§ Queen's recommendation having been signified—
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—
- (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making payments to either of them by way of dividend capital and the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to either of them, subject to the following limits:—
- (a) the aggregate of—
- (i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Aerospace and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital, and
- (ii) the sums paid to British Aero space by way of public dividend capital,
- (b) the aggregate of—
- (i) the amounts for the time being outstanding, otherwise than by way of interest, in respect of money borrowed by British Shipbuilders and each of its wholly owned subsidiaries, other than money borrowed on excluded loans, and not including commencing capital; and
- (ii) the sums paid to British Shipbuilders by way of public dividend capital,
- (a) the aggregate of—
- (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders;
- (3) the charge on the National Loans Fund, with recourse to the Consolidated Fund, of the principal of and interest on government stock issued by way of compensation in accordance with provisions of the said Act of the present Session and the issue out of the National Loans Fund of any sums necessary to meet expenses incurred in connection with the issue of repayment of any such government stock and payments of interest on amounts of compensation prior to the issue of such stocks;
- (4)the payment out of money provided by Parliament, subject to the conditions specified in the said Act of the present Session, of any sums other than public dividend capital
1588 required by the Secretary of State for making payments to British Aerospace or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purpose of promoting the design, development or production of civil aircraft, subject to the limit that the aggregate of the sums so paid less any sums received by the Secretary of State (otherwise than by way of interest on money lent) in pursuance of the terms and conditions on which any such payment was made shall not at any time exceed £50 million;
- (5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
- (a) remuneration allowances and expenses to any individual appointed in pursurance of the said Act as a stockholders' representative;
- (b) remuneration and allowances to members and officers of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal established under the said Act of the present Session and other expenses of that tribunal; and
- (c) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the said Act;
- (6) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act;
- and for the purpose of this Resolution—
- (a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—
- (i) it consists of money borrowed by one of its wholly owned subsidiaries either from that body or from another of that body's wholly owned subsidiaries or of money borrowed by that body from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries; or
- (ii) it is a loan under section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 or a loan in respect of which payments are authorised under paragraph (4) above, or a loan under section 8 of the Industrial Expansion Act 1969 or section 7 or section 8 of the Industry Act 1972; or
- (iii) the purpose of the loan is to pay off the whole or any part of that body's commencing debt; or
- (iv) the purpose of the loan is to pay off a previous loan which was itself an excluded loan by virtue of sub-paragraph (iii) above of this sub-paragraph;
- (b) 'commencing capital', in relation to British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders, means such amount as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine under the said Act of the present Session;
- (c) 'commencing debt' means that part of the commencing capital which is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act as public dividend capital.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
- (a) a loan is an excluded loan in relation to either of the bodies corporate established by the said Act of the present Session if—
- and for the purpose of this Resolution—
§ 10.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
I should like to ask some questions about the Money Resolution. The country is having an expensive day today. I reckon that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will cost in the region of £1,000 million. After we have completed the procedure on the Bill we shall be spending £26 million on Alfred Herbert Limited, and after that, I gather about another £900 million will be spent on the OECD Support Fund Bill. Therefore, today's work will cost in the region of £2 billion. It seems right that we should ask a few questions, therefore, about what I call this "New York" Bill—which is what it is. It is the New York (No. 1) Bill of the Session 1975–76. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present on the Government Front Bench, because he has responsibility in these matters.
The sums set out in the Money Resolution indicate that we are to be prepared for £250 million for aircraft capital, £300 million for shipbuilding capital and grants of £50 million for research, and so on—making £600 million, which is specified and specific. But there is no estimate for the compensation, nor is there any estimate for the guarantees.
How come, first, that a Money Resolution put before the House has no limit specified whatsoever? There is no limit to how much can be spent for compensation, and no spokesman of the Government has told us what that will cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the Chancellor?"] It is not good enough for the Government to say that it is difficult to estimate because a lot of private company shares are concerned and they want to know exactly how much before they tell the House. The House is surely entitled to be told what the maximum liability is for compensation, because how can we assess the worthwhileness of this Money Resolution if we are not told what is involved in terms of money?
The first amount of money which will be coming out will be coming for compensation, so will the Government please say how much money is involved in compensation? Of course, I have no doubt that it is too little, in one sense. I do not expect that those who hold 1590 these assets will be terribly pleased with the compensation. But it is too much in another sense, because the country cannot afford it.
