§ 17. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation's plans for reorganisation of the United Kingdom ball-bearing industry.
§ Mr. BennA basis for a viable British-owned element in the industry has now been established. A very full statement was issued by the I.R.C. on 21st May, copies of which I have put in the Library and sent to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneI am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. As the I.R.C. has used taxpayers' money to frustrate the bid from S.K.F., ostensibly on grounds of economic nationalism, and as the Government themselves miss no opportunity to encourage a take-over of British assets by American firms, can we take it that it is the view of the Government and their minions that any efforts to create companies of European scale which might frustrate American industrial colonisation of British assets are against British interests; and, if so, which?
§ Mr. BennI think that the hon. Gentleman is putting a political question on a 1346 subject which is extremly complicated and difficult. The Government's view of inward-investment has been explained on a number of occasions. Broadly speaking, we welcome it. It brings investment. It brings technology. It brings management. It creates bigger growth. However, as a Government and as a community we are bound to consider the effect of take-overs on the viability of important sections of British industry. We are guided in part in our attitude to this by the attitude of customers here who do not want to see important industries passing entirely out of British control. This was not activated by any hostility to S.K.F., as has been explained to S.K.F. both directly and indirectly.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeDoes the right hon. Gentleman at least recognise that the point which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has raised is of great importance, that where the throughput of British industry is not capable of becoming viable when in competition with overseas he must make a choice whether he wants to go in with Europe or in with America?
§ Mr. BennIn this area it is not a matter of political choice. One is looking at it industry by industry, at the nature and character of the firm concerned, and the long-term economic and balance of payments price one might pay by allowing certain critical firms to come under overseas control. However, it cannot be presented simply as a choice between Europe and the United States. It is much more complicated than that.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again on the Adjournment.