HC Deb 18 February 1975 vol 886 cc1267-97

10.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer)

I beg to move: That the Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved. Section 8(6) of the Industry Act 1972 stipulates that the aggregate of sums paid plus the liabilities under any guarantee granted under Section 8, exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on a principal sum so guaranteed, and less any sums received by way of repayment, shall not exceed the limits defined in Section 8(7). This provides that the limit shall be £150 million, but may be increased, on not more than four occasions, by order made with the consent of the Treasury, such increases not exceeding £100 million on any occasion.

Section 7, which deals with financial assistance, is principally directed towards the provision, maintenance or safeguarding of employment in assisted areas and is not subject to these limits. The order is therefore concerned solely with sums which the Government have paid or undertaken to pay under Section 8 with the aim of benefiting the economy of any part or area of the United Kingdom and is in the national interest. The aggregate of assistance on the basis defined in Section 8(6) approved since the Industry Act 1972 was granted the Royal Assent now stands at just over £125 million. The Government consider it prudent to invite the House to approve the order increasing the limit from £150 million to £250 million.

Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

It would help the House greatly, in view of the fact that a large amount of this assistance has been publicised, if the hon. Gentleman will provide the House with a breakdown of the £125 million to which he has just referred.

Mr. Heffer

If the hon. Gentleman will only contain himself I will endeavour to do my best in that direction either a little later in my introductory speech or when I reply to the points that are raised in the debate.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

On the last occasion that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry responded to an occasion such as this he told us that he would reply at the end of the debate and give the sort of detailed information that my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) requests. Then, with what the right hon. Gentleman regards as a sort of skill, he totally avoided giving answers to the points that had been raised. There will be many orders of this sort coming before the House under the Industry Bill and I must tell the hon. Gentleman seriously that we will not tolerate being treated in this way by him or by his right hon. Friend. We shall resist the orders increasingly and with greater determination unless we are given the facts as we ask for them and as we are entitled to have them.

Mr. Heffer

If hon. Members will only contain themselves I will come to the points that have been raised. I am not trying to avoid any of the questions that will be asked. Hon. Members should also understand that I will not tolerate rudeness from any hon. Member.

The House will wish to be reminded of the schemes of assistance approved to date. There have been two broad industry schemes introduced under Section 8. The first, announced in July 1973, was aimed at encouraging firms in the wool textile industry to improve their production facilities through modernisation of machinery and mills, and to eliminate surplus capacity. The second, announced in November 1973, was designed to help United Kingdom firms to compete with overseas suppliers in the market for goods and services in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf. Both of these were introduced by the previous administration, and the total of sums earmarked and payments due on eligible contracts registered stands at some £48 million.

Assistance to individual companies under Section 8 has been granted for the formation of Norton Villiers Triumph and Kearney and Trecker Marwin (Holdings) Ltd., for two projects in support of activities on the United Kingdom continental shelf, and through certain guarantees. In July 1973, assistance of £4.9 million was provided to set up NVT, and in the same year £1.45 million to Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

Will the Minister confirm what equity stake was made by the Government in NVT?

Mr. Heffer

I cannot offhand give the answer. If I can obtain that information before the end of the debate, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman.

The total expenditure and commitments incurred through proposals advanced by the Conservative administration amount to nearly £55 million.

Since the Labour Government took office, further assistance of up to £3.5 million, mainly in preference shares, has been offered for the formation of Kearney and Trecker Marwin (Holdings) Limited. Offers to a value of nearly £1.2 million have been made to assist in the construction of an oil rig maintenance vessel and a drill ship and guarantees totalling £3.25 million have been made available to the principal bankers of Alfred Herbert Limited and Scientific & Medical Instruments Limited in order to sustain their operations while their longer-term future is settled. The guarantees of £50 million to support BLMC and its subsidiaries, approved by the House on 18th December last, is currently under negotiation with the company and other interests involved.

In addition, £4.95 million was offered under the terms announced by my right hon. Friend on 29th July last year to establish a workers' co-operative to manufacture motor cycles at Meriden, and a resolution seeking the authority of the House for a guarantee of £8 million to NVT stands on the Order Paper. Discussions are well advanced towards the completion of the necessary arrangements to establish the co-operative, and when these have been completed the House will be requested to approve this resolution. The total value of these offers and commitments leaves less than £25 million of the present £150 million uncommitted.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I think that the Minister, probably unwittingly, has left out the £1.75 million promised to the Scottish Daily Express when certain workers on 27th July 1974 promised to set up a co-operative. Will he say why this sum is not included in the list?

Mr. Heffer

We are talking about Section 8 assistance, not about Section 7 assistance. Section 7 assistance does not come within the present order.

We are currently considering a number of schemes aimed at assisting particular sectors of industry, and there are several companies in discussion about possible assistance to secure their operations. Moreover, there remains the possibility of further unexpected calls upon the Government to support companies eligible for assistance under Section 8. I am sure therefore that the House would not wish the Government's freedom to apply the powers available under this section to such constructive purposes to be inhibited by the current statutory limit.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

Before concluding his remarks, will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the approximate annual profit that might be expected from the £125 million advanced under Section 8?

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman is asking for more than I can possibly give him now. I am not trying to duck the matter. I do not know the figure. There is no point in my trying to duck anything. However, I shall see whether anything can be done to collect the information. I think that it will prove a difficult job. Nevertheless, if it can be done, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.

Finally, I ask the House to approve the order.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley)

The way in which the Minister provided the information was exemplary, and my intervention earlier in the debate was unnecessary. I pay that tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The only justification for my intervention was that, having heard almost the same words from him as I heard from his right hon. Friend in the earlier debate, I was fearful that we were to be treated in the same way. I am delighted that we are not to be so treated and hope that this precedent will be followed in the future.

I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a little information about the £40 million off-shore credit scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) asked for that information in a recent Written Question. The answer did not include information about the £40 million referred to this evening as one of the outstanding liabilities under the Industry Act. I think that it will help to fill in our background knowledge if the hon. Member will include this information when he replies.

