HC Deb 26 January 1970 vol 794 cc984-5
10. Mr. Michael Shaw

asked the Minister of Technology the total public investment in Beagle Aircraft Limited to date; and the total loss made by the company to date.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

Total Government expenditure in connection with the present company, viz. Beagle Aircraft Ltd., which was formed by Her Majesty's Government in July, 1968, is £2,659,000. This includes the cost of acquisition of the assets of the previous company from Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd. The draft accounts of the company for the period ended 31st March, 1969, indicate a trading loss of £1.1 million for the eight-month period.

Mr. Shaw

Would not the hon. Gentleman now agree that the original estimate of the sum needed to make this project viable was very large indeed? With the gift of hindsight, is it not now clear that the original owners of Beagle were right in their conclusion not to carry the matter any further?

Mr. Carmichael

My right hon. Friend dealt with this very fully in his statement. He said that, while we hoped that the company would be viable, when the new board examined the possibilities of the company in the light of the revised estimates and looked at the market, they reckoned that considerably more money and, perhaps, a little longer time would be needed before a proper entry could be made into this difficult though important market.

Mr. Montgomery

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern being felt by many firms which are owed a great deal of money by Beagle Aircraft? In view of the Government's involvement, does he not feel that they have a moral obligation to do something about these debts?

Mr. Carmichael

We are aware of the number of these firms, but that is a tot ally different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Corfield

But will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was a very short time prior to the insolvency of this company that the Government decided to purchase it? Is it not clear that it should have been possible to foresee the capital requirements much more accurately than was done? Should not an inquiry be held?

Mr. Carmichael

The investigation of the company showed that it seemed possible that it could be viable. It is just that the market proved particularly difficult. The Government decision, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, was that, given the difficulties and the priorities required for Government money, he did not consider that this was a top priority.