British Leyland (Hansard, 2 August 1976)

§ 1. Mr. Hal Miller
asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the size of the next tranche of public funds to be allocated to British Leyland.

§ The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley)
I refer the hon. Member to my statement on 21st July when I announced the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the National Enterprise Board that British Leyland should be provided with the first tranche of £100 million of loan capital.

§ Mr. Miller
As the NEB report calls for £500 million by 1978 and the new Mini, on the managing director's figures, costs £200 million, does it make sense to deal with the matter in this way? Can the right hon. Gentleman identify the item of capital expenditure to which the £100 million refers?

§ Mr. Varley
We have already set out a great deal of information about the NEB and its report to the Government, but I shall consider any representations about additional information. We are to debate this matter tomorrow night after 10 o'clock and it may be that I shall have something more to say then.

§ Mr. Litterick
Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on the Government Benches are gratified at the constructive response of the workers and management of British Leyland to the intervention of Parliament to save this valuable British asset? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove 1182 and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has been a consistent critic and attacker of the British Leyland enterprise, and that if his views were carried out thousands of workers would be made redundant?

§ Mr. Miller
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are beginning early today. Question Time is not an occasion for attacking individuals.

§ Mr. Varley
My hon. Friend is right. There have been a few attacks—

§ Mr. Miller
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I may call him for a second supplementary question.

§ Mr. Varley
There have been a few attacks from the Opposition, though we need not go into them now because there is to be a debate tomorrow night. My hon. Friend is right in saying that there has been considerable progress and achievement in British Leyland, and I know from my own discussions with the management and workers that they intend to ensure that that progress is maintained.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Why has the Secretary of State not answered the Question on the Order Paper about the size of the next tranche to be allocated? He allocated £100 million last week. Is he now committed, by that action, to the next £100 million? Last week's allocation is already water under the bridge, or money down the drain.

§ Mr. Varley
It depends on the monitoring that may be undertaken by the NEB and the report that it makes to the Government. It is for the board to monitor the activities of British Leyland. I hope the hon. Gentleman shares my commitment to the long-term success of British Leyland. This depends, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said in April last year, on improvements in productivity and labour relations.

§ Mr. Robinson
Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside as well as inside the House there is wide support for his decision, not only because it removes great uncertainty among the men and management of British Leyland but because it could be the start of a major 1183 investment incentive, with the creation of new jobs in the Midlands? Is he aware that he should not pay too much attention to the wild and inaccurate allegations of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), which we are looking forward to debating tomorrow?

§ Mr. Varley
My hon. Friend is right. The decision has been welcomed in the West Midlands and in other areas of the United Kingdom where there is British Leyland activity. I always pay due regard to comments from the Opposition.

§ Mr. Heseltine
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that by failing to answer any of the questions put to him today he is doing British Leyland's case more harm than good? Will he explain why it is necessary for the £30 million order to be given as a result of a direction under the Industry Act 1975 tomorrow night rather than as a direct investment by the NEB?

§ Mr. Varley
There is a case for allocating a sum to the board and letting it take over the whole responsibility. It may be that we shall have to consider that in future. The hon. Gentleman has written me a long and detailed letter and I have had a meeting with him and his hon. Friend on this matter. I am looking at it very carefully. If I can provide additional information I shall do so, and I shall try to provide it in time for tomorrow's debate.

§ Mr. Miller
While pausing to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) that I voted for the British Leyland support operation, may I ask the Secretary of State whether it is not true that the £100 million in fact commits the next part of the capital programme? Therefore, should he not be asking the House for the full amount of a programme—either a model or the re-equipment of a factory—so that it can be judged on a sensible basis?

§ Mr. Varley
I am not so sure that is the best way of proceeding. The NEB has been given the task of monitoring the performance of British Leyland, and at the end of the day we have to rely to a great extent on the board's advice. The hon. Gentleman should know—I know that the House takes it into account— 1184 that the board of the NEB contains very experienced men, not only those whom we have been successful in obtaining from the British trade union movement but also senior industrialists—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) scoffing at that, because by doing so he is scoffing at some very experienced men in British industry.