I want to consider for a moment, there-fore, just exactly the financial and economic consequences of what the Government are proposing. It is a favourite gimmick of the Prime Minister to say that it costs nothing to nationalise because all that one does it to swop one piece of paper for another. One exchanges equity snares for gilt-edged stock, and nothing goes through the books and there is no addition to public expenditure. Oh, no, he says; it is purely a book transaction.
That argument is totall fallacious. I should like to quote some words which were addressed to the Select Committee on Expenditure:Although when you give securities rather than cash on acquisition for public ownership it does not statistically come into either the borrowing requirement directly or into public expenditure, nevertheless there is a financing requirement. One accepts that and to that extent one will have to modify and deal with it inside the total financing requirements to be dealt with.And again:It is true that there may be a demand effect. How quickly it will take place is another matter. It will presumably happen over a period, to the extent that it is going to happen. Some will continue to be held"—that is, gilt-edged—some will be sold, and it may then be consumed rather than switched into some other form of investment. To that extent you are absolutely right, of course, that it has a demand effect.The myth that this transaction has no economic consequences has, therefore, been destroyed by the evidence of no less a person than the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, from whose words I have been quoting. I do not know where he has gone now. I do not know where the financial Ministers have gone. The Chief Secretary's evidence is very valuable. It has a great demand effect to issue gilt-edged stock in exchange for the securities listed in the Bill.
My second question—I do not know whether it is the Financial Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State for Industry who is to answer it—is: what will be the demand effect of the floating of this extra gilt-edged stock? The present Government have made the economy sodden with 1591 debt already. This is the "funny money" Ministry. It pays for everything with funny money. I should not be surprised if it started paying the doctors with gilt-edged securities one of these days. It pays for everything with paper, with lousy Government debt. It is flooding the market everywhere. One cannot suddenly take another £500 million or £600 million to pay for these assets and not expect it to have some effect on the financial climate in this country. I do not believe we can afford this.
How is it that these expenditures can avoid being published in the financial statements? If payment is made with gilt-edged, it does not appear anywhere. It does not appear in the public expenditure White Paper or in the Budget Estimates. It is a way of avoiding any sort of accountability to this House, but it does just as much damage to the economic viability of this country.
My third question—
§ Mr. Ridley
Quite a lot. My third question is: why is there no provision for losses in the Money Resolution? We know perfectly well that losses will arise. The Government have had one little flirtation with public provision of aircraft before. I do not know how many people remember the Beagle Aircraft Company. That cost the taxpayer a pretty penny. That was one of the more expensive flirtations with State ownership of manufacturing industry. It was buried with humiliation, with a huge bill which this House eventually had to meet to bail out the present Secretary of State for Energy.
We all know that, far from being profit-making, the aircraft industry will become one of the great loss-makers when it is nationalised. The same applies to shipbuilding. Shipbuilding is not all that profitable to start with, but when the "Loch Ness Ministers" have finished with it, it will be one of the biggest loss-makers that there has ever been.
I suppose that the sort of sums that we hear about in relation to the Post Office, the steel industry and the whole of 1592 the public sector are going to be charged up against—[Interruption]. If hon. Members do not like this—
§ Mr. Ridley
—they will have an opportunity to justify the expenditure which the House is being asked to vote tonight on this Money Resolution. I shall be delighted to hear what they have to say, but I wish they would first listen to what I have to say.
The Secretary of State for Industry said something extraordinary when he opened the debate this afternoon, that one of the overriding reasons for the Bill was that the workers wanted it—that is, all except the workers in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. who are getting it although they do not want it. Why do the workers want it? Surely that is the key. They want it because it is much easier to have one's wages paid directly out of the Exchequer without having to try. The disciplines in the private sector, where a man has to earn his living, and if he does not, the business goes bust and he loses his job, are very real indeed. In the public sector those disciplines do not exist any more. They are taken away.
Of course, the workers want nationalisation. I do not know any group of people who would not like to have their pay and pension linked directly to the Exchequer. It makes life a great deal easier, but it does not help to solve the economic problem of the country. Of course, it will result in losses. Where is the provision for losses in the Money Resolution? We know what will happen. The capital provisions will be used to bail out the losses which will be made by these two Corporations. Never will the losses be declared properly, as they should be, but this House will be asked to approve an Order increasing the capital limits. That capital money will go directly into financing wages. It will fuel inflation. It will fuel overmanning, restrictive practices and inflation in these very sectors.