The Opposition are anxious about the way in which this money, if it is made available, might be used. It should not be suggested that the Opposition intend to be obstructive over the way in which the Industry Act is used. We rightly put that measure on the statute book. We believed that it had a valuable purpose to play. If properly administered, with the proper safeguards, it will undoubtedly be of value to industry.

Our preoccupation is not with the principle of the work that can be done under the Industry Act, in the last resort, in Section 8 cases. Rather it is with the sort of techniques which the Government have used, both in the substance of the aid that they have given and in the techniques—this point is more significant—that they have used to avoid both public and parliamentary scrutiny of what they have been doing.

Hon. Members may find that the set of dates I intend to give is pure coincidence. However, those hon. Members who have been in Parliament for some time may think that the coincidence to which I now refer stretches the mind to the point of incredulity. On Friday 26th July we heard about the Scottish Daily Express, on Friday 1st November we heard about the IBD, on Friday 6th December about British Leyland, on Friday 13th December about Aston Martin, and on 20th December about Kirkby. If I am to be told that this is not because the Secretary for Industry understands that the national Press on Saturdays reaches a smaller circulation than the publications on Fridays or on any other day of the week, I shall refuse to believe it.

We all know that Ministers have at their disposal the opportunity to present information to this House at the moment most likely to maximise or minimise its impact. We have all seen that happen. I should be grateful if, in future, the Secretary of State for Industry, his officials or Ministers in the Department would ensure a reasonable spread of coincidence about the dates on which information is disclosed to the House and to the public. At least balance the odds. Give us a break. Let the Press and hon. Members have a chance. The Government have their Fridays. At least give us the odd Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to one of the new refinements that the Secretary of State for Industry has developed in this technique of blandishing us with non-information. There was, for example, the way in which the Kirkby statement, which had to be published at the insistence of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, was produced. The right hon. Gentleman knew—I must be frank and declare that the word got to me in advance—that that was what might be termed a hot potato and that it would not be expedient for that information to reach the House of Commons except at the most convenient moment from his point of view.

I got to hear of that situation rather later than the Minister. Therefore, I took the immensely obvious defensive procedure of putting down a priority Written Question on the Monday before the House rose for the Christmas Recess because I knew that it would have to be answered on the Thursday. I asked whether the Secretary of State for Industry would make a statement about the information that he had about the Kirkby co-operative. On the Thursday I got the answer. The right hon. Gentleman said: I am arranging for a statement to be laid before the House before the recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 580.] I need not point out to hon. Members that the House was rising on the following day.

I did not even get the Answer to that Question on the Thursday until well past the normal time for getting Answers to Questions. I had to ring the right hon. Gentleman's Department at five o'clock to ask where my priority Written Answer was. Needless to say, I was here at 11 o'clock on the Friday morning waiting for the answer in the form of the statement that I knew had to come. But it did not arrive. Therefore, at twelve o'clock and one o'clock, when it still had not come, I decided to try to get it through the usual channels. I then had some lunch. I was not diligent between one o'clock and two o'clock. But by two o'clock I was back on duty, and by that time the answer had arrived.

I have to tell hon. Members that the staff of this House were at that time in some state of merriment not in any way associated with the issue of the Kirkby document. Even the Press Gallery was not quite as attentive to its duties as it might normally be.

The Secretary of State hoped that he had achieved the ultimate objective of releasing the least palatable piece of information about the Industry Act at the most harmless moment that he could conceivably have chosen.

I have set out the record at some length, not without a certain amount of admiration for the duplicity with which the right hon. Gentleman informed us of the situation, because it shows what politicians who believe in the art of politics as opposed to anything else are capable of doing when they put their minds to it. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time on the problems of British industry than on Parliament, British industry would be better off. We have seen through him and would be grateful if in future he would not try it again.

I turn next to another area of accountability and mistreatment under the Act. I refer to the treatment of the Industrial Development Advisory Board. The Board was set up because, as we know from the two-day debate on the Industry Bill, politicians are likely to interfere, for curious reasons, in the disposal of funds at their command. Therefore, Parliament in its wisdom—the Paymaster-General was right to point out that it was pressure from outside, not from Parliament itself—put the safeguard of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and other measures into the Industry Act 1972.

It has not been convenient for the Secretary of State for Industry to find any form of discipline imposed on the way that he disposes of the funds made available to him under the Act. Therefore, when the Court Line situation arose he did not take the trouble to consult his advisers, although statutorily he should have done so. When Harland and Wolff was to receive money, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told the House that it was not even necessary to consult the Industrial Development Advisory Board.

Then we had the Kirkby situation. We know that the Board insisted on its voice being heard, but its advice on Meriden, the Scottish Daily Express and Alfred Herbert was ignored.

What happened to Meriden? A year has gone by and the co-operative still is not under way. Are we honestly being told—

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher)

Meriden?

Mr. Heseltine

Yes, Meriden. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten because it must be a long time since he looked at the papers. When is Meriden likely to go into production? I am delighted that the Minister of State reminded the Under-Secretary that it is not functioning. This is a year later. A great deal of negotiation has gone on and files have been filled up. The one thing that we are concerned about is the production of motor cycles, and that is not happening. I am not sure what the commitment of the taxpayer is—£13 million or £16 million?—but not one motor cycle has been produced. I should like to know when a motor cycle is made at Meriden. I do not ask for a financial return. If I could get a motor cycle from Meriden, I would be satisfied.

I see that there has been another postponement of the terms in the case of the Scottish Daily Express. How much delusion are the members of the present Government prepared to impose on those people in Scotland who are encouraged to commit their money to a project which hon. Members opposite must know is an odds-on favourite for costing them the capital which they have obtained from their redundancy payments? That is what the Government are doing. They are encouraging those people in the Scottish Daily Express who have been made redundant and have received redundancy payments to "blow" it on a wild whoopee. Let us hear a bit more about the justification for that, and a few assurances that we shall not have any more of that in the future.

