legislation of 1974 and 1976, strictly to those who were themselves party to the dispute and who were picketing at the premises of their own employer. Powers would be taken to issue a statutory code on picketing. Where there was a closed shop, we proposed to give employees who might be dismissed for refusing to join a union the right to apply to an industrial tribunal for compensation. There would be a legal right of complaint for those arbitrarily expelled or excluded from union membership. We would extend the present protection for employees who objected to joining a union because of deeply held personal conviction. A new closed shop could in future only be established if an overwhelming majority of workers voted for it by secret ballot. A statutory code relating to the closed shop would be drawn up. Finally, the Secretary of State for Employment would be given power to reimburse trade unions for the postal and administrative costs of secret ballots.

These early proposals were as notable for what they did not contain as for what they did. At this stage they did not extend to the question of secondary action other than secondary picketing, nor did they deal with the wider question of trade union immunities. In particular, they left alone the crucial immunity which prevented action being taken by the courts against union funds. On the first of these points — secondary action — we were awaiting the conclusions of the House of Lords in the important case of Express Newspapers v. MacShane.[28] It is worth noting that the changes we made in all these areas, including that of picketing, were changes in the civil, not the criminal, law. In public discussion of subsequent strikes this distinction was often lost. The civil law could only change the way in which unions behaved if employers or, in some cases, workers were prepared to use it. They had to bring the case. By contrast, the criminal law on picketing, which was clarified but not substantially altered in the years ahead, had to be enforced by the police and the courts. Although the Government would make it clear that the police enjoyed its moral support and would improve police equipment and training, the constitutional limits on us in this area were real and sometimes frustrating.

As the summer wore on, it became obvious that although the TUC was prepared to talk to the Government about our proposals, it had no intention of actually co-operating with them. On 25 June at their request I met the TUC General Council. I was depressed, but not a bit surprised, to discover that there was no willingness on their side to face economic facts or to try to understand the economic strategy we were pursuing. I told the TUC that we all wanted high living standards and more jobs, but that if people wanted a German standard of living then they must achieve a German standard of output. When the TUC said that they wanted more government spending, I pointed out that there was no shortage of demand in the economy: the problem was that because of our uncompetitiveness that demand was being met by imports. I got nowhere. The TUC Conference in September was marked by unreasoning and unqualified opposition to everything we proposed — even the provision of funds for secret ballots in which no compulsion was involved, other than the moral pressure to consult their own members.

On the evening of Wednesday 12 September I held a meeting with Geoffrey Howe, Jim Prior and other colleagues to plan our strategy. I thought that it was hopeless trying to change the attitudes of most trade union leaders, who were socialist politicians first, second and third. Instead, we agreed that we must appeal over their heads to their members.

I was convinced that rank-and-file unionists felt very differently to the union bosses about the reforms. In due course, we must liberate them by breaking down the closed shop and by ensuring genuine democracy within the unions; then they themselves would bring the extremists and union apparatchiks into line. But until we could make such changes — and it would take more than our present bill to do that — all we could do was to call for their support as persuasively and powerfully as we could.

So time and again I drummed home the message that it was ordinary trade unionists and their families who were hurt by the irresponsible use of trade union power. For example, in my speech to the Party Conference in Blackpool on Friday 12 October 1979, I said:

I developed this theme again when I spoke to the Conservative Trade Unionists’ (CTU) Conference in Nottingham on Saturday 17 November. Strikes were not the only problem; rather, it was the whole socialist economic approach to which the union bosses were wedded, and in particular their preference for monopoly and protection. I took the example of British Steel — which soon became all too topical — to make the point:

In the last part of 1979 and the early months of 1980 we continued refining the Employment Bill and spent a good deal of time on the question of secondary action and immunities. We also discussed item by item measures to deal with the burdens which past Labour legislation had placed on industry. One such burden was Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act, 1975. Schedule 11 was a typical case: it showed how an apparently harmless measure, introduced for the best of motives, could defeat the intentions of its originators and result in higher unemployment. Schedule 11 provided that the ‘recognized terms and conditions’ of employment for a particular industry should apply throughout that industry. The original aim was to deal with pockets of low pay; the principle had wartime antecedents, but in recent years it had been exploited by higher paid groups, such as those working for the BBC. In that instance the unfortunate television licence holder had to foot the bill. Generally, by forcing wage levels up to the level obtaining in the strongest firms, Schedule 11 caused jobs to be lost.

But by far the most contested issue was that of trade union immunities. Our proposals on secondary picketing had already begun to address it. But we now took a further step. We had received the report of the enquiry set up earlier into the recruitment activities of the printing union SLADE, undertaken by Mr Andrew Leggatt QC[29] In response, we decided to remove the immunity where industrial disruption was called or threatened by people other than those directly working for a particular firm with the intention of coercing its employees into joining a trade union.