This is the British disease. This is what is afflicting our industry. It is not the lack of rationalisation in the aircraft industry or the lack of modernisation in the shipbuilding industry. People are not using capital equipment because they do 1593 not have to. They are on strike and they are using overmanning techniques and restrictive practices which are forcing our industries to their knees. The Bill is a direct attempt to perpetuate, substantiate and further that situation.
The House should not approve the resolution. The money will be used not for the regeneration of British industry but for the degeneration of British industry. There is an even stronger reason for not approving the resolution, that we have not got the money. Where is the £600 million? Which taxes will be increased to raise it, or will it just go on top of the £9,000 million borrowing requirement we have already? That borrowing requirement also has to be increased by the cost of the compensation. On that subject, when shall we be told the terms of the compensation? We want to know.
Whether it is direct expenditure of money out of the Exchequer or an increase in the sea of debt in which this Government are waddling, we cannot afford it.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On the basis that the country cannot afford the money, will the hon. Gentleman adopt that principle tomorrow and vote against the Civil List provision?
§ Mr. Ridley
I do not intend to vote on the European business tomorrow. The hon. Member will no doubt turn up to do so. I am talking of real sums of economic significance. It is not Thursday's business here that will weigh down the economy but the daily overspending in which the Government are engaged. Not until the Labour Party realises that before one can spend money one must earn it shall we get our economy straight.
The resolution should not be passed because until we are prepared to face up to our responsibilities as guardians of the taxpayers' money we shall never cure Great Britain's economic problems.
§ 10.34 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)
When Colvilles was nationalised the cost of its central office totalled £80,000 a year. The cost of the Scottish division of the British Steel Corporation amounted to £3 million a year. These are very good reasons why shipbuilding should not be nationalised. Nationalising the aerospace and shipbuilding 1594 industries will cost Scotland far more than it costs us to run these companies at present.
§ 10.35 p.m.
§ Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby)
This Money Resolution needs a great deal more scrutiny than Money Resolutions are customarily given in this House, and I am delighted to associate myself with the penetrating words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
We have the astonishing situation that the Government have put down a resolution which spreads over three pages of the Order Paper, and yet they still cannot tell us how much will have to be paid in compensation. We are told that the Bill is justified because it was promised in the Labour Party's manifesto at the 1974 General Election. That has given them two years to work these things out, but they still cannot tell us how much the compensation will amount to.
We know that the loan capital will amount to about £600 million. We also know the formula for the calculation of compensation, and we know that this will provide a grossly inadequate figure for the shareholders. I am not, in this debate, so concerned with the effect on the shareholders, however, but with the effect on our national finances.
On this question the Government seem to speak with two voices. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury appeared before the General Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure he made it very clear, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out in the passage he quoted, that the financing of nationalisation by the issue of Government stock had a profound effect on the borrowing requirement and upon the whole of the Government's financing programme. Last Thursday, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequerwhat effect the payment of compensation for the compulsory State take over of the assets of HSD, HSA, BAC and Scottish Aviation Ltd., proposed in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will have upon the borrowing requirement.The Chief Secretary told himNone. Compensation will take the form of issue of Government stock."—[Official Report, 27th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 291.]1595 This means that the House has been misled in the gravest possible way. The truth is that the compensation would not add directly to the borrowing requirement, but it would make the existing borrowing requirement very much harder to finance in a non-inflationary manner. My hon. Friend asked not whether it increased the borrowing requirement, but what effect it would have. It has a most profound effect.
Perhaps I may refer Ministers to the public expenditure White Paper, where on pages 125 and 126 the contingency reserve—an arid subject, but one which involves a large amount of money—is dealt with. The White Paper says that some policies involving large amounts of money do not directly add a great deal to demand, and it quotes the example of the public ownership of certain industries, clearly bearing in mind the case now before us. It then says that thisdoes not mean, however, that large additional expenditures can necessarily be accommodated in a particular year, simply because they have a low direct demand content. The indirect effects arising from the financing of such expenditure will also need to be carefully considered. The rate at which the new policies such as those mentioned above can be developed, and their phasing in relation to each other, must pay full regard not only to their direct demand on resources, but also to their implications for the money supply, interest rates, and general financial conditions in the economy.I listened throughout to the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. He said not one word about all these other considerations which, according to the public expenditure White Paper, are vital to the health of our national economy
It is the height of irresponsibility and hypocrisy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say how serious it is to have a borrowing requirement of £12,000 million—and, indeed, it is very serious—and then for this measure to be put through the House, which makes the financing of that borrowing requirement infinitely harder, without any explanation of how this is to be accommodated, without even any reference to this central, crucial fact about the Bill and about the Money Resolution which accompanies it.