The fact that this is an order made under the 1972 Industry Act ought to have drawn us on to common ground. If one thing has come out of the debates that we have had in the last two days, I understand that it is the overwhelming view of everybody in this House that we should try to find sensible, practical, realistic and relevant proposals to deal with British industry, and not the doctrinal claptrap that we have heard from hon. Members opposite. I should have thought that the Industry Act, which gave us the opportunity to help industry in the most flexible way possible, would have provided a meeting ground on which we could give to industry the sort of basic and certain framework which it has been crying out for all these years.

Not a bit of it. The Division that we had tonight made certain that the Committee will deal with any proposal for the removal of all the safeguards which the industry insisted on having in the 1972 measure to stop the meddling by politicians. We have had not a word of justification except the doctrinal one. We heard that there would not be enough flexibility. I do not know where there has been any failure to have flexibility. Perhaps we could have a word about that, though it would probably be more appropriate in Committee.

My concern with this order is twofold, apart from what I have already said. First, I am concerned that if the Bill we debated tonight becomes law, it will now be possible that this Section 8 money will be made available to companies without the safeguards which are built into the 1972 legislation. I must make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that when we become the Government of this country we shall seek to dispose of the shares taken into public ownership under the new powers which are being taken in the amended 1972 legislation which the House debated tonight.

One last word on the question of abuse of parliamentary accountability and the misuse of taxpayers' money. Although I understand that the Kirkby situation comes under Section 7 of the Industry Act, it is important that the sort of standards that have been applied in the Kirkby case should be put clearly on the record and that the public and those whose duty it is to scrutinise our behaviour here should understand what has gone on.

This must not become a precedent. It may be that the Secretary of State for Industry needs to have a sort of totem pole around which to dance like a wild Dervish, but it is an intolerable way of going on in the efficient management of the economy. I ask the Minister of State to tell us whether he believes that the precedent of Kirkby is one which he would be prepared to use in considering Section 8 cases.

Perhaps I can put briefly to the House what has happened in Kirkby. The loans made to Meriden and the Scottish Daily News are repayable to the Department of Industry. No such position exists with the repayment of the Kirkby money, except in the case of the liquidation of the co-operative that has now been formed. Why is it that this should be the case? The Secretary of State told the House that the grant to KME becomes repayable if the co-operative fails. He was giving the impression that there was the same sort of security as applies to Meriden and the Scottish Daily News. Anyone following the issue would, on the precedents available, have assumed that there was security.

With the loan to the Scottish Daily News, the Government rank pari passu with all secured lenders, after priority creditors. In the Meriden venture the Secretary of State has a first charge on the assets of the co-operative. In those two cases, one involving a Section 8 order, there was a safeguard for the State's money. With the Kirkby grant there is a safeguard only if it goes into liquidation, and then the Government rank after all other secured and unsecured creditors of the co-operative. That is unquestionably a case of misleading the House.

If the Kirkby co-operative runs into difficulties and incurs losses, when the liquidation takes place the money will go first to the creditors and then to pay off the losses. There will be no question of the grant from the State being secured. We shall get what is left. With Meriden or the Scottish Daily News we get first, or equal, precedence. Why was that situation allowed to develop? What is the difference between these undertakings? This is an important question.

I should be obliged if the Minister of State would listen to me rather than talk to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He may well find himself before the Public Accounts Committee or the Expenditure Committee dealing with this, so he had better find answers to my questions. I am trying to warn him publicly. The first instalment of the KME grant has been paid. As far as we can establish from Written Answers, the co-operative framework has not yet been finalised. The consequence is that the money has been paid into a company the sole shareholders of which are Messrs. Spriggs and Jenkins. There is no restraint, as I understand it, on the transfer of the shares which they own.

I make it clear that I have no intention of casting any aspersions on the integrity of these two persons. I am merely concerned with the issues of public accountability. The Government have handed over £2 million, quite free, to a privately-owned company before the proper constitution of that company has been established. If that is not an issue which ought to be investigated by the House, I do not know what is.

It is sad that an Act which should have united the House in a common purpose should be so used. On two occasions we have seen the Secretary of State in trouble. He was hauled before the Ombudsman for his misuse of the Act in relation to Court Line. I will not prejudge any findings there. On the second occasion we have, with Kirkby, a precedent which will, I hope, be examined by the PAC and the Expenditure Committee. It is an intolerable situation for the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in. He continually finds that an outside body has to come in and monitor his work because Parliament is unable to find out effectively and quickly the full facts, which he has hidden behind a range of answers which evade the truth to the maximum degree possible.

I believe that the Government are guilty of misusing the Act. It is a sad reflection on their inability and a confirmation of our belief that the Labour Party are playing this game for political reasons rather than for industrial reasons.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for outlining the detailed facts which give cause for concern about the control of expenditure and particularly about the way in which funds are provided under an affirmative order, as in this case.

The other cause for congratulation is that we have heard a rather more original view of the reasons for satisfaction with the affirmative order procedure. Normally, as under the Public Works Loan Board, the Prices Act and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill the Minister said that it was a matter of administrative convenience, that they were only concerned to save our valuable time and that we need only approve the Bill and the order would appear in due course. It was said that we need not worry our pretty heads because we could be sure that the Treasury and other Government Departments would satisfy themselves that expenditure was properly and legitimately carried out. We have heard clear and ample evidence that we cannot rely on that at all. It is more than a purely administrative matter, more than a purely departmental matter. It is a test of parliamentary control which we should maintain on expenditure and affairs.

We have to see that we have a proper method of approval and control. I am grateful that the question was asked—how has the money been spent so far? It is a peculiarly difficult question to which to obtain an answer. On a number of occasions I have tried to find a definitive list of firms with orders and the money spent. I have placed Questions to all the appropriate Departments to satisfy myself on that point. I shall look forward to the answers with interest. They will no doubt cause further Questions.