We decided to go further, following the House of Lords decision in the MacShane case on 13 December. The MacShane case was important because it confirmed the wide scope of existing immunities in the case of secondary action. Most of the immunities then enjoyed by trade unions had their origin in the Trade Disputes Act (1906), which Labour extended significantly after its narrow election victory in October 1974. The MacShane case arose from a dispute that began in 1978 between the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and a number of provincial newspapers. The provincial papers managed to keep going during the dispute by publishing stories supplied to them by the Press Association. The NUJ unsuccessfully attempted to prevent this, first, by direct appeal to NUJ members working for the Press Association and then, when that failed, by instructing its people on national newspapers to black Press Association material altogether. In response the Daily Express applied for an injunction against the NUJ. The Court of Appeal in December 1978 ruled in favour of the Express that the NUJ secondary action had exceeded that which could be regarded as furthering the objectives of the dispute and therefore did not enjoy immunity. As a result of this decision, injunctions could be and were granted. However, when the case went to the House of Lords, the Appeal Court’s ruling was overturned. Essentially, the Lords decided that for purposes of law an industrial action was ‘in furtherance of a trade dispute’, and therefore immune, if trade union officials genuinely believed it to be so. This subjective test had the most disturbing implications. It meant that henceforth there would be virtually unlimited immunity for secondary industrial action.

The position was complicated by the outcome of two other court cases. One of these — N. W. L. Limited v. Nelson & Wood, or the ‘Nawala Case’ — resulted from the attempts of the International Transport Workers’ Federation to prevent the employment by a British shipping company of overseas seamen in British registered ships. The Federation’s action threatened the future of the British shipping industry. Still more important, however, was the second case, which widened the scope for secondary action in the steel strike. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC) had called out its members in the private steel sector as part of its dispute with the British Steel Corporation which had begun on 2 January 1980. Duport Steels, a private steel company, was granted an injunction by the Court of Appeal against Bill Sirs, General Secretary of the ISTC. The Court of Appeal ruled that immunity did not apply in this case because the ISTC’s argument was essentially with the Government rather than BSC itself. But again, the House of Lords unanimously reversed this ruling, relying on broadly the same grounds as in the MacShane case. The practical result was that the strike spread once more to the private steel companies.

We were all agreed that the law as now interpreted by the Courts must be changed. In Opposition, we had opposed all of the moves Labour made to extend trade union powers and immunities and in our manifesto we had said that, ‘the protection of the law should be available to those not concerned in a dispute.’ We agreed that it was right now to clarify the precise limits of immunity. But we disagreed both about what immunity, if any, there should be for secondary action and about the timing of the introduction of the necessary change into the Employment Bill. Again and again, Jim Prior said that he did not want decisions about changes in the law to be linked with a particular dispute. But as the steel strike worsened, with none of our proposed legislation yet in force — let alone measures to deal with secondary strikes and blacking — the public criticism grew. I had the greatest sympathy with the critics, though I wished that some employers had earlier been rather more robust. Whenever those of us who felt that we ought to go faster put our case — and our number included Geoffrey Howe, John Nott, Keith Joseph, Angus Maude, Peter Thorneycroft and John Hoskyns — Jim Prior was always able to argue against ‘hasty action’ by reference to the cautious attitude of the CBI.

On the afternoon of Wednesday 30 January Jim came to see me at his request and poured out a tale of woe. Apparently the unions’ mood had changed markedly for the worse since Christmas. We were facing a ‘day of action’ from the unions in Wales. The steel unions had managed to call out their members in private steel companies. I replied that, while I had every respect for his views, I did not share his pessimism.

In fact, by this stage I did not share Jim’s analysis of the situation at all. He really believed that we had already tried to do too much and that we should go no further, whether in the area of trade union law or general economic strategy. I, for my part, had begun bitterly to regret that we had not made faster progress both in cutting public expenditure and with trade union reform.

There was, of course, a more profound and general divide between us. For all his virtues, Jim Prior was an example of a political type that had dominated and, in my view, damaged the post-war Tory Party. I call such figures ‘the false squire’. They have all the outward show of a John Bull — ruddy face, white hair, bluff manner — but inwardly they are political calculators who see the task of Conservatives as one of retreating gracefully before the Left’s inevitable advance. Retreat as a tactic is sometimes necessary; retreat as a settled policy eats at the soul. In order to justify the series of defeats that his philosophy entails, the false squire has to persuade rank-and-file Conservatives and indeed himself that advance is impossible. His whole political life would, after all, be a gigantic mistake if a policy of positive Tory reform turned out to be both practical and popular. Hence the passionate and obstinate resistance mounted by the ‘wets’ to the fiscal, economic and trade union reforms of the early 1980s. These reforms had either to fail or be stopped. For if they succeeded, a whole generation of Tory leaders had despaired unnecessarily. Ian Gilmour expressed this feeling in the clearest form; but Jim Prior was infected by it too, and it made him timid and overcautious in his trade union policy. I had to stake out a more determined approach.

Brian Waiden interviewed me for Weekend World on Sunday 6 January. I used the occasion to say that we would be introducing a new clause in the Employment Bill to rectify the problem left by the MacShane judgement. I made it clear that we did not intend to remove the immunity enjoyed by trade unions as regards action intended to cause people to break their employment contracts, but would concentrate on the immunity relating to action designed to cause employers to break their commercial contracts. I also drew attention to the way in which trade union immunities had combined with nationalized monopolies to give huge power to the trade unions in these industries. We needed to restrict the immunities and to break the monopolies by introducing competition.