We need to be told tonight how much the amount of money is, how much the compensation will be. It is no use saying that it is impossible to estimate it because 1596 the arbitrator has not been at work yet. The range can be given. I am sure that within the Department there is a range, but the Government will not tell the House. We must be told not only that but how this will be accommodated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury asked, how is the demand effect—relatively small as it may be, compared with the financing effect, but still significant—to be accommodated? As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) asked at the beginning of the earlier debate, what public expenditure cuts will have to be made to accommodate it? What taxes will have to be increased? It was accepted by the Chief Secretary that there is a demand effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, quoting the Chief Secretary's evidence to the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee.
Above all, I return to the financing requirement, which is vast. It is the height of economic mismanagement, of profligate husbandry, if the Chancellor permits his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make the terrible task of financing this huge public sector borrowing requirement very considerably harder, and pushes up interest rates, as this addition to the Government debt must do, making all his other economic tasks harder. One can only reach the conclusion from the form of this Money Resolution, from the fact that the Bill is coming forward now, that the Chancellor has no longer the overriding say even in financial matters in the Cabinet.
§ Mr. Crawford
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the money the Chancellor is seeking is on the collateral of a thing called Scottish oil—£3,000 million per annum by 1980?
§ Mr. Lawson
All I know is that if there is independence for Scotland, Orkney and Shetland will be its Katanga and will have the oil.
I conclude by drawing attention to an interesting intervention in the Budget debate on 14th November, when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he is not present—began to enunciate the curious philosophy that there was no effect on the borrowing requirement as a result of 1597 nationalisation when it was financed by the issue of Government paper. There was an intervention, and he was rebutted. Who intervened and rebutted him? It was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who knows a great deal more about financial affairs than any other Labour Member.
So we want a serious answer to a serious point, and unless and until we get it I urge my hon. Friends to vote against this Money Resolution.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
The points raised by my hon. Friends are relevant. What is even more relevant is that it is clear that somewhere in the Government there must be estimates of what the cost of compensation will be. If there are such estimates, the House is being denied the information that it should have in considering this Money Resolution. The most charitable interpretation that can be put upon this is that Ministers are deliberately concealing information. The uncharitable interpretation is that they do not know. If they do not know—the Minister is nodding; I do not know whether that means he knows or does not know—[Interruption.] When we come to debate the nationalisation of the brewing industry the hon. Member can come and speak as a customer. It seems that the Government are not even willing to tell us whether it is ignorance or suspicion that they are practising tonight.
Apart from the question of compensation and the matter of the top level of expenditure which will result from this Money Resolution, there is the question of the bottom level. We do not know how little will be expended because we have had no statement whatever about how much money is to be invested by the Government in this industry.
The Under-Secretary, in a characteristic speech, made a sneering reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as the man who had been the big spender on the aircraft industry. Will he say whether in future there will be less money invested in the industry or more? That will give us the answer to the question whether there will be more jobs in the industry in future.
§ 10.47 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)
I would like to take this opportunity of apologising to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for not being able to give way to him during my reply to the earlier debate. There was a certain amount of noise at the time and it was not easy for me to complete my remarks on time. Otherwise, as he knows, I would gladly have given way to him. However, he has now been able to make his point at slightly greater length.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is a distinguished financial journalist. I do not wish him out of the House but I sometimes wish, whenever I read that rubbish in the Sunday Telegraph, that Nigel Lawson was back writing for it. The hon. Member rightly said that I am not financially instructed. I tell him, however, that I do understand what discounting means.
The problems in answering the hon. Member and the hon Members for Chingford and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is that they have discounted the only replies I can give. It is not possible to estimate the compensation because the process of negotiation and arbitration has still to take place before we arrive at the figure. The hon. Member for Blaby will have studied the Bill in detail and will know that large parts of it are devoted to laying down the methods of compensation and the arbitration procedure. These would be useless if we were not to abide by them.