There should be a monitoring of the industries involved in this Department. Here we do not just have expenditure of money as in the case of subsidies but a continuing involved situation, and there is an obligation on the part of the Government to satisfy themselves that the ongoing activity is continually monitored. We should ask ourselves about the reporting procedure required so that the House and the Department can be fully informed.

The case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley referred clearly demonstrated the difficulties where there was disagreement with the Industrial Advisory Board and complete disregard of the correct procedures and of all the facts and information which would lead to more normal business judgment. All this leads one to wonder whether the most extensive powers in the Industry Bill will not make it more difficult for us in the future.

I tried to add up the sums of money involved. It is worth carrying out that exercise, because although we are covering £100 million added to £150 million, we have to look at the totals involved. An examination of the Bill shows that we had originally approved £1,550 million. When the Bill becomes law that will become £2,350 million, but it could be increased by subsequent orders to £3,450 million.

We have an escalation in the activities of the State which are contained by combining the current approvals with possible approvals, depending on whether the Government can succeed in persuading the House that the Bill which received a Second Reading today should become law. Clause 7 approves £700 million, and that can be increased to £1,000 million by order. Clause 16 has £1,000 million which is now increased to £1,400 million, and will or can be increased in the future to £1,800 million. There is a prior approval in the matter, but I mention it as it is contained in Clause 16. Under this order we have an increase of £100 million.

We have a total situation of substantial and massive amounts of money for which the Department is responsible. I took a brief opportunity to see the resources that were available. Can we say that in this Department we have the men and the methods, because we can see that it is determined to have the money?

The resources of the Department of Industry are 4,746 people. Of those, 1,992 are in the scientific grade. We might run through some of the people who may be expected to deal with this large sum of money and the intermittent detailed matters of business and commercial administration that are necessarily involved. There are 36 economists, 66 statisticians—that is historical I think—but—and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley will appreciate this—there are 73 information officers. There we have the men for the job in the Department—73 information officers.

I agree that this Department is well blessed with professional accountants. It is better served than the Treasury, which has succeeded in having one professional accountant out of a total staff of 1,189. The Department of Industry has 81 accountants, eight of them of senior director, director or assistant director grade, and 73 chief accountants. When one considers that this Department has activities spread throughout the whole of British industry and that this is the level of professional acumen which it seeks to acquire, one sees that there is a pretty poor prosepct for this country with the expenditure of these vast sums of money.

I shall not detain the House any longer, except to say that here is a matter which is a grave and sad reflection on the way in which large sums of money will be administered in the future. It is a matter to which we shall have to address ourselves in much more detail to satisfy ourselves that we are discharging our proper duty of parliamentary control.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

This order illustrates the Minister's preference for what he calls public expenditure, that is to say, public investment which can be made for political and social objectives.

For the last two days the House has been debating the failure of investment, and various ideas have been put forward about why there has been a lamentable failure in investment over the last few years. Labour Members have spoken about the inability of the City to face its national responsibilities. They have talked about the need for more investment because the country wants more growth. But they have failed to recognise that investment is not made for fun. Investment is not made for social objectives alone. Investment is generally made on behalf of other people, and it is made in the expectation of profit. This expectation of profit is what we mean by confidence, and the unhappy fact is that the Government have added one more factor which inhibits confidence and which will in the future prevent private investment in industry.

Among the traditional factors which have inhibited confidence have been the variety of attitudes of Government to profit. These have varied from something between guilt and outright hostility. Successive Governments have also failed to control inflation. As a result "guesstimates" have been extremely difficult to make. There has been persistent direct interference by Government in industry—interference in the form of taxation, dividend and price control, and the subsidising of nationalised industries. The debate tonight illustrates a new and more terrible danger which will inhibit confidence to invest. Until the Government came to power, industrialists believed that politicians would certainly not encourage people to break the law. But I wonder whether any industrialist today would be certain that he could trust the Secretary of State for Industry, with all his self-righteousness to fulfil his most important duty not to encourage workers to break the law.

By his attitude to sit-ins the Secretary of State has further undermined the rule of law. He has attempted to achieve what he calls industrial democracy by any means within his power. At the beginning of the sit-ins at the Upper Clyde he told the workers there during a visit that they had done more in 10 weeks to advance the cause of industrial democracy than all the blueprints he and his colleagues had worked on for the previous 10 years.

He failed to realise that a sit-in is no more than an illegal occupation by workers of premises they do not own. There has been no word of condemnation from his lips of the illegality of sit-ins. When in August 1974 he went to a banquet held by the Lord Mayor of Coventry he preceded the banquet by addressing 400 men at the premises of Norton-Villiers-Triumph at Meriden. He had the effrontery to say that the wigwam and brazier which had been used to sustain the gallant and noble workers who had operated that illegal sit-in throughout the winter were objects which should be retained for posterity as an example of human achievement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

I do not wish to interfere in the speech which the hon. Member is making, but I must point out that it is not in order to discuss the merits of financial assistance to industry under the order. It is, however, in order to discuss the nature of past and likely future expenditure, but the principle itself is already established.

Mr. Bugden

I accept that the principle is established, but I refer only to the effect of expenditure upon other principles. The principles to which I am devoting my remarks are the principle of the rule of law and the principle of industrial harmony.

By undermining the rule of law the Secretary of State has stirred up class hatred and enmity. More than that, he has stirred up hatred between management and government, and he has introduced a further factor which will inhibit investment. In many parts of my constituency there are proud records of industrialists giving very full information to their workers in the hope that if the trade cycle works against them and they unhappily must declare men redundant, they will find that by their information they have given men advance warning of difficult times ahead.