All my instincts told me that we would have strong public support for further action to restrict union power, and the evidence supported me. An opinion survey in The Times on 21 January 1980 asked people the question: ‘Do you think sympathy strikes and blacking are legitimate weapons to use in an industrial dispute, or should the new law restrict their use?’ Seventy-one per cent of those who replied — and 62 per cent of trade unionists who did so — said that a new law should indeed restrict their use.

It would, though, be difficult to go further without support from business leaders. On the morning of Tuesday 5 February I had two meetings with industrialists. The first was with the CBI. Some of them said that the present bill, as drafted, went as far as possible. On hearing this I did not conceal my frustration. I said that, with regard to the timing of more radical measures, there would always be a risk of confrontation with the trade unions, but that it seemed to me it would be better to accept the risk over the coming few months than wait until the autumn when the unions could cause the maximum disruption. I said that I now regretted that we had not brought forward more radical proposals when the bill was introduced. This left us with two possibilities: we could amend the existing bill or announce in the consultative document which we were planning to issue that further legislation would be introduced. The CBI went away in no doubt about my feelings.

The second meeting that day was with the private sector steel producers. There was a sharp contrast between their outlook and that of the CBI. They complained that the private steel companies had been dragged into a dispute not of their making and in which they would be the only real victims. As a result of the strike they were losing about £10 million a week. The ISTC had effectively torn up all its procedural agreements with the private companies and instructed their employees to strike. It was clear that there was no real grievance on the part of private sector steel workers: in the Duport Steels case, when the Court of Appeal had granted its injunction to stop secondary action, there had been a complete return to work before the Lords reversed the decision and the private sector strike resumed. The threat of losing union cards was the decisive factor in persuading private sector workers to join the strike. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the private sector steel companies wanted immediate legislation to outlaw secondary picketing. And there was nothing I was able to offer them except sympathy.

In answer to a letter from a leading industrialist urging ‘caution’, I replied setting out my views:

I finished by quoting Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure:

I returned to the task of toughening up the law. Ministers now agreed to restore the law to what it had been understood to be before the MacShane judgement, adding further tests relating to the dispute to be applied by the Courts. There would not, however, be a total ban on secondary action. There followed a short period for consultation and the new clause was introduced into the Employment Bill at the Report Stage in the House of Commons on 17 April 1980, limiting immunity for secondary action which broke or interfered with commercial contracts. Immunity would only exist when the action was taken — by employees of suppliers or customers of the employer in dispute — with the ‘sole or principal purpose’ of furthering the primary dispute and when the action was reasonably likely to succeed. Of great significance for the future was the fact that we announced the publication of a green paper on trade union immunities, which would appear later in the year and would look at the whole issue from a wider perspective.

In fact, the 1980 Act did not directly affect the outcome of the steel strike. The one action open to us which could have done so would have been to accelerate the introduction of Clause 14 of the Employment Bill, which made secondary picketing unlawful. I was strongly attracted by this option. My wish to pursue it had been greatly increased by the mass picketing which had taken place at the private sector steel firm of Hadfields on Thursday 14 February. Keith Joseph telephoned me at Chequers the following Sunday morning to discuss what had happened. We had no doubt that it constituted a grave breach of the criminal law. The question was whether the use of the civil law, and in particular Clause 14, would make matters better or worse.

I telephoned Willie Whitelaw, the Home Secretary, about the public order situation and suggested that we could introduce a one-clause bill on picketing the following week. I also spoke to Michael Havers, the Attorney-General. It was clear to me that the police would need to stop large numbers of pickets arriving at their destination if picketing was to be effectively controlled and the threat of intimidation removed. The civil law, though, could not play any part in that. There was even an argument that a change in the civil law introduced directly in response to violence would make it more difficult to bring pressure on people to respect and obey the criminal law. However, I wanted all of the possibilities to be examined urgently.

After discussion with ministers on Monday (18 February) it was decided not to accelerate the clause relating to secondary picketing. But instead the Attorney-General would restate the next day in the House of Commons the criminal law as it related to picketing. Jim Prior would also write a public letter to Len Murray, the TUC General Secretary, drawing attention to the breach of all the traditionally accepted and understood codes for picketing. In these ways we sought to keep up the pressure.

THE 1980 STEEL STRIKE

The debate about trade union reform, both inside and outside government, was conducted under the shadow of industrial conflict: in particular, the issues of secondary action and immunities became inextricably entangled with the 1980 steel strike. But that strike also challenged our economic strategy directly; and it is unlikely, once the strike had begun, that our economic policies would have survived if we had suffered defeat.

The steel industry, like the motor vehicle industry, was suffering the after-effects of overambitious policies of state intervention. It was Ted Heath’s Government, of which I had been a member, which had set BSC on course for huge investment in expanded capacity in the years before that first oil shock which cut so many such ambitions down to size. The following Labour Government had made some closures but, by setting up a review under Lord Beswick in 1974–5, it had largely sought to buy time. The greater the delay in taking remedial action, however, the less chance there was to make proper use of the most up-to-date plant and this, in turn, worsened the position of BSC as a whole, clouding the prospect for steelmen’s jobs and increasing the burden on the taxpayer, who had to fund huge losses.

