§ 15. Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of loans and grants of public money offered or made in the last two years to the steel, cotton, motor car, aircraft and shipping industries; and what part of this total consisted of loans and grants, respectively.
§ Sir E. BoyleSince 1st April, 1958, grants of about £30½ million and loans of £120 million have been offered to these industries; grants of about £600,000 have been issued, plus loans of £16 million.
§ Mr. JayAre not these staggeringly large figures of financial aid from the taxpayer to private enterprise? Is it the policy of the Conservative Party that these tens of millions should be handed over to private firms without the taxpayer receiving in return any share of the profits of the firms?
§ Sir E. BoyleWe cannot debate this matter now, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and this is a view with which I think he might sympathise—that it can be a mistake to be too theological about this. It is much better to look at the needs and problems of each industry in turn. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down Questions about them, he might well do so.
Mr. H. WilsonWhile always discounting excessive ventures into theology, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, from his experience as Economic Secretary—I think he was Economic Secretary—responsible for D.A.T.A.C., it was not Treasury policy in those days to have Treasury-appointed directors to look after the Treasury loans to these companies? Is it not a fact that, despite all that the Conservative Party told us at the election, the Treasury is going a long way towards buttressing up private enterprise with these loans? Should not the State, having shared the risks, share any profits?
§ Sir E. BoyleI do not think that D.A.T.A.C. was in existence when I was Economic Secretary. In any case, the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is on a rather different matter. If he would like to put it on the Order Paper, I will gladly answer it at some other time.
Mr. WilsonIs the hon. Member aware that D.A.T.A.C. has been in existence continuously since 1945 and that he himself has written a number of letters to hon. Members, including some to me, explaining in great detail why D.A.T.A.C. turned down a particular proposition and why he was satisfied that D.A.T.A.C. was right to turn it down? Will he look at this matter again?
§ Sir E. BoyleI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for refreshing my memory. That was a lapse of memory. If he wishes to put down a Question about D.A.T.A.C. directorships, he had better do so.