MOTOR INDUSTRY (TARIFFS) (Hansard, 17 May 1971)

§ Mr. Atkinson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, the refusal of the Prime Minister to take any action to restore confidence in the British motor industry following the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment concerning import tariffs. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has left the Chamber. I wanted to refer to one or two of his comments. I am not insensitive to time or to the importance of the debate which is about to follow. Therefore, I make only one or two brief comments, and I hope that my brevity will not undermine the importance of the issue I am raising.

The first point relates to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just given; that is, that the Government have complete autonomy in the whole business of import tariffs. I suggest that that is not so. Surely it is 915 the House of Commons that has autonomy in finance matters of this kind. It is utterly wrong for the Secretary of State to claim that the Government have autonomy to fix import charges or tariffs generally concerning industry. He is misleading the House and should withdraw that statement, because it is totally inaccurate and an insult to Members of Parliament who adhere to the rules of the House and an insult to the power which the people give to Members of Parliament when they elect them to put a point of view on their behalf.

The first point about this matter is the serious situation in which we are now placed relative to the car industry. A very important matter arises on Thursday. It is the intention of the Opposition and of the Labour Party to inaugurate a campaign for a reduction in purchase tax. This is vitally affected by statements made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is the intention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) to move that purchase tax on motor cars be reduced from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent. For a motor car costing£800 this means a reduction of more than£50. This debate cannot proceed adequately and intelligently unless the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is prepared to make a further statement in the House and to give some details of his thoughts about the whole question of import tariffs, without which it will be impossible for the House to come to a conclusion on Thursday when on a vote we shall be asked to judge whether purchase tax on motor cars should be reduced by 6⅔ per cent.

This is a very serious question affecting the motor car industry and the many thousands of workers which it employs. Yet on Thursday we shall be voting in the absence of further information, and a decision will be further complicated by the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given to supplementary questions this afternoon.

I submit to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important that we should now have an emergency debate to clear up some of the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given following his 916 statement over the weekend and the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment. The contradiction in the whole of this area of Government policy means that on Thursday we cannot come to a conclusion which will do justice to the car industry. It is necessary to have a debate as soon as possible.

My second point relates to the increased competition to which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has referred. He complains that my logic is extremely complicated. But surely, in the simplest manner, this is the argument that he used over the weekend. If he is to give an advantage to importers of foreign cars over British manufacturers, he is saying that it is the patriotic duty of people to buy foreign cars instead of British-manufactured cars. That is the element of competition for which he is arguing in the case of motor-car manufacturer. It is up to him to come to the House to clear up this matter and say clearly that that is not the Government's intention and that they are not arguing that it is the patriotic thing to do to buy foreign motor cars to cut the wage demands of workers employed in our car industry.

Further on that subject, we have the experience of the cotton industry and many others that where foreign products have been introduced on the basis of lower tariffs, it has cut back investment and ultimately murdered those industries in a way that I am certain that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not wish to see happen to the British motor industry. There is obviously a tendency to cut investment, and we have seen many examples of this in post-war years.

Finally, there is the whole question of the hysterical attitude towards wages generally. Most hon. Members opposite have no understanding of what the wage levels in industry are. We should get away from the hysteria in talking about abnormal wage increases as though they are crippling industry. Many of us on this side pay our respects to trade union negotiators who are doing their best to lift the level of demand in Britain and to create a possible setting for increased growth.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me these few minutes to say a few words as to why 917 we should have an emergency debate before Thursday's debate on the Finance Bill.