One of my first decisions about the nationalized industries was to agree to the closure of the Shotton steel works in North Wales. Measures aimed at providing new job opportunities in the area would be announced, but I knew that the closure would have a devastating effect on the steelmen and their families. A delegation from Shotton had come to see me when I was on a visit to Wales as Leader of the Opposition. I felt desperately sorry for them. They had done all that was expected. But it was not — and could not be — enough.

BSC exemplified not only the disadvantages of state ownership and intervention, but also the way that British trade unionism dragged down our industrial performance. A good example of what was wrong was to be found at the Hunterston ore terminal on the Clyde. Here BSC had built the largest deep-water jetty in Europe. It had been opened in June 1979, but could not be used until November because of a manning dispute between the Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU) and the ISTC. For five months bulk ore carriers had to be diverted to the Continent, where their cargo was transferred to smaller vessels for shipment to Terminus Quay, Glasgow, and from there finally sent on to Ravenscraig.

As the end of 1979 approached, external factors over which we had no control made BSC’s problems rapidly worsen. There was huge international overcapacity in steel as the world headed deeper into recession. Steel industries almost everywhere were facing losses and closures. But the fundamental problems of BSC were home-grown. It took BSC nearly twice as many man-hours to produce a tonne of steel as its major European competitors. We had reached the absurd position that the value added by BSC was if anything a little less than the wage bill. Over the five years to 1979–80 more than £3 billion of public money had gone into BSC, which amounted to £221 for every family in the country. Yet still the losses accumulated. Keith Joseph and I were prepared to continue for the present to fund BSC’s investment and redundancy programme; what we were not prepared to do was to fund losses which arose from excessive wage costs, unearned by higher productivity.

If we were serious about turning BSC round — with all the closures, job losses, and challenges to restrictive practices that would involve — we faced the risk of a very damaging steel strike. There was only one worse alternative: to allow the present situation to continue.

BSC’s cash limit for 1980–81 was first set in June 1979: the aim was for it to break even by March 1980. This objective had, in fact, been set by the previous Labour Government. But by 29 November 1979 BSC had announced a £146 million half-year loss and abandoned its break-even target for March, putting it back a further twelve months. The crisis was fast approaching.

On 6 December Keith Joseph let me know what the implications were. BSC could not afford any general wage increase from 1 January other than the consolidation of certain additional increases agreed the previous year — amounting to 2 per cent. Any further increase would be dependent on local negotiations and conditional on the equivalent improvements in productivity. The Corporation had told the unions the week before that 5 million tonnes of surplus capacity, over and above the closure of iron- and steel-making at Corby and Shotton, would have to be shut down. Already Bill Sirs was threatening a strike. I agreed with Keith that we must back the Corporation in its stand. We also agreed that BSC must win the support of public opinion and bring home to the unions the harm which a strike would do to their own members.

As the strike loomed, there was much disquiet about whether the management of BSC had properly prepared its ground for it. The figures used to justify the management’s position were questioned, even by Nicholas Edwards, the Secretary of State for Wales. He might have been right. But I said that we must not attempt to substitute our judgement as politicians for that of the industry. It was up to the management of BSC — at last — to manage.

On 10 December the BSC Board confirmed that 52,000 steel jobs would have to go. The business prospects for BSC were still worsening. Indeed, when we looked at their figures for future steel demand we thought that they were, if anything, slightly optimistic. But again, there was no intention to set our judgement against that of the Board and management. Even before the strike, we had been searching for a successor to the present Chairman, Sir Charles Villiers, whose contract was due shortly to come to an end. We had already received seven or eight firm refusals from suitable candidates and it was clear that fear of government interference was one of the main deterrents.

It was difficult to be sure about the outcome of the strike. BSC, the private steel producers and the steel users all had healthy levels of stocks. The fact that the steel users and stockholders were effectively given three weeks’ notice of the strike allowed them to build up stockpiles. Moreover, because of the depressed state of industry many steel-using companies were operating well below capacity. But, on the other hand, there would be serious problems for the users of tin plate, and possibly for the car industry, and the situation could, of course, rapidly worsen if dockers and transport workers took effective action to stop steel moving around the country and to halt imports. However, BSC and its workforce would suffer most. Its current prices were already above those of our European competitors and the domestic market for steel was likely to be lost permanently to foreign steel companies which could ensure a reliable supply in the future.

From the end of December I chaired regular meetings of a small group of ministers and officials to monitor the steel situation and decide what action needed to be taken. It was a frustrating and anxious time. The details of the BSC offer were not well understood either by the steel workers or by the public. BSC did little to explain its position. It would not put out broadsheets or buy newspaper space, on the ground that such actions might be seen as provocative. The hope was that other pressures could be brought to bear on the ISTC and the National Union of Boilermakers (NUB). Moreover, in a misguided attempt to canvass support for various pay offers which they had made, BSC allowed a bewildering array of different figures to gain currency, pleasing no one: to the general public the figures always seemed to be increasing, while to the unions they never seemed sufficient.