§ Mr. Lawson
If the hon. Gentleman and the Government he represents have not the faintest idea what amount of money is involved in compensation, how on earth can they say that they can afford it?
§ Mr. Kaufman
We have gone through this matter in great detail. [Interruption.] It is something which the hon. Member and his Friends have discounted. We have made clear how the compensation will be paid. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has anticipated and rejected the only answer I can give him on stock compensation. Nevertheless, it is the only answer. He is quite right to talk about the possible effects of compensation stock on the growth of 1599 money supply. I do not quarrel with the points of principle which he has made. All I can say is that if a problem is created the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to take it into account in formulating future policies. I cannot go further than that. [Interruption.] We do not need lessons from the Conservative Party on cutting down the National Health Service.
It is even more difficult to answer the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) than it is to answer members of the Conservative Opposition because I do not think that he was present—if he was and I did not notice him, I apologise—during the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Gentleman had better settle his differences with the hon. Member for Dundee, East, because he says that he is against nationalisation of shipbuilding, although some of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland is already nationalised. The hon. Member for Dundee, East did not make a speech against the nationalisation of shipbuilding. All he did was to say that he did not want nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, of which Scottish shipbuilding was a subsidiary part. He wanted the Scottish Development Agency to be responsible, in whole or in part, for Scottish shipbuilding.
§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this question.
§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech in Hansard, he will find that I went into the question of nationalisation and suggested that the tools of the trade were freely available under existing legislation for the Government to have an interest in the control of shipbuilding without using the blunderbuss method of nationalisation.
§ Mr. Kaufman
That confirms what I said. I will gladly read the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I greatly enjoyed. I listened to it for 23 minutes. He is now saying that he is not against State participation in the Scottish shipbuilding 1600 industry, but he does not believe in the method proposed in the Bill. That is where he differs from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
§ Mr. Kaufman
I said that the hon. Gentleman had better settle his differences with his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. The hon. Gentleman has put on record the view that there is no disagreement in his party. It is probably the only united party in the House.
As for the speeches made by Conservative Members, I can only give the answers I have given. I am sorry if they are not satisfied with them.
§ 10.54 p.m.
§ Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)
The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for leading off this most important debate in such an admirable manner. The House will not have lost the significance of the Under-Secretary's words when he said, if I heard him aright, "I can only give the answers I am given".
§ Mr. Heseltine
I think that is what he said. I suspect that it is closer to the truth than probably any other statement made from the Government Dispatch Box today.
As a result of the answers we have had to the pertinent questions of my hon. Friends, we are clear about a number of apparent contradictions. First, the financial duties of the Corporation will be approved by the Treasury prior to being fixed by the Secretary of State for Industry. The financial duties have to show a result which, taken period with period, gives an adequate rate of return. If the Government, with ail the calculations in their possession, do not know the amount of capital that will be employed, how will they be able to fix a financial return which is adequate in any circumstances? Yet that is the duty which the legislation lays down. It is the duty from which the Under-Secretary of State seeks to excuse himself by saying that he can give the House only the answers that are given to him. As we all understand, political control of nationalised industries is a fiction. The Civil Service has neither 1601 the inclination nor the ability to exercise effective control on behalf of the democratic organs of our society.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) pointed out so graphically, the moment these organisations are created, the disciplines disappear, and losses inevitably and consequentially follow. The House has witnessed a vote, with a majority of five for a Government elected by 28 per cent. of the electorate, to transfer into State ownership two industries consisting of 43 companies employing 160,000 people. Those industries are to be subjected to the vacuous inanities that we have heard from Government supporters tonight. There is no mystery why nation alised industries have lost £1,000 million in the current year.
We all understand that the answers we have been given in our discussion on the Money Resolution are a total fiction. The Chief Secretary for the Treasury, in an off-guard moment, when he was asked in a television interview the very questions which my hon. Friends asked with such force, produced a figure of £300 million for compensation. I think that that is inadequate, but in front of the whole nation the Chief Secretary produced the answer which my hon. Friends are denied. Why? Because the Government do not wish to go on record as having fixed a figure by which, unquestionably, public expenditure will be increased on what they and the nation know to be the wholly unpalatable and doctrinaire extension of public ownership for no good reason.