As a result of this expenditure, as a result of the Secretary of State's attitude, less disclosure will be made, because industrialists throughout the land will fear that sit-ins will take place, encouraged by this Government.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), I wanted to speak in this debate because time and again many of us on the Opposition benches have failed to obtain any reply from the Government to Oral and Written Questions on how the sums of money granted under Section 8 of the Industry Act were being used. We have been told that it was not customary, that it was unnecessary, that it was against normal commercial practice, to give information about the profitability of the companies to which the money was going, or about their production.

But we are now talking of at least £125 million advanced under the section. The House is short of information on how it will be used and what yield the taxpayer may eventually expect from it My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), with his customary modesty, said that he merely wanted a motor cycle from Meriden. I agree with him, but I would go a little further and say that when we are talking of at least £125 million it is reasonable to ask for an idea of the profit and the plans, and of the eventual benefit to the country from that sum.

When I intervened earlier the Minister of State said that he was unable to give any answer of that kind. I hope that by now he has received some help from his officials in the box, and that when he winds up the debate he will be able to give us a little information. Otherwise, this is a sad prelude to the much greater sums that will be committed under the Industry Bill. If we can get no guidance from the Minister as to the sort of return that may come on these relatively small sums, how much worse will be the situation when the Secretary of State has committed hundreds of millions of pounds?

I have two specific points on which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little more clued up than he was in answer to my earlier intervention. The first concerns the Offshore Supplies Office, set up, I believe, under Section 8.

Mr. Heffer

The office does not happen to come under the Department of Industry. It comes under the Department of Energy, so the hon. Gentleman is not particularly clued up either.

Mr. Renton

I thank the Minister for helping me on that. I move straight to my second point, which concerns the inter-relationship between the order and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill, the Second Reading of which was debated last week. I was amazed to read in last week's Economist the statement that Meriden sitters-in would soon get their £4.8 million Government loan, once the export credit guarantee was approved by Parliament. That is a matter that all of us who debated that Bill were worried about. The Bill contained many new powers for grants to be made to any persons, not just any banks, in furtherance of British exports. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) and others, in that debate I asked the Under-Secretary for Trade whether he could assure us that export credits would be made available only for commercially viable propositions. Three days later, we read in the Economist that an export credit guarantee might be made available to Meriden and that that would further the wishes of the Department of Industry in making grants available to that company.

The inter-relationship between this order and the Export Guarantees Amendment Bill is a matter about which we must have an explanation, otherwise we see a situation developing in which one Government Department is encouraged to ensure uncreditworthy export risks so that the Department of Industry can go ahead with advancing more of the taxpayer's money for schemes which from the start are unprofitable and commercially unviable.

In the case of Meriden, the Industrial Development Advisory Board advised that it was not a viable proposition. Will the Minister confirm that he will not lean on his friends in the Department of Trade to make them provide export guarantee facilities which will get him and his right hon. Friend out of some of the difficulties which they are in as a result of the loans they have made?

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Before this organised hypocrisy from the Opposition goes much further, perhaps we might get a few facts on the record.

The Opposition talk about parliamentary control. What were they thinking about only a few years ago when they took this country into the European Common Market and handed over parliamentary control to the bureaucrats in Brussels? They do not say anything about that tonight—

Mr. Budgen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I were moving away from the terms of the order, I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is even further away.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

This is entirely a matter for the Chair. I wish to see how the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) develops his argument before deciding whether he is moving wide of the order.

Mr. Heseltine

It so happens that I remember what I was thinking about as I voted in favour of the motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It was the words, "We will negotiate our way in, and we will not take 'No' for an answer." It was the Prime Minister who said that.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful for that intervention, because it authenticates my original remark. Of course, there was controversy in the Labour Party about entry into the Common Market. I do not dwell upon it, because I do not want to get out of order, but I must answer the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Of course there was controversy. But in 1970, the Conservative Government said that they would negotiate, and no more—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must request the hon. Gentleman to keep within the terms of the order.

Mr. Cryer

I must point out that there was no whole-hearted consent by the British people to go into the European Common Market and that it is the height of effrontery and hypocrisy for the Opposition now to talk about parliamentary control. I happen to think that it is important, and from time to time I have drawn attention to matters affecting parliamentary control, but it is hypocritical for the Opposition to say that we need it now, when it suits their convenience, although it can be thrown out of the window when we go into Europe.

The money which we are asked to authorise has gone to rescue ventures which in the ordinary capitalist sense have failed, just as the level of investment in the whole of industry has failed when it has been in the hands of the private owners of capital.

It is apparent from some of the remarks that we have heard that the Opposition are quite prepared to withstand rising unemployment. We have had hon. Members inveighing against workers who are no longer prepared to doff their caps meekly to their bosses and walk through the door. They have been prepared to sit in, to use their initiative, to develop their spirit, and to form co-operatives. No one denies that there are difficulties in forming these co-operatives, but many Opposition Members will look sick when they are successful. The tenor of their remarks is quite clear. They do not want the co-operatives to be successful. They do not want Kirkby, Meriden or the new daily newspaper to be successful. They would gloat at failure. It ill becomes a party which purports to represent the nation and the finest spirit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I requested the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) to keep within the terms of the order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is straying from them. I asked him to confine himself to the order. He must not discuss the merits of financial assistance to industry in principle. He must speak to the order, including, if he so wishes, past and likely future expenditure.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because in the past the merit of granting this money under the Industry Act 1972, which was passed by the Conservative Government, was not in question. Hon. Members of the Opposition are merely political opportunists seeking whatever straw they can find in order to try to discredit the present Labour Government.

I hope that this extra money will be spent in the way in which it has been spent in the past—in helping people to form co-operatives. Co-operation has a long and distinguished history. It is developed in this country and provides a very large proportion of retail distribution.

If we can set a productive co-operative torch alight, the Opposition are doomed indeed, because earlier tonight—I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am keeping within the rules of order—their lackluster performance indicated that their ideology is in a very sad state. If co-operative development agencies such as those which have been financed under these provisions in the past—and hopefully will be in the future—are successful, hon. Members opposite will be condemned to the Opposition benches for all foreseeable time.