For its part, the ISTC was more conscious of pay settlements to other groups of workers — the ‘going rate’ — than it was of the bleak commercial realities of the industry in which its members worked. On 28 November Ford workers had voted to accept a 21.5 per cent wage increase. On 5 December coal miners had accepted a 20 per cent settlement — and been publicly praised for their moderation. All this undoubtedly added to the strength of feeling among the steelmen. On 7 January Len Murray and Bill Sirs asked for a settlement of 8 per cent plus 5 per cent ‘on account’ for the local productivity deals. BSC offered 8 per cent plus 4 per cent in advance for a limited period. The next day negotiations collapsed. The General and Municipal Workers’ Union (GMWU) joined the strike; on the following day the craftsmen struck, and although on 10 February the craft union leaders accepted a separate settlement of 10 per cent plus 4 per cent, later that week its members rejected the offer. In the meantime, on 16 January, the ISTC had spread the strike to the private steel sector, where the uncertain legal position and the violent mass picketing added to our difficulties.

It became clear to me fairly early on, however, that the steel strike was not going to bring British industry to a halt. At my strategy meeting on 18 January the figures showed that the strike had so far had little effect on industrial production, which had fallen about 2 per cent the previous week and was perhaps marginally lower by the time we met. Even if private steel production were suspended altogether, there would be enough stocks to support normal manufacturing for another four to six weeks, with problems in some particular areas within two to three weeks. As we had foreseen, it was in the specialist area of food canning that the greatest difficulty might arise.

It was against this background that I met first the unions at their request and then the management of BSC on Monday 21 January at No. 10. The union leaders had seen Keith Joseph and Jim Prior the previous Saturday. One difficulty we had was that the unions might have drawn the wrong impression from widely reported remarks made by Jim, criticizing the BSC management. I had been angry to read this. But, when a week later I was asked about it by Robin Day on Panorama, my reply was sweetly dismissive: ‘we all make mistakes now and then. I think it was a mistake, and Jim Prior was very, very sorry indeed for it, and very apologetic. But you don’t just sack a chap for one mistake.’

In my discussion with Mr Sirs and Mr Smith (the leaders respectively of the ISTC and NUB), I said that the Government was not going to intervene in the dispute. I did not know enough about the steel industry to become involved in the negotiations though, of course, I was keen to hear their views. The unions wanted the Government to bring pressure on BSC to make an increased offer. They wanted some ‘new money’, but I pointed out that there is no such thing: money for the steel industry could only come from other industries which were making a profit. The real issue, I said, was productivity where — although Bill Sirs disputed the figures — it was generally accepted that BSC’s performance lagged far behind. Luxemburg had reduced its steel workforce from 24,000 to 16,000 and substantially increased its productivity, with the result that it was now exporting railway lines to the UK. When I had heard this the previous autumn I had been cut to the quick, and I told him so.

That same afternoon I met Sir Charles Villiers and Bob Scholey, the Chairman and Chief Executive of BSC. They described to me precisely what was on offer and the very limited scope for flexibility. I gave them my full support.

On the following day Bob Scholey and Bill Sirs held a meeting, but to no avail. Bill Sirs continued to ask for 20 per cent, a figure which was obviously unrealistic. The only thing we could do was see the strike through. At my meeting of ministers and officials on 1 February we were told that steel was still moving from the docks. There was little or no evidence of shortages except for the deteriorating position in Metal Box, the food can producers. The report for the week ending 2 February again showed a strong position: manufacturing production was at 96 per cent of its normal level. On 12 February we received clearer evidence still about how industry was coping. Ninety per cent of steel stockholders were continuing to maintain a satisfactory level of deliveries. Limited imports were continuing and getting past the obstacles the unions put up against them. Not surprisingly, perhaps, steel users were reluctant to divulge the size of their steel stocks and potential endurance, but their morale was good. Metal Box expected to deliver 50 per cent of what customers demanded. At British Leyland full production could continue until the end of February.

The real problem was now arising in the private steel sector. The mass picketing at Hadfields raised the stakes. It had overtones of the kind of intimidation and violence which had led to the closure of the Saltley Coke Depot during the miners’ strike in 1972: it was vital that we win through.

British business proved resilient and resourceful in meeting the strike: this turned out to be the decisive factor. Somehow, they got hold of the steel they needed. In the reports presented to my meetings the crunch point at which serious problems for steel users would arise never seemed to come any closer. At the meeting on 4 March all information confirmed that the strike could not succeed. The potential endurance of steel users was being increased by the continued flow of imported steel. If anything the outlook seemed slightly better than the week before. By 14 March all but one of the private sector steel companies were back in production and by the time we met on 18 March that too was working.

Although it was now obvious that the unions had lost — with the strike clearly failing to cripple industry and the strikers themselves increasingly demoralized — the precise terms on which the Government and management had won remained in the balance. On 9 March BSC had held a ‘ballot about a ballot’, asking workers whether they wanted a ballot on pay, which the ISTC had hitherto denied them, and this had shown strong evidence of disenchantment with the ISTC’s tactics and leadership. The union wanted a way out which would save face. BSC had formally proposed arbitration on 17 February and, although rejected, the offer had remained open. There was strong pressure — which I wanted to resist — for a Court of Enquiry into the strike which would propose a settlement. I would have preferred the involvement of ACAS (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service). It seemed to me that if ACAS had any reason for existing at all, it should surely have a role in a situation such as this. In fact, we were condemned to watch while BSC and the unions agreed to the appointment of a three-man enquiry consisting of Lords Lever and Marsh (both former Labour Cabinet ministers) and Bill Keyes of SOG AT, which on 31 March recommended a settlement well above the figure originally offered by BSC but substantially below what the ISTC had demanded. The offer was accepted.