If I had to question the speeches made by my hon. Friends I would do so in one material way. They were putting forward serious arguments. They were asking questions to which there should in theory be answers, as though they were debating facts and reasons and as though from the beginning the debate had been a genuine attempt to sort out the problems of British industry rationally, intelligently and logically. Everyone knows that the debate had nothing to do with that. We are here to deal with one essential matter—the Danegeld which the Government pay to their left wing to give a semblance of unity to the Labour Party in persuading the nation that there is a coherent 1602 strategy on which the Labour Government were elected.
Now we have to pay the price. We have to suffer the two worst speeches from the Government Front Bench that we have heard in this Parliament. We have to listen to a speech from the Undersecretary of State which is conspicuous only for its total and monumental irrelevance to the debate. I admire him for making a second speech in the Chamber today. If I had made the speech he made tonight I would not have spoken ever again in the Chamber. From 9.40 p.m., when he rose, until 10 p.m., when he sat down, he sought to disguise the fact that there were no answers that he was prepared to give, no matter what questions were asked from the Opposition Benches.
The tragedy is not the pathetic display of Labour Back Benchers but their naivety in hoping that jobs in their constituencies will be preserved and that, despite the record of three decades of nationalisation, this time nationalisation will deliver all the benefits promised by the wild theories that were designed in another generation by people who have long since departed this House and this life.
The constituents of those Government supporters who have been promised this key in the golden door, this endless outpouring of taxpayers' munificence, will be as disappointed on this occasion as were the 756,000 people who lost their jobs in steel, on the railways and in the coal mines after nationalisation, having been promised exactly the same illusory and hopelessly unrealistic bribes in election campaigns.
I have no doubt that in the next Queen's Speech, if the Government survive, we shall be presented with yet one more list of totally irrational proposals to extend the public sector. It is the only concept that the Labour Party understands. It wishes to transfer power from the people to its own dogmatic and obsessional hands. That is the argument, and that is why there are no answers and will be no answers except that of Labour's own dogmatic ends. For this reason we shall vote against the Money Resolution.
§ Question put:—1604
§ The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 269.1605
|Division No. 7.]||AYES||[11.1 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Magee, Bryan|
|Allaun, Frank||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Mahon, Simon|
|Anderson, Donald||Ford, Ben||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Archer, Peter||Forrester, John||Marks, Kenneth|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Marquand, David|
|Ashley, Jack||Fraser, John (Lambeth N'w'd)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Ashton, Joe||Freeson, Reginald||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Atkinson, Norman||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||George, Bruce||Meacher, Michael|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Gilbert, Dr John||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Bates, Alf||Ginsburg, David||Mikardo, Ian|
|Bean, R. E.||Golding, John||Millan, Bruce|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Gould, Bryan||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Gourlay, Harry||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Graham, Ted||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Moonman, Eric|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Grocott, Bruce||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Boardman, H.||Harper, Joseph||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Booth, Albert||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Moyle, Roland|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Hayman, Mrs Helene||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|Bradley, Tom||Hatton, Frank||Newens, Stanley|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Noble, Mike|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Heffer, Eric S.||Oakes, Gordon|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Hooley, Frank||Ogden, Eric|
|Buchan, Norman||Horam, John||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Buchanan, Richard||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Huckfield, Les||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Ovenden, John|
|Cant, R. B.||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Owen, Dr David|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Padley, Walter|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Cartwright, John||Hunter, Adam||Park, George|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Parker, John|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Parry, Robert|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Peart, Rt Hon Fred|
|Coleman, Donald||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Pendry, Tom|
|Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen||Janner, Greville||Perry, Ernest|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Corbett, Robin||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||John, Brynmor||Radice, Giles|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cryer, Bob||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Judd, Frank||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Kaufman, Gerald||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Kelley, Richard||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kerr, Russell||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Rooker, J. W.|
|Deakins, Eric||Kinnock, Nell||Rose, Paul B.|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Lambie, David||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lamborn, Harry||Sandelson, Neville|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Dempsey, James||Leadbitter, Ted||Selby, Harry|
|Doig, Peter||Lee, John||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Dunn, James A.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Short, Mrs René e (Wolv NE)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lipton, Marcus||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Eadie, Alex||Litterick, Tom||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Edge, Geoff||Loyden, Eddie||Sillars, James|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Luard, Evan||Silverman, Julius|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Skinner, Dennis|
|English, Michael||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Small, William|
|Ennals, David||McCartney, Hugh||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||McElhone, Frank||Snape, Peter|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Spearing, Nigel|