I want to make another comment about the sort of expenditure which can occur in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has been involved today with the formation of a concern relating to Imperial Typewriters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has also been involved in this very worthy cause.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

We shall be directors.

Mr. Cryer

That typewriter factory has been unilaterally closed by the decision of a tiny number of directors in a board room entirely remote from the work force and the workshops. If those workers acting in concert can set up a British typewriter production and assembly line and rescue that industry, surely both sides of the House should welcome it.

One of the ways in which we can prevent the domination of foreign capital in this country is by British people actually directing investment to their own productive facilities. It is extraordinary that the Opposition should find no objecton to American or Arab capital flowing in. The Americans and Arabs can come here and buy up what they like. But when it comes to an order increasing the money available for our own Secretary of State to extend the British people's ownership of the means of distribution and production, the Opposition object to that.

This order and the co-operatives which have been financed have kindled a torch in this country. My hon. Friends and I believe that once kindled, that torch will never be put out.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South-East)

There is no doubt that the House must reject this order. If it had needed any further convincing I think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would have provided it.

There is no question but that it would be highly irresponsible for the House to grant even another pound to the Department of Industry, yet alone another £100 million. The evidence is accumulating the whole time. The Department of Industry has already abused the Industry Act 1972 and it is obviously intending to abuse it further. The issues of parliamentary responsibility and accountability are the most important matters that the House has to consider. There can be no doubt that the Government intend indiscriminately to grant themselves public funds through Parliament, to avoid accounting for the expenditure and to spend the money in a way which will allow them to pursue their political objectives.

I do not want to be held responsible for granting another £100 million so that the Secretary of State for Industry can go on adding to his personal portfolio of unviable speculations at the expense of the taxpayer. It is time that the House took a grip of itself and called a halt.

I ask the Minister three specific questions relating to past expenditure under the Act and projected expenditure. First, why is it that some of the expenditure past and future that is going to workers' co-operatives will be granted without any equity stake being taken in return? Why is it that no equity is being taken yet the Government regard it as right to pilfer equity from private enterprise in any way that they can through the Industry Bill or by other means? Why is it that no equity is being taken from the co-operatives that are being set up—

Mr. Tom Litterick (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has referred to the "personal portfolio" of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and has used the word "pilfer". I understand by the ordinary use of the English language that "personal portfolio" means something very personal and that "pilfer" implies something criminal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I believe that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) used the terms as generalities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to refer to the Secretary of State's portfolio in the manner that has been suggested.

Mr. Rost

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. Perhaps I may change "private" to "political". I refer to the political portfolio of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Litterick

What does that mean?

Mr. Rost

I am sure that Labour Members know very well what it means, as do my hon. Friends

Why is it right that no equity should be taken by the taxpayers in the workers' co-operatives? In most cases it is the taxpayer who is granting the funds and taking all the equity risk. Yet the equity is to be taken by the Government for other grants to be provided under the new Industry Bill.

Secondly, why is it that in the case of the Kirkby co-operative the taxpayer cannot win? Why is it that the grant which is being given to the co-operative does not have to be repaid except in the event of liquidation, in which case nothing will be repaid? If the co-operative happens to succeed—not that any of us believe that that is possible—and becomes profitable, why is it that the taxpayer will not get back his loan? Is the Minister suggesting that the grant that is being provided by the taxpayer to the co-operative is on a one-way basis? If the co-operative succeeds the taxpayer is not to be repaid, and the whole of any profit that might result from the loan will accrue to the shareholders entirely without any liability to repay the loan. The House is entitled to an explanation why the taxpayer loses both ways and has no way of being repaid.

My third point refers to projected future expenditure. There are rumblings going around that the next workers' co-operative will be at the Imperial Typewriter premises at Leicester and Hull. Again the House is entitled to know on what basis any grant will be made to that project. Will it be made only if the feasibility study—a study which is now being undertaken independently at the Government's request and which presumably will be published—concludes that it is a viable project? I hope the Minister will give a firm undertaking that no more public money will be sunk into co-operatives, or any other ventures unless an independent feasibility study at least gives to a scheme the benefit of the doubt, justifying speculative investment. Therefore, if we are to have any accountability at all, one of the first objectives is to get an undertaking from the Minister.

I believe that we should reject the idea of handing this further amount of funds to the Government. They have acted in a highly irresponsible manner so far and this will give them further licence for irresponsibility.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I shall be very brief. I should like to give an example of one situation in my constituency which should help Opposition Members to understand what is meant by the order.

Had this order existed 18 months ago, the British glass container industry might not have lost a vital part of its organisation which used to exist in my constituency and which has now gone to Western Germany—[Interruption.] One expects that sort of reaction from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), with his hatred of anything that happens to be British. He should get up to challenge what I am saying rather than laugh derisively from a sedentary position—which, come to think of it, perhaps is the best position for the hon. Gentleman to occupy.

Let us consider what would have happened had this order existed a year or so ago. A firm in my constituency called Rockware Glass had existed there for many years with no industrial problems whatever. Indeed, in a troublesome period in the 1930s workers, in efforts to save the firm, worked for a month without wages. However, a few years ago, as a result of the predatory efforts of Slater Walker, Rockware Glass was compelled to sell a large factory and to take steps to protect two others. The result was that the United Kingdom lost a large factory in my constituency which had been engaged in producing glass containers, and nearly a thousand skilled craftsmen lost their jobs. That trade then went from Great Britain to another country in the Common Market—no doubt to the delight of the hon. Member for Henley who at that time had some responsibility in those matters. Middle and top level management and the trade unions asked me to see whether anything could be done to help. Nothing could be done. If this order had existed, something could have been done to save a vital part of British industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member is indulging in references to a hypothetical situation. The order did not exist at that time. We are now discussing this order. The hon. Member should confine himself to the order as it stands.

Mr. Molloy

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about a thousand men being thrown out of work.

