HC Deb 25 March 1974 vol 871 cc16-7
16. Mr. Watkins

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he is considering for the construction of a Japanese-owned ball-bearing factory in the north-east of England.

Mr. Heffer

A Japanese company announced in January its decision to set up such a factory in the United Kingdom, and I understand that it has chosen a site in Peterlee, County Durham—a special development area. The project is planned to provide employment for about 220 people, and the company is prepared to give certain assurances about the way in which it proposes to operate here.

Mr. Watkins

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in my constituency that the jobs of workers at the Ransome Hoffmann Pollard plant at Ann-field Plain, and also the long-term prosperity of that plant, might well be threatened by that development? Can he give me a firm assurance that no British money will be used to assist any Japanese threats to British industry and jobs?

Mr. Heffer

As regards any threat to the workers at Ransome Hoffmann Pollard, at Annfield Plain, I am informed that the ball bearings that would be made by the Japanese company will in no way compete with those made at that factory, and there is, therefore, no question of competition with it. As regards aid and grants to incoming companies, not only from Japan but from other countries, we cannot give a categorical assurance that they would not receive grants. Obviously, we should not now have in many areas, particularly special development areas, American and other companies unless there had been some inducement offered to them.

Mr. Chataway

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he said, and the way in which he phrased his answer, does not mean that the Government will be discriminating against foreign investors and will continue to give regional development grants and all automatic grants on the same basis to overseas investors as to investors in this country? Is it not better that there should be investment in this country—particularly, as in this case, where over 50 per cent. of the product is to be exported—rather than that investment should go to Eire or Belgium and the product be imported into this country?

Mr. Heffer

I think that the right hon. Gentleman read more into my reply than was there. Inward investment will continue as before, but, obviously, we are concerned and interested to protect British jobs, as any Government ought to be. The matter is under discussion for the longer term, but there is no question of changing the situation.