|Evans, John (Newton)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Stallard, A. W.|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Maclennan, Robert||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Stoddart, David|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)||McNamara, Kevin||Stonehouse, Rl Hon John|
|Flannery, Martin||Madden, Max||Stott, Roger|
|Strang, Gavin||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Swain, Thomas||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Ward, Michael||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Watkins, David||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)||Watkinson, John||Woodall, Alec|
|Thorne, Stan (Preston South)||Weetch, Ken||Woof, Robert|
|Tierney, Sydney||Weitzman, David||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Tinn, James||Wellbeloved, James||Young, David (Bolton e)|
|Tomlinson, John||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Tomney, Frank||White, James (Pollok)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Torney, Tom||Whitlock, William||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Tuck, Raphael||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick||Mr. Laurie Pavitt|
|Adley, Robert||Fairgrieve, Russell||Knox. David|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Fell, Anthony||Lamont, Norman|
|Alison, Michael||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Lane, David|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Arnold, Tom||Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Awdry, Daniel||Fookes, Miss Janet||Lawson, Nigel|
|Bain, Mrs Margaret||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Baker, Kenneth||Fox, Marcus||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Banks, Robert||Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Beith, A. J.||Freud, Clement||Lloyd, Ian|
|Bell, Ronald||Fry, Peter||Loveridge, John|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Luce, Richard|
|Benyon, W.||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||MacCormick, lain|
|Biffen, John||Gilmour, Sir John (East Flfe)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Biggs- Davison, John||Glyn, Dr Alan||McCusker, H.|
|Blaker, Peter||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Body, Richard||Goodhart, Philip||MacGregor, John|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Goodhew, Victor||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Goodlad Alastair||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Madel, David|
|Bradford, Rev Robert||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)||Marten, Neil|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Gray, Hamish||Mates, Michael|
|Brittan, Leon||Griffiths, Eldon||Mather, Carol|
|Brotherton, Michael||Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Maude, Angus|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Grist, Ian||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hall, Sir John||Mawby, Ray|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Budgen, Nick||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hampson, Dr Keith||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Burden, F. A.||Hannam, John||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hastings, Stephen||Moate, Roger|
|Carr, Rt Hon Robert||Havers, Sir Michael||Molyneaux, James|
|Carson, John||Hawkins, Paul||Monro, Hector|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hayhoe, Barney||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Henderson, Douglas|
|Churchill, W. S.||Heseltine, Michael||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hicks, Robert||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Higgins, Terence L.||Morgan, Geraint|
|Clegg, Walter||Hooson, Emlyn||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Cockcroft, John||Hordern, Peter||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Cope, John||Howell, David (Guildford)||Mudd, David|
|Cormack, Patrick||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Corrie, John||Hurd, Douglas||Neubert, Michael|
|Costain, A. P.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Newton, Tony|
|Crawford, Douglas||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Nott, John|
|Crouch, David||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Crowder, F. P.||James, David||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Osborn, John|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Jessel, Toby||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Pardoe, John|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Pattle, Geoffrey|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Jopling, Michael||Penhaligon, David|
|Dunlop, John||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Percival, Ian|
|Durant, Tony||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Pink. R, Bonner|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Kershaw, Anthony||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Elliott, Sir William||Kilfedder, James||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Emery, Peter||Kimball, Marcus||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Eyre, Reginald||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Raison, Timothy|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Knight. Mrs Jill||Rathbone, Tim|
|Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Sinclair, Sir George||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Viggers, Peter|
|Reid, George||Speed, Keith||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Spence, John||Wakeham, John|
|Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Wall, Patrick|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Sproat, lain||Walters, Dennis|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Stainton, Keith||Watt, Hamish|
|Ridsdale, Julian||Stanbrook, Ivor||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Stanley, John||Wells, John|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Welsh, Andrew|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Stokes, John||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Ross, William (Londonderry)||Stradling Thomas J.||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Tapsell, Peter||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Royle, Sir Anthony||Taylor, R (Croydon NW)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Sainsbury, Tim||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|St. John-Stevas, Norman||Tebbit, Norman||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Scott, Nicholas||Temple-Morris, Peter||Younger, Hon George|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)||Mr. Michael Roberts and|
|Shepherd, Colin||Thompson, George||Mr. Cecil Parkinson|
|Shersby, Michael||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Sims, Roger||Trotter, Neville|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of two bodies corporate to be called British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders, it is expedient to authorise—