HC Deb 10 April 1978 vol 947 cc960-2
13. Mr. Norman Lamont

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's industrial strategy.

Mr. Varley

Yes, Sir. We now wish to see the valuable work which sector working parties are doing translated this year into effective action at company level.

Mr. Lamont

Is the Secretary of State aware that we noted with interest his speech last week in the course of which he said that the central aim of the Government's industrial strategy was to improve productivity? Since our average rate of increase in 1974, 1975 and 1976 was zero and only three countries in the entire OECD world did worse, how can he say that he is satisfied?

Mr. Varley

I am not satisfied with the level of productivity. Nor am I satisfied yet with the work to reverse the relative decline which has occurred in our manufacturing industry. However, the sector working parties and the industrial strategy have made a good start. They have the continued support of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, and I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) should support them as well.

Mr. Madden

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Spillers dealt a blow to the Government's industrial strategy on Friday by announcing 8,000 redundancies? Does he not also agree that it is entirely in character with this company, which has been promoting its financial situation, that over recent years it has found it possible to donate £5,000 a year to British United Industrialists, a rabid anti-Labour organisation? Does he not agree, further, that this company—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—blackmailed the Government into accepting the position by saying that, if they did not do so, it would make 13,000 workers redundant instead of 8,000? Will my right hon. Friend issue a directive to the NEB to require Spillers French to maintain competition and employment in this important sector of industry?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is not fair to other hon. Members. There is a Private Notice Question on the subject later.

Mr. Varley

I do not have departmental responsibility for the baking industry. I understand that a Private Notice Question is to be answered later today. But I can tell my hon. Friend—and I think that I reflect the views of my right hon. Friend who has responsibility for this company—that we were most disappointed at the way in which Spillers went about its activities, and I know that further consideration is being given to the matter.

Mr. Tebbit

Since the industrial strategy has resulted in more unemployment and lower living standards, why is the Secretary of State so cocksure that he has it right and that every other country has got it wrong?

Mr. Varley

I am not at all cocksure that this Government have it right, or anything of the kind. I am saying that the industrial strategy is designed to reverse the relative decline in British industry—a decline which went on at a greater pace under the Conservative Government than it has under this Government. To single out the intolerable unemployment figures here and to suggest that they are unique is again a misrepresentation.

Mr. Bryan Davies

What does my right hon. Friend think of the industrial strategy of a company like Thorn Electrical Industries, which engages in the closest possible consultation with its work force and with Members of Parliament with constituency interests when a threat from Japan materialises but which announces in the most abrupt way, without any consultation, the closure of a major factory and a threat to a large number of other jobs?

Mr. Varley

I think that all companies which are in difficulty should consult the Government about how they propose to deal with those problems. That goes for Spillers, for Thorn and for any other company. My right hon. Friends and I deplore any arbitrary action which results in the sort of dislocation and hardship which have been created in this case.