British Leyland (Hansard, 27 February 1978)

§ 6. Mr. Norman Lamont
asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next 15 intends to meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

§ 17. Mr. Durant
asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to have a meeting with the Chairman of British Leyland.

§ 18. Mr. Dykes
asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to have a meeting with the Chairman of British Leyland.

§ 20. Mr. Grylls
asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he intends to meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

§ Mr. Varley
I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) on 23rd January.

§ Mr. Lamont
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it remains the Government's policy that no more money should be advanced to British Leyland without there being first a definite improvement in both productivity and industrial relations, and that they will not trot out their old friend Mr. Solemn and Binding? If this is to be a credible stand by the Government, should not the Secretary of State make clear now the improvements for which the Government will be looking in both productivity and labour relations?

§ Mr. Varley
As I told the House on the last occasion, I think that British Leyland is in the course of working out its corporate plan, which it will submit to the NEB, and the Board will report to me during the course of next month. I am not sure that the old formula that we had, which was announced in April 1975, I think, that everything was conditional upon a certain performance is the best way of going about it. I do not think that it is entirely realistic to suggest that.
The real test of British Leyland—and I think that there has been an improvement over the past few weeks—is whether it can sell its products in the market place in the face of fierce competition, and not on the basis of whether £50 million is coming next week, or the week after, or the week after that, with all the inevitable threats and drama that surround that. We shall look closely at the NEB's report and then decide how to proceed.

§ Mr. Durant
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we support the attempts by Mr. Edwardes to do something with this industry? Will he ensure that the Government give him support when he tackles the question of manning levels and also when he goes for profit areas and not just unprofitable areas? Will the Government give him support?

§ Mr. Varley
I have already said, and the Prime Minister has said, that on the question on the management of British Leyland we entirely support the approach of Mr. Michael Edwardes. He has made it plain that he wants to proceed on the basis of consultation with the work force, with proper negotiation and participation.

§ Mr. Dykes
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his complacent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) will cause alarm amongst taxpayers and, indeed, among the public in general? The idea that now, after all that has been asked by the Government and the pressure of public opinion, labour relations should assume a lower position in the pecking order of priorities is alarming, to say the least. Will the right hon. Gentleman rescind his previous answer and reaffirm that powerfully successful labour relations in British Leyland are of the highest priority, and will he stop undermining the work of Pat Lowry?

§ Mr. Varley
Nobody is undermining the work of Pat Lowry or anybody else. I am expressing the view that the best way that British Leyland can proceed is by achieving higher performance, better productivity, continuity of production and being able to sell its products in the market place against existing competition here and elsewhere. At this stage I have not received the report from the NEB, which will report to me directly about this matter, but I am not sure that these great moments of drama that we have from time to time—"Will she, won't she hand over the money?"—are the best way of proceeding. The best way of proceeding is probably by making sure that British Leyland is successful.

§ Mr. Grylls
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people think that his monitoring of British Leyland's affairs is about as ineffective as his monitoring of British Steel? Will he say whether 17 it is true that British Leyland will ask for a further £400 million of taxpayers' money as capital? If that is to happen, the House will be extremely critical and will want to monitor progress before it is put in.

§ Mr. Varley
I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely critical of any form of public enterprise, as is the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), even though they have been associated with a great deal of it themselves. I am taking a realistic view of British Leyland, and I think that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), instead of indulging in the carping criticism that he has to offer on every occasion, would be better served if he were to give a little support to British Leyland workers and management.

§ Mr. Robinson
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the positive tenor of his remarks will be very much welcomed on this side of the House, particularly with regard to the release of funds? When he meets the Chairman of British Leyland, will he accede to his request to get rid of these preconditions for the release of funds which are psychologically counter-productive and totally impractical?

§ Mr. Varley
My hon. Friend has expressed that view on previous occasions. I make plain that the Government have not received the NEB's report. When we do we shall look at it sympathetically, but I stand by all that I have said this afternoon on the question of finance.

§ Mr. Litterick
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he approves of the way in which the Speke plant closure decision was taken? Does he accept that it underlines the need for a proper comprehensive planning agreement with British Leyland? Will he accept that we on this side of the House do not share the vicious and unpatriotic pleasure expressed by Conservative Members when they hear that British workers have been laid off work?

§ Mr. Varley
That is true. I am always amazed at the delight that I see on the faces of Conservative Members when redundancies are announced. The decision on Speke was taken by the management. It was a decision for British Leyland to take. Only the management can 18 run the business. I know that further discussions will take place about that plant on Merseyside.
My answer to my hon. Friend's question about planning agreements is that there is no Government block on British Leyland's concluding a planning agreement with the Government or with its work force.

§ Sir K. Joseph
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if more money is requested for British Leyland from the taxpayer it is to be given without any conditions?

§ Mr. Varley
What I am saying is that British Leyland will require more public finance. There is no doubt about that. The actual form which that public money will take will depend upon British Leyland's corporate plan and its report, to the NEB, and what the Board recommends to me—the NEB consisting of trade