HC Deb 15 May 1975 vol 892 cc645-7
Q1. Mr. Tebbit

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Longbridge.

Q7. Mr. Stanley

asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Longbridge.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Tebbit

Is that not a pity? If the Prime Minister were to go to Longbridge he would find, would he not, that it was a convenient place at which to make a speech to add further power to his remarks over the weekend on the Chrysler strike? Is he not prepared to go there and tell the men at Chrysler that if they persist in a strike that busts their firm they will not be treated in the same way as the BLMC men have been treated and subsidised by public funds?

The Prime Minister

Chrysler is not at Longbridge. I referred in very strong terms to the Chrysler situation, with which I have been much involved. On 3rd January I gave a warning to Cowley and Longbridge. The hon. Gentleman has dismissed himself from the case of British Leyland by voting against even the first credit given to British Leyland before the Ryder Report. He will be aware that in the provision of urgently-needed capital for British Leyland, including Long-bridge, there will be the strictest monitoring year by year of the fulfilment of the terms of the Ryder Report, including the improvement of industrial relations.

Mr. Carter

I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that there will always be a welcome for him at Longbridge. If he cannot come to Longbridge, will he nip down to Chingford and remind the electors there that their Member of Parliament does not always lead the Tory view on many issues, particularly on British Leyland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 18th December, when the House first debated the £50 million support for British Leyland, the official Opposition view was that the Conservative Party should abstain but that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) went into the "No" Lobby and voted against the motion? To add to the picture of confusion which then obtained, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), the Vice-Chairman of the Tory Party, went into the Government Lobby and supported the motion.

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir, I am aware that the Opposition on that occasion broke all structural and sartorial records by indulging in a three-way stretch, in which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) demonstrated his fundamental opposition to a policy which had been carried through by the previous Conservative Government and in which the official Opposition showed their total virginity in such matters by abstention. As my hon. Friend has said, someone voted himself into the vice-chairmanship of the party by voting with the Government. I am well aware that the official Opposition have no policy on the subject. Even the speech on British Leyland made by the Leader of the Opposition only added to the confusion about their policy, but in the debate next week they will have a chance of voting one way.

Mr. Stanley

Is the Prime Minister aware that next week the Government will seek approval for the first instalment of £2.8 billion for British Leyland, without providing one paragraph of serious financial information in the Ryder Report with which to be able to assess that investment? Is it not about time that the Prime Minister ensured that the theory of the disclosure clause in the Industry Bill was put into practice in the public sector?

The Prime Minister

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the Industry Bill. As regards the debate next week, we shall have a chance to see whether he will vote for the provision of the necessary interim capital and also for the British Leyland Bill. But I am a little surprised at his reflections on the lack of financial investigation undertaken in the Ryder Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "And information."] Yes, and information.

The Opposition will agree that what was not surrendered was commercial confidence, which would have been of value to Leyland's competitors. Surely it was right that that should not have been made available. The report was thoroughly drawn up. In view of the representation on it of two senior members of Hill Samuel and Peat Marwick Mitchell, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman's financial acumen is greater, in his opinion, than theirs.