This is my contribution. If this order had existed some years ago, the disaster which hit my constituency and the glass container industry of Great Britain could have been avoided.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said concerning the diffidence if not the disdain of Ministers in the Department of Industry with regard to the workings of the Industry Act 1972.

My hon. Friend gave illustrations of the difficulty he had in getting through to the Minister's Department. I can do better than that, because on 29th July 1974 I took the precaution of officially giving notice to the Secretary of State for Industry and the Department that we would raise in the debate on whether the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment the question of aid to the Scottish Daily Express and the Meriden co-operative. Those matters were raised by several hon. Members between 3.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on that day. Not one Minister from the hon. Gentleman's Department bothered to turn up. There was no response to the many speeches made. I regard that as a disdainful attitude which characterises some of the statements made by the Minister and by his colleagues.

A considerable sum of money is involved, since the limit is to be raised to £250 million. Under the Industry Act a further £300 million can be raised by further Parliamentary Order. The total support authorised by Section 8 (7) of the 1972 Industry Act amounts to £550 million to be used as the Minister sees fit.

The Opposition object to the fact that the safeguards in Section 9 of that Act are ignored. Section 9 laid down the procedure whereby the Industry Develop- ment Advisory Board was to be consulted if it was proposed to make funds available under Sections 7 and 8 of the 1972 Act. One might say that that is a sound procedure. However, the Secretary of State for Industry, after consulting the Board, repeatedly ignores its advice and flies in the face of the experts, thereby placing public money at risk in one dubious enterprise after another.

If the Minister is to continue coming to Parliament for authority to raise another £100 million and then £200 million under this section, I feel that the next time he comes along, if not today, although it is a Conservative Act, we must say that enough is enough and that no more money must be made available unless he undertakes to accept and to be guided by the expert advice available to him, under Section 9, which is continually rejected.

I shall not vote against the order. However, unless the Minister mends his ways in this respect and pays more attention to Parliament's wishes, does not indulge in these Friday manoeuvres regarding announcements, knowing that Parliament cannot question them, and does not announce the raising of sums of just under £5 million which do not need prior parliamentary approval, he will run into more trouble than he faces tonight.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

I think that the House has at times gone well beyond the terms of the order. I make no criticism about that. We are dealing with Section 8, but we seem to have gone into Section 4 and the whole philosophy of the Tory Party. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends have expressed the philosophy of the Labour Party, too. I found the debate extremely interesting, but it must be agreed that it was somewhat wide ranging.

First, I should like to deal with the Industrial Development Advisory Board. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General clearly explained to the House today that when the 1972 legislation was drafted there was no provision for such a body as the IDAB. It did not exist. It was not in that proposed legislation. But, after pressure by hon. Gentlemen and possibly by their friends outside the House, the IDAB was eventually established.

I do not want to be critical of the IDAB. That would be quite wrong. However, I should point out that it is composed of 11 bankers, accountants and financiers and one trade unionist. I do not say that as a criticism of the IDAB. I merely explain the position.

The IDAB advises Ministers. We also have civil servants who advise Ministers. Do we want Ministers who must always be subservient to every piece of advice that is tendered by civil servants or outside advisers, or do we want Ministers who are prepared at times to say, "This is the Government's view", and are prepared to get up in this Chamber or anywhere else to defend their decisions? I should think that we want Ministers of that calibre, and that is the whole point.

Out of 87 cases before the IDAB, only five have been disagreed to by the Board. Again I am not criticising IDAB. I am just giving a statement of fact. It is interesting to note that three of the five happen to be concerned with workers' co-operatives. I am not suggesting that the philosophy of IDAB is against workers' co-operatives. On the contrary. I think it does a very good job on the basis of the criteria laid down by the Act. But, as I said earlier, my right hon. Friend, Ministers in the Department and, in fact, the Government as a whole certainly must take advice, and they must listen to advice, but they have to take the final decision themselves, and we believe that we have taken the right decisions in this case.

Let us consider this question of Kirkby. We are asked why we have not taken equity in Kirkby, whereas we demand equity in the case of grants and loans to private enterprise. Hon. Gentlemen should know that there are grants and loans given to private enterprise every day of the week, when there is no equity whatsoever. Often the question is not even raised. Sometimes it is raised and sometimes it is not.

Mr. Rost

rose—

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman should understand more about the Act which his Government brought in. All we are doing is administering that Act to the best of our ability and in the fairest possible way. If worker co-operatives wish to apply for assistance in the form of loans and grants they will be treated by us as sympathetically as are private enterprise and private companies.

Mr. Rost

Could the hon. Gentleman give another example of a grant by Government to industry which is virtually a 100 per cent. grant as it is to Kirkby?

Mr. Heffer

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now raising a question the answer to which I should like them to consider. We are giving privately and confidentially assistance to private industry every day of the week. If hon. Members do not want only the global sum of the assistance which is given but also want to be told every loan and grant, if they want every piece of information about the money that is provided to private enterprise spelt out in detail, the friends of hon. Members opposite in industry will desert them in seconds. They do not want that sort of information made public. It is not our intention, any more than it was the previous Government's, to give the details of every loan and grant under the Act to individual companies.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

My hon. Friend is aware that the grant to the Kirkby co-operative in my constituency is less than is given for the running costs of the Royal yacht in one year. Would hon. Members opposite prefer that 800 men in the factory in my constituency should be on the dole? If they would, let them say so now. Is that what they would like in an area of excessively high unemployment?

Mr. Heffer

May I ask the House to let me continue. I have five minutes left, and I will try to answer in detail some of the points which were raised by hon. Members opposite. I will ignore much of the extravagant language that was used by some hon. Members.

I was asked what was the equity stake in NVT. It was nil. It was all in preference shares. I was asked the position on the return on Section 8 investment. This is an impossible question for me to answer because some £53 million is in the form of guarantees which are being extended while the future of particular companies is being examined. Clearly, until the capital structure of those companies has been tested it is not possible to make any estimate of the return on capital.