At its final meeting on 9 April my committee was told that all the BSC plants were back in operation. Production and steel deliveries were both about 95 per cent of what they would have been without the dispute. The outcome, in spite of the size of the final settlement, was generally seen as a victory for the Government, if not for the BSC management.

The bills, however, kept on coming in. On 6 June Sir Charles Villiers wrote to Keith Joseph saying that he foresaw the need for an additional £400 million in the financial year 1980–81, over and above the £450 million already allocated. The proposals made by BSC to stay within the borrowing limit set by the Government (its EFL or External Financing Limit) involved various financial devices including the sale and lease-back of assets. The only alternative they had to suggest was that in effect BSC should go into liquidation. Clearly, whatever the pressures imposed by the strike, matters should never have been allowed to come to such a pass and it reflected badly on the management. But we had already decided what to do about that. In spite of some outcry over the terms offered, Ian MacGregor had been appointed to succeed Sir Charles Villiers. I expected him to deal with the appalling commercial and financial legacy and in due course we approved very large increases in the funding of BSC to allow him to do this. Nor were we disappointed. Another cost, which we did not begrudge, was the money made available to encourage new development in areas badly affected by redundancies, such as Llanwern, Port Talbot, Consett and Scunthorpe.

This had been a battle fought and won not simply for the Government and for our policies, but for the economic well-being of the country as a whole. It was necessary to stand up to unions which thought that because they were in the public sector they should be allowed to ignore commercial reality and the need for higher productivity. In future, pay had to depend on the state of the employing industry, and not on some notion of ‘comparability’ with what other people received. But it was always going to be more difficult to induce such realism where the state was owner, banker, and at times tempted to be manager as well.

BRITISH LEYLAND: 1979–1980

In many ways British Leyland presented a similar challenge to the Government as BSC, though in a still more acute and politically difficult form. Like BSC, BL was effectively state-owned and controlled, though technically it was not a nationalized industry. The company had become a symbol of Britain’s industrial decline and of trade union bloody-mindedness. However, by the time I entered No. 10 it had also begun to symbolize the fightback by management. Michael Edwardes, BL’s Chairman, had already demonstrated his grit in taking on the trade union militants who had brought the British car industry to its knees. I knew that whatever we decided to do about BL would have an impact on the psychology and morale of British managers as a whole, and I was determined to send the right signals. Unfortunately, unlike the case of BSC, it became increasingly clear that the action required to support BL’s stand against trade union obstruction diverged form what was required on purely commercoal grounds. This was a problem: but we had to back Michael Edwardes.

We had indicated in Opposition our hostility to the Ryder Plan for BL with its enormous cost, unmatched by sufficiently rigorous measures to increase productivity and earn profits.[30] My first direct experience as Prime Minister of BL’s difficulties came in September 1979 when Keith Joseph informed me of BL’s dreadful half-yearly results and of the measures the Chairman and Board intended to take. The new plan involved the closure of BL’s Coventry plant. At least 25,000 jobs would be lost. Productivity would be increased. The development of BL’s medium car range of models would be accelerated. The BL Board said that the Company would require additional funds beyond the £225 million remaining of the £1 billion which Labour, under the Ryder Plan, had in principle committed. In response, Keith made no financial promises. He told BL to look at the scope for raising money from its own resources — that is sales of profitable parts of the company. There was no immediate need to take decisions about funding until the Government received the new BL Corporate Plan from the National Enterprise Board (NEB) in November.

BL’s workers were to be balloted on the Corporate Plan. If it received substantial majority support the Government would find it very difficult to turn down and, as quickly became apparent, the company would want a further £200 million above and beyond the final tranche of Ryder money. The ballot, of which the result would be announced on 1 November, seemed likely to go the company’s way. But it might not; and that would present its own immediate problems. For if the ballot showed anything other than overwhelming support for the company’s proposals there would be speculation about its future, with the prospect of BL’s many small and medium-sized creditors demanding immediate payment and the large holders of loan stock adding to the pressure. BL might be forced precipitately into liquidation in circumstances which would make it impossible for us to formulate a sensible response and for an orderly disposal of its assets to take place. The economic implications of such a collapse were appalling. One hundred and fifty thousand people were employed by the company in the UK; there were perhaps an equal number of jobs in the component and other supplying industries dependent on BL. It was suggested that complete closure would mean a net loss to the balance of trade of around £2,200 million a year and according to the NEB it might cost the Government as much as £1 billion.

There was no mistaking the political and economic gravity of the decisions required. Closure would have some awful consequences, but we must never give the impression that it was unthinkable. If ever the company and workforce came to believe that, there would be no limit to their demands on the public purse. For this reason Keith and I decided not to agree to BL’s request for the Government to issue an undertaking to honour the company’s debt. They had wanted us to publish a letter to this effect even before the ballot result. In fact, 87.2 per cent of those voting supported BL’s plan and BL immediately sought approval from the NEB to go ahead with it. A firm request for money was made to the Government.

