HC Deb 14 May 1973 vol 856 cc994-6
4. Mr. Meacher

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will amend the Companies Act to require the disclosure of information by international companies which hold a United Kingdom subsidiary of specified data relating to their global operations.

Sir G. Howe

I am at present reviewing company law including the requirements for disclosure by companies, whether national or international, operating in this country.

Mr. Meacher

Is the Minister aware that the recent revelation that Hoffmann-La Roche is selling drugs to its British subsidiary for sale to the National Health Service at more than 40 times the commercial price indicates that multi-national companies are holding the British taxpayer and consumer to inordinate ransom? Is not the Treasury's recent indication that it is not even seeking an estimate of the hugely inflationary effects of false transfer pricing utterly irresponsible at a time of so-called price control?

Sir G. Howe

The hon. Gentleman's phrase "inordinate ransom" is a characteristic over-statement——

Mr. Meacher

Forty times the commercial price!

Sir G. Howe

I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, transfer pricing between multi-national companies has to be taken into account, whether in the context of counter-inflationary policy— where it specifically is taken into account now—or in the context of anti-monopoly legislation, where it specifically has been in relation to the Roche decision. It would be wrong to conclude that multinational companies are always to be judged on the negative side. They contribute a great deal in terms of growth and employment in this country, as in many others.

Mr. Benn

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman connect in his mind the last three Questions which he has dealt with? Slater Walker paid its African workers in South Africa at rates below subsistence level. Roche, another international company, overcharged the Government. Far from overstating the case, the Opposition are revealing the deliberate blindness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman towards the interests of his business friends.

Sir G. Howe

Of course the matters can be connected in that way——

Mr. Benn

And should be.

Sir G. Howe

—and, indeed, should be. Of course all these matters must be looked at again. But, again, it is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to look at only one side of the balance when he considers it. Slater Walker may have underpaid its African workers but it nevertheless brought investment and employment to South Africa. Roche may have overcharged the National Health Service——

Mr. Benn

May?

Sir G. Howe

Indeed, was overcharging the National Health Service—but it was making available drugs which had not otherwise been forthcoming. By all means let us look at these questions together but with a sense of balance as well.

Mr. Benn

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the answer he has now given to the House seeks to put into the balance the African workers on starvation wages and set that against the so-called benefits of investment in South Africa? Similarly the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to put into the balance his own case against Roche which has overcharged the National Health Service, against the so-called benefits of research and development. Is it not clear that the Government are determined at all costs to protect the resources of their own political supporters in this country?

Sir G. Howe

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government's decision in relation to Roche Chemical Products indicates a determination to protect the resources of Government supporters, he would think almost anything. It is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman always to see only one side of the balance and to be incapable of making a true balance.