§ 2. Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the inventoral value in 1958, or later convenient date, of the twelve remaining nationalised steel companies, out of the sixty-two companies for which the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency was made statutorily responsible in 1953; having regard to sax years' operations by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, when the rest of these companies are to be de-nationalised; and whether he will state the policy of the Government in regard to existing investment by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in steel companies already de-nationalised.
§ Mr. BarberThe value of the net assets of the Agency's remaining subsidiaries at 30th September, 1958, was £89.6 million. As for the remainder of my hon. Friend's Question, I have no statement to make at present, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government has these matters under very active consideration.
§ Mr. NabarroWill my hon. Friend bear in mind that I contested the last General Election, at least in measure, upon an undertaking to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry at a very early date? As six years have elapsed since 1953, should not we be given an unequivocal assurance that the remaining £90 million worth of publicly-owned assets will be sold to private enterprise interests at the earliest moment?
§ Mr. BarberI explained that this is now under very active consideration. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.
§ Mr. MarquandWill not the Minister correct the figure given by his hon. Friend? Is it not true that in the wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency alone, leaving Richard Thomas out of account, some £200 million of share and loan capital is still held by the State?
§ Mr. BarberI have not immediately to hand detailed figures, but it is certainly true that the value of the net assets of the remaining subsidiaries, which I gave as £89.6 million, is not the total amount which is in the hands of the Agency, because it holds other assets.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Nabarro. Question No. 3.
§ Mr. NabarroWhat is the total amount?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I called the hon. Member for the next Question.
§ Mr. NabarroI am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you.
§ 4. Mr. Marquandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will refuse approval to all proposals of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to offer for sale any securities of its wholly-owned subsidiaries until it has disposed of all the remaining securities which it holds in companies of which it has already sold ordinary shares.
§ Mr. BarberNo, Sir. Different considerations apply to the two categories of sales and it would not be either logical or necessarily advantageous to adopt the right hon. Member's suggestion.
§ Mr. MarquandIs the hon. Member aware that the reports of the Agency show that it now holds £125 million of prior charge securities in these subsidiary companies and that it has advanced £40 million to the Steel Company of Wales? Have not the Government themselves advanced about £50 million to Colvilles, which is also a semi-denationalised company? In view of the large holdings by the State, on the basis of which ordinary shareholders have been able to make large profits and fantastic capital gains, would not he now do what his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) almost invited him to do and say that 1348 denationalisation has failed and stop it from now on?
§ Mr. NabarroNo, I did not say that.
§ Mr. BarberI am sure that was not a correct interpretation of what my hon. Friend said.
§ Mr. NabarroHear, hear.
§ Mr. BarberAs I replied in answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this is a matter which we have very much in mind.
§ Mr. LawsonWill the Economic Secretary bear in mind and read the report which appeared in the independent newspaper, the Spectator, where it is urged that if the Iron and Steel Board is to do its job properly on behalf of the nation, a substantial part of the steel industry should remain in public hands?
§ Mr. BarberI have not read that, but I will certainly look at it.
§ 5. Mr. Marquandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will present to Parliament a full report, covering the years 1953 to 1959, of the discharge by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency of the duty laid upon them by Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries.
§ Mr. BarberNo, Sir. The way in which the Agency has discharged its statutory duties is described in its successive Reports.
§ Mr. MarquandIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that we have had nothing at all from the Agency over five and a half years except financial statements, that there has been no indication whatsoever in the Agency's Reports of how it is managing its subsidiary undertakings? Is he aware that in my constituency the Agency disgracefully neglected the welfare of a company and quite recently closed it down and that we have no assurance that the future of other wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Agency remaining on Tees-side will not be similarly neglected and closed down? Are we never to get information which the Act requires the Agency to provide?
§ Mr. BarberRegarding the works in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, I think I am right in saying that that 1349 subject was fully debated some time ago when my predecessor was Economic Secretary. So far as I know, the information which is given is in accordance with the terms of the Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me know of any way in which it is not, I shall be glad to consider that.
§ Mr. MarquandIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that the words in my Question are taken directly from the Act,
to promote the efficient direction of their subsidiaries."?That does not mean that the Agency is merely to try to sell its subsidiaries, but is to try to run them like proper business enterprises. Surely it follows that, after five and a half years, Parliament is entitled to have a full report on the production activities, employment and practical business aspects of these subsidiaries which are wholly owned by the people.
§ Mr. NabarroWhy not debate I.S.H.R.A. on a Supply Day?
§ Mr. BarberThis is a matter which cannot be debated at Question Time. The Agency has discharged its functions as a holding company, and as provided for in the Act, through the appointment of directors who are held responsible for day-to-day management and through the supervision of the financial affairs of the subsidiary companies.
§ Mr. MarquandIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.