Our consideration of the BL Corporate Plan was delayed by two other events. First, as a result of our (unconnected) decision to remove Rolls-Royce from the purview of the NEB, Sir Leslie Murphy and his colleagues resigned and a new Board had to be appointed under Sir Arthur Knight. Second, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (AUEW) now threatened the very survival of BL by calling a strike following the dismissal on 19 November of Derek Robinson, a notorious agitator, convenor of the shop stewards at Longbridge and chairman of the so-called ‘Leyland Combine Trade Union Committee’. Robinson and others had continued to campaign against the BL plan even after its approval. The management had been right to sack him, pending the outcome of an inquiry by the AUEW.

On Monday 10 December ministers, under my chairmanship, considered the Corporate Plan. The first thing I noticed was that BL’s performance had deteriorated even since it had been drawn up. So I asked for up-to-date forecasts of profits and cash flow. I wanted from Michael Edwardes a proper definition of the circumstances under which the BL Board would abandon the plan. There had to be clear bench marks against which to measure future performance. I also wanted to know whether Michael Edwardes himself intended to remain as Chairman: officially, his contract had only another year to run.

We were now, though, put under pressure to approve the plan before the Christmas recess — without waiting for completion of BL’s wage negotiations — in order to enable the company to sign a collaborative deal with Honda for a new middle-range car. I was not prepared to be bounced into a commitment. In any case, past experience suggested to me that the plan would not in fact be fulfilled. BL’s annual plans always forecast major improvements: but every year things seemed to get worse. Its share of the UK market for cars had slumped from 33 per cent in 1974 to 20 per cent in 1979, and had fallen further, down to only 16 per cent, over the last two months. BL’s productivity was only two-thirds that of its European competitors, and lower still compared with the Japanese: for the company to become competitive again productivity needed to improve by something like 50 per cent. It remained to be seen whether the Plan could transform that. The proposed new models could help. But the first of these was not due until the end of the following year, and by then all its competitors would have new models too. Meanwhile, BL was already running out of cash and would need an advance on money allocated for the next financial year.

I, therefore, asked John Nott, who brought to the problem the expertise and scepticism of a banker, to go over BL’s accounts with the company’s Finance Director. Keith Joseph, John Biffen and others also went over the plan in detail with Michael Edwardes. Their conclusion was that there was only a small chance of BL surviving and that it was probable that the plan would fail, followed by a run-down or liquidation of the company. About a third of BL was thought to be saleable. But the final judgement had to be based on wider considerations. We reluctantly decided that people would simply not understand liquidation of the company at the very moment when its management was standing up to the unions and talking the language of hard commercial common sense. And so, after much discussion, we agreed to endorse the Plan and to provide the necessary financial support. Keith announced our decision to the House of Commons on 20 December.

Agreeing to provide more public money was not, though, the end of the problem: it rarely is. BL’s ballot on their pay offer went badly wrong, partly because the question put to the workforce — ‘do you support your Negotiating Committee’s rejection of the Company’s wage and conditions offer?’ — was confusing. Fifty-nine per cent of those taking part voted against the offer. Moreover, the AUEW enquiry found that Robinson had been unfairly dismissed by the company and an official strike was announced, to begin on 11 February. Michael Edwardes rightly refused to reinstate him or to improve on the pay offer. Contingency plans were made by the BL Board, assisted by Department of Industry and Treasury officials, to cope with the situation if the Plan had to be withdrawn and the company put into liquidation. Michael Edwardes was unwilling, even at this stage, to approach possible foreign buyers for a sell-off of BL, although he agreed to respond positively to any approaches potential buyers might make to him. Certainly, the workforce at BL could be in little doubt as to the seriousness of their position. BL’s share of the market had fallen so low that in January Ford sold more of one model (the Cortina) than BL’s total sales.

Michael Edwardes and the BL Board held their nerve and faced down the union threat. The strikers were told that unless they returned to work by Wednesday 23 April they would be dismissed. But much as I admired BL’s tenacity, I was becoming increasingly unhappy about the Board’s commercial approach. In particular, there was strong resistance from the Board to selling all or part of the company, though this took the form of obstruction rather than declared hostility.

For example, there was fierce initial resistance to my suggestion of engaging an independent financial adviser to advise on the disposal of the company’s assets. It was argued that such an appointment would undermine confidence in the company’s future. It was even suggested that these were matters for management, not government. I could not accept this. Government was the major shareholder in BL and it was right that the shareholder should have a say as to when and how the company’s assets should be sold. In fact, such an adviser was in due course appointed, with Michael Edwardes’s acquiescence.

On Wednesday 21 May Michael Edwardes and two of his colleagues came to a working dinner at No. 10. On the Government side, Geoffrey Howe and Keith Joseph, Robin Ibbs the head of the CPRS, and my private secretary were also present. Michael Edwardes said that BL faced a worse trading environment than when the 1980 Plan was prepared. It would be able to live within its agreed cash limit for 1980 but the £130 million limit provisionally decided for 1981 and the assumption that no government funding would be necessary thereafter were, he said, unrealistic. He claimed to have high hopes of collaboration with a German manufacturer, but that the prospects for selling most parts of the business in the near future were not encouraging. Only Land Rover would fetch a good price at that time, but to sell it separately would leave the rest of the business seriously weakened. Other parts of BL might be sold in a year or two as the recovery programme proceeded. It was obvious where all this was leading: BL was about to present us with yet another demand for taxpayers’ money, and probably for a huge amount.

