Colvilles and Richard Thomas & Baldwins

HC Deb 08 March 1961 vol 636 cc465-7

53. Mr. Nabarro

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the steel loans to Colvilles and Richard Thomas & Baldwins Limited under the Statute of 1960 will be taken up in the current financial year 1960–61; and what further progress by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency he can now report in the denationalisation of steel.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)

The figures are £15 million and £12.million respectively. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 21st February.

Mr. Nabarro

In view of the very great success of the £85 million steel issue on the Stock Market last week and the fact that the whole of the issue has been substantially over-subscribed, thus demonstrating the buoyancy of the Stock Market for issues of this kind, is it necessary far Government money to continue to be lent either to Colvilles or to Richard Thomas and Baldwins and should not the latter be entirely denationalised at an early date?

Mr. Barber

This money is being lent under art Act of Parliament which has the approval of the House. As for the future operations of the Agency, it is well known—and the reasons for it are understood by the House—that neither my right hon. Friend nor I can make any further observations.

Mr. Woodburn

Is not the success of this operation an indication that the Government have thrown all these Governments assets on the market as a jumble sale bargain lot?

Mr. Barber

No, Sir. The prices at which these stocks were quoted at the close of trading yesterday evening give no support at all to that suggestion. The offer prices were fixed after the most careful consideration of the best advice available.

Mr. Nabarro

Is it not possible for the Act referred to in the Question to be repealed in order to negative any further public moneys—that is, taxpayers' moneys—being devoted to these purposes when the balance of the money is readily available from private investors on the Stock Market? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Barber

My hon. Friend knows the constitutional position as well as I, and I do not think that he needs me to answer the question.

Mr. M. Foot

In view of the fact that Richard Thomas and Baldwins Limited is the most successful steel firm in the country, can the Minister give one good reason why it should be denationalised?

Mr. Barber

Yes, Sir. Because in three successive elections we put that intention before the country.

Mr. Foot

Is the Minister aware that in all the statements made by the Steel Federation at the time of the General Election and in all the publicity put out by the Conservative Party, no reference was made to the fact that Richard Thomas and Baldwins was publicly owned, and that in fact they fiddled in these declarations which were made to the electorate in that the figures were concealed, because the figures of the exports of steel allegedly done by private enterprise firms included those done by the publicly-owned Richard Thomas and Baldwins?

Mr. Barber

No. There has been no concealment whatever. Our position has been made clear at successive General Elections. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is our hope, and indeed our intention, that the whole process of denationalisation will be substantially completed during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Strauss

Does the Minister agree that the only financial effect of denationalising Richard Thomas and Bald-wins would be to divert large sums of money annually from the steel industry, where it can be used for the production of steel and in the interests of the steel industry, to the benefit of private investors and shareholders who contribute nothing whatever Ito the steel industry?

Mr. Barber

No. I do not accept that.