Nearly £13 million is made up of offers made but not implemented. No precise estimate is possible.

Mr. Tim Renton

rose—

Mr. Heffer

If I give way I cannot answer all the points raised with me, some of them by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I said when I started that I would try to answer the questions put to me. I do not try to dodge questions. If I do not know the answer, I am an honest enough politician to say that I do not know the answer and that I will write to an hon. Member when I get the answer. Anyone who claims to know all the answers must be God.

The export credit question which was raised refers to the special £8 million to NVT under Section 8. There is a motion on the Order Paper for support for NVT and when it comes before the House it will be discussed at great length and all the questions can be put in detail.

One hon. Member raised the point why we use equity in one case, grants in others and loans in others. The answer is simple. Each case is very different. Any hon. Gentleman who has had anything to do with the administration of the Act knows that each case is different. Therefore, one has to deal with it on an individual basis, and it is not possible to give a blanket answer that on each occasion we shall do precisely the same.

The question of Court Line was raised. My right hon. Friend explained to the satisfaction of IDAB that on that occasion, because of the short notice, he was unable to get to IDAB. We had either

to deal with the case and save thousands of jobs quickly, or alternatively, we could have gone right through the long process—[Interruption]. The hon. Member said that there were holidays, and that would be a good reason why one could not get the IDAB together quickly. [Interruption.] Is it suggested that IDAB does not have holidays?

Mr. Heseltine

It was not just that the Government were to save jobs, they were to save holidays.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

That is not true. The Court Line directors said that.

Mr. Heffer

Exactly. There was no question that it was discussed at the earliest possible moment.

I cannot deal with all the points raised. I should like to deal in great detail with offshore supply because I have interesting information which could and should have been given, but I discover that I have no time left. There has been a complaint that the Department does not give the information. My goodness! The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling produces about three priority Written Questions a day. I do not complain about that, but he should not complain that he does not get all the information—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 13.

Division No. 97.] AYES [12.11 a.m.
Allaun, Frank Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Dalyell, Tam
Archer, Peter Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Davidson, Arthur
Armstrong, Ernest Buchan, Norman Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ashton, Joe Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Atkinson, Norman Campbell, Ian Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Canavan, Dennis Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cant, R. B. Deakins, Eric
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel Carmichael Neil Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bates, Alf Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bean, R. E. Cohen, Stanley Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Coleman, Donald Dempsey, James
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Concannon, J. D. Doig, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney Conlan, Bernard Dormand, J. D.
Bishop, E. S. Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Blenkinsop, Arthur Corbett, Robin Duffy, A. E. P.
Boardman, H. Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Dunn, James A.
Booth, Albert Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Dunnett, Jack
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Crawshaw, Richard Eadie, Alex
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Cronin, John Edelman, Maurice
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Edge, Geoff
Bradley, Tom Cryer, Bob Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
English, Michael Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Ennals, David Leadbitter, Ted Rooker, J. W.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lee, John Roper, John
Evans John (Newton) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Rose, Paul B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Faulds, Andrew Litterick, Tom Rowlands, Ted
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Loyden, Eddie Ryman, John
Flannery, Martin Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Sandelson, Neville
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Sedgemore, Brian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon) McCartney, Hugh Selby, Harry
Ford, Ben McElhone, Frank Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) MacFarquhar, Roderick Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McGuire, Michael (Ince) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Freeson, Reginald Mackenzie, Gregor Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mackintosh, John P. Sillars, James
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) McNamara, Kevin Silverman, Julius
George, Bruce Madden, Max Skinner, Dennis
Gilbert, Dr John Magee, Bryan Small, William
Golding, John Mahon, Simon Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Gould, Bryan Marks, Kenneth Snape, Peter
Gourlay, Harry Marquand, David Spearing, Nigel
Graham, Ted Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Stallard, A. W.
Grant John (Islington C) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Grocott, Bruce Meacher, Michael Stott, Roger
Hamling, William Mendelson, John Strang, Gavin
Hardy, Peter Mikardo, Ian Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Harper, Joseph Millan, Bruce Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hart, Rt Kon Judith Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hatton, Frank Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Heffer, Eric S. Molloy, William Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hooley, Frank Moonman, Eric Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Horam, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Tinn, James
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Moyle, Roland Tomlinson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Torney, Tom
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Newens, Stanley Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N) Noble, Mike Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Oakes, Gordon Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Hunter, Adam Ogden, Eric Ward, Michael
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Watkins, David
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Watkinson, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Ovenden, John Watt, Hamish
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Owen, Dr David Welsh, Andrew
Janner, Greville Palmer, Arthur White, Frank R. (Bury)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Park, George White, James (Pollok)
Jeger, Mrs Lena Parker, John Whitehead, Phillip
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Parry, Robert Whitlock, William
John, Brynmor Pavitt, Laurie Wigley, Dafydd
Johnson, James (Hull West) Peart, Rt Hon Fred Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Pendry, Tom Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Phipps, Dr Colin Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Prescott, John Wise, Mrs Audrey
Judd, Frank Price C. (Lewisham W) Woodall, Alec
Kelley, Richard Price, William (Rugby) Woof, Robert
Kerr, Russell Radice, Giles Wrigglesworth, Ian
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Richardson, Miss Jo Young, David (Bolton E)
Kinnock, Neil Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Lambie, David Robertson, John (Paisley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Lamborn, Harry Roderick, Caerwyn Mr. James Hamilton and
Lamond, James Rodgers, George (Chorley) Mr. David Stoddart.
NOES
Budgen, Nick Lawson, Nigel Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fairgrieve, Russell Lester, Jim (Beeston) Townsend, Cyril D.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hampson Dr Keith Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hordern, Peter Ridley, Hon Nicholas Mr. (John Farr and
Lawrence, Ivan Mr. Nicholas Winterton.

Question accordingly agreed to. That the Financial Assistance of Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.

Resolved,

Forward to