In reply, I acknowledged that BL had achieved a great deal. But I stressed my anxiety about the endless demands for extra money. I said that BL had failed to meet the targets set out in its Plan. There could be no presumption that any additional money would be provided.

As the summer wore on it became clear that the company’s financial position was deteriorating even further. Michael Edwardes bombarded us with complaints. He was upset about Japanese imports. He drew attention to the (undoubtedly real) difficulties of exporting to Spain because of that country’s high tariffs, while they nevertheless exported their cars freely to us. He worried about the level of sterling. But none of this could disguise the fact that things were going badly wrong at BL and that the Board seemed unable to turn things round. The company lost £93.4 million before interest and tax in the first half-year compared with a profit of £47.7 million for the same period the previous year. Michael Edwardes tried to get the Government to agree to fund the new BL medium-range car — known as the LM10 — separately and in advance of the 1981 Corporate Plan. Indeed, he wanted me to announce the Government’s commitment to this at a dinner given by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) on 6 October. I had no intention of agreeing; once again, I would not be bounced.

Instead, I delivered a rather different and possibly less welcome message to the motor industry. I acknowledged that some of the problems they faced were caused by the world recession. But that was not the real reason for the industry’s difficulties. I said:

The last part of that message seemed to fall on deaf ears. On 27 October BL’s trade unions decided overwhelmingly to reject the company’s offer of a pay increase of 6.8 per cent and recommended a strike. Michael Edwardes wrote to Keith Joseph to say that a strike would make it impossible to achieve the 1981 Corporate Plan submitted just a week before. To win support for the pay offer, he wanted to write to inform union officials of the key aspects of the 1981 Plan, including the funds required for 1981 and 1982 — a figure which he would put at £800 million. I reluctantly accepted Michael Edwardes’s approach but only on the clear understanding that the Department of Industry would make it known that the Government was not committed in any way to finding these funds and that the matter had yet to be considered. In fact, on 18 November BL’s union representatives backed down and finally decided to accept the company’s offer. History repeated itself: almost the same thing had happened the previous year. The need to deal with an industrial relations crisis made it extremely difficult to avoid the impression that we were prepared to provide large amounts of extra public funding for the company. No matter how clear our disclaimers, inevitably people drew that conclusion.

On any rational commercial judgement, there were no good reasons for continuing to fund British Leyland. The 1980 Corporate Plan had foreseen the need for about £130 million of new government equity in the period of 1981 and beyond. In the 1981 Plan which we were now asked to approve that sum had grown by £1 billion. Meanwhile, the outlook for profits was worse. The predictions for market share in successive Plans had grown ever gloomier. Many of BL’s models were uncompetitive. The Metro and the BL/Honda Bounty would help, but neither would yield much in profits. BL was still a high-cost, low-volume manufacturer of cars in a world where low cost and high volume were essential for success.

On 12 January I held a meeting at No. 10 to discuss the Corporate Plan with Keith Joseph, Geoffrey Howe, Norman Tebbit and others. I continued to argue that we should try to find some middle way between total closure and fully funding the Corporate Plan.

I knew that closure of the volume car business, with all that would mean for the West Midlands and the Oxford area, would not be politically acceptable to the Cabinet or the Party, at least in the short term. It would also be a huge cost to the Exchequer — perhaps not very different to the sort of sums BL was now seeking. I told a meeting of ministers on 16 January that the Government must get rid of its financial liability for the volume car business in a way which was both humane and politically acceptable. We might need to pay a ‘dowry’ to make the car business attractive to a buyer: ultimately, of course, it might mean closure — the market, not government, would ultimately determine BL’s future. I said that I was in favour of supporting the BL Plan — but on condition that BL disposed of its assets rapidly or arranged mergers with other companies.

This last point was still extremely contentious. Michael Edwardes told Geoffrey Howe and Keith Joseph that the BL Board would be willing to sell Land Rover and such other parts of the business as they could and close down the volume car business: but they were not willing to sell Land Rover if they were also required to go on trying to salvage the volume car business. He said that the Board’s position would be quite impossible if a public deadline were to be set for its sale.

This attitude, of course, put us in a very difficult position — as it was doubtless intended to do. It irritated one or two ministers to the point of turning them against the whole Plan. Moreover, it had not been possible for us to find the ‘middle way’ which I had sought and which would have involved progressive sale of the business without a total and immediate shut-down. But the political realities had to be faced. BL had to be supported. We agreed to accept BL’s Corporate Plan, involving the division of the company into four more or less independent businesses. We settled the contingencies which would lead to the Plan being abandoned. We set out the objectives for further collaboration with other companies. And — most painfully — we provided £990 million.

This was not, of course, the end of the story for BL, any more than it was for BSC. In due course, it would be shown that the changes in attitude and improvements in efficiency achieved in these years were permanent.[31] To that extent, the account of our policy in 1979–81 towards BL is one of success — at a cost. But the huge extra sums of public money that we were forced to provide came from the taxpayer or, through higher interest rates needed to finance extra borrowing, from other businesses. And every vociferous cheer for higher public spending was matched by a silent groan from those who had to pay for it.