HC Deb 13 July 1970 vol 803 cc1134-6
37. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

asked the Minister of Technology when he will complete his review of the future of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.

Mr. Rippon

I cannot commit myself to a date at this stage.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In the course of his review, will he look closely at the latest development by which, apparently, customers of the machine tool industry are to receive additional doles of taxpayers' money on condition that they are spent on buying machine tools from companies which have already fallen into the I.R.C. maw?

Mr. Rippon

I will look into that point.

Mr. Benn

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman publish the text of the general direction which he gave the I.R.C., which he announced last week, telling it not to act without consultation with him?

Mr. Rippon

It was not necessary to give a general direction although, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have power to do so. We came to an agreement.

46. Mr. Douglas

asked the Minister of Technology if he will publish details of the assistance given by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to firms in Scotland since its formation.

Mr. Rippon

I have arranged for such information as is available to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member may also find it useful to refer to the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs 1968–69. (House of Commons Paper No. 397.)

Mr. Douglas

Will the Minister admit that the evidence indicates that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has been a useful and beneficial device to restructure industry in Scotland? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow the corporation to go on with its job rather than veto proposals put to him by it?

Mr. Rippon

As I said, the future of the I.R.C. is under consideration. A lot of the work that it has done has certainly proved beneficial in Scotland and elsewhere.

Following is the information:

The following companies with registered offices in Scotland have received assistance from the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation:

Company I.R.C. Financial Assistance £ million
Nuclear Enterprises Ltd. 0.6
Coats Patons Ltd. —
The Weir Group Ltd (merger with The Harland Engineering Co. Ltd.) —
The Donside Paper Co. Ltd. 2.0
Bruce Peebles Industries Ltd. (Standby credit of £4 million.)
The Weir Group Ltd. (take-over of Osborn-Hadfields Steel Founders Ltd.) 1.25
Clarke Chapman & Co. (England based) (takeover of Sir William Arrol & Co. (Scottish based)) 2.0

Other companies in receipt of I.R.C. assistance will in some cases have applied this to Scottish projects; but it is not possible to identify the extent of this precisely.

47. Mr. Douglas

asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make public the grounds on which he will judge mergers proposed to him by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.

Mr. Rippon

Until the review of I.R.C.'s future has been completed, I shall consider each new project proposed by I.R.C. on its merits. My concern will be to ensure that intervention, and the use of public funds, is justified in each case.

Mr. Douglas

If the right hon. Gentleman will not give the views which he put to the I.R.C. during the discussions, may I ask whether he will make public the views of the I.R.C. to him?

Mr. Rippon

We reached mutual agreement that the obligations of the I.R.C., the commitments that it had already entered into, would be honoured and that thereafter it would consult me about fresh proposals.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the I.R.C. was set up it was assumed that mergers would be its main rôle? But since then it seems to have crept into operating more as a merchant bank than as a merger promoter.

Mr. Rippon

I agree that mergers are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity.

Mr. Benn

Are we to understand from what the Minister said that every decision by the I.R.C. is now to be the subject of Ministerial accountability to the House and, thus, the independence of the I.R.C., provided for by Statute, is to be replaced by Ministerial responsibility for everything that it does?

Mr. Rippon

The statutory responsibility remains as laid down in the Act.