HC Deb 19 May 1975 vol 892 cc995-7
14. Mr. Stanley

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will be announcing his detailed proposals for the implementation of the Ryder Report on British Leyland.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn)

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Second Reading debate on the British Leyland Bill, which has been arranged for Wednesday 21st May.

Mr. Stanley

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Parliament is being asked in the debate on Wednesday to give its approval for finance for one of the largest single commercial investments that have ever been made in the public sector, without being provided with any information on the prospective return on that investment? Does the Secretary of State propose during—or preferably before—the debate to give Parliament this necessary information? Without it, Parliament is being asked to arrive at a decision while totally in the dark as to the crucial basis of the return.

Mr. Benn

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Certainly when a Government get involved in industrial matters they confront the question of how much can be disclosed without damage to the firm concerned. That is a point arising from another point of view put by the hon. Gentleman in Committee on the Industry Bill. I would not claim that every bit of relevant information can be made available. However, we shall do our best. If there are pieces of information that the hon. Gentleman would like which have not been published I shall consider them again, but it is difficult, when the Government are brought into these areas, to find an absolutely satisfactory answer immediately to these difficult questions.

Mr. Edelman

Pending his further statement, does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of British Leyland is a vital national interest? Further, does he agree that if, however improbably, the Brussels Commission were to try to interfere with the implementation of the Ryder Report, Her Majesty's Government would have the power to veto such interference through the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Benn

I must not enter into matters of legal interpretation, but my understanding of the provisions of the treaty is that the Council of Ministers would have to be unanimous to override a decision made by the Commission. Therefore, the United Kingdom Government alone would not have the power to do what my hon. Friend thinks.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is concern—I carefully put it no higher than that—in sections of British manufacturing industry at what the Prime Minister had admitted to be the pre-emption of such an enormous amount of our available resources by a leading unit in one industry alone? Will he undertake, in the debate on Wednesday or before, to put this vast expenditure into the context of the overall needs of the whole of the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Benn

I think that what the hon. Gentleman says has a great deal of force. Given the fact that we have been investing at roughly half the rate of our major industrial competitors across the whole area of manufacturing industry, it is clear that if we seek to correct that deficiency in one company, however large, we are greatly accelerating investment in it and questions will be raised about other areas. However, a lot of the money that will be spent by British Leyland will go into other British manufacturing firms. For example, I hope that Alfred Herbert, which makes machine tools, will benefit from the British Leyland development programme. Thus we hope that by correcting this deficiency over the years the whole expenditure will help to reinforce other sections of industry.

Mr. Tom King

Following on from that, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a full assessment has been made, in making this investment in British Leyland in what may not be a profitable venture, of the impact on the profitable exports which could have been made by contractors who will now find their order books full of British Leyland work?

Mr. Benn

The concept that there is always alternative profitable employment if only we can chop out what is unprofitable is a little theoretical. People do not easily move from one type of venture to another. Therefore, we must look at these matters in the light of what is practicable. One thing that I am sure of is that this country cannot survive unless we are able to make our own competitive motorcars rather than seeing a huge inrush of motorcars coming in increasing numbers from abroad. The best assessment that could be made has been made. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government do not pick their own timetable in matters of industrial rescue. There are cases which may be dictated by factors outside their own control.