HC Deb 10 May 1976 vol 911 cc17-8
16. Mr. Hal Miller

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether his Department has agreed with the National Enterprise Board and British Leyland the improvements in productivity and industrial relations that the Prime Minister said must be achieved before further tranches of public money can be made available to British Leyland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield)

The confidential operating plans which British Leyland has agreed with the NEB for the current year include defined targets on many aspects of performance. But as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on 5th April, we should be judging whether there has been adequate improvement in productivity and industrial relations rather than applying an arithmetical formula.

Mr. Miller

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. We welcome his knowledge and contribution on these matters, but may I ask him what his reply meant? If the situation is to be judged overall, is there an overall bench mark that must be set, and is that to be made known to the House, so that we may form our own opinion on whether the objectives are being met?

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but, much as I hate to disappoint him, I cannot give him some primitive touchstone by which he may test the performance of British Leyland when the time comes for decisions to be made. As my right hon. Friend said on 5th April, there is no conveniently simple arithmetical formula available to us. In response to his last point, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that when the National Enterprise Board has made its report and the Government have announced their decision, it will, of course, be brought before the House.

Mr. Robinson

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he take it that, contrary to what Opposition Members may think, and contrary to the sustained barrage of cirticism directed at British Leyland, considerable progress is being made with regard to both manpower productivity and reorganisation in the corporation? Does he agree that one of the biggest dangers to progress in the corporation is the uncertainty among both management and workers on the shop floor, and that one step that could be taken to remove that uncertainty would be immediately to release the funds required for the prospective development programmes of the corporation, which would also provide a much-needed stimulus to the machine tool industry as well?

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful to my hon. Friend also for his kind words. I know that he speaks with great expertise in these matters. I must tell him that the conditions for the release of the next stage of public finance will be the National Enterprise Board's and the Government's satisfaction that there has been adequate progress in achieving higher productivity and better industrial relations.

Mr. Tom King

How are those who work at British Leyland supposed to be able to reach the objectives when nobody will tell them what the objectives are? The hon. Gentleman says that there is no convenient arithmetical formula. Has he not read the CPRS Report, which includes just such a proposal for a formula? Do the Government accept that?

Mr. Huckfield

I am not sure how far the hon. Gentleman understands the participation machinery in British Leyland. He ought to realise that management has discussed specific production targets with the work force through the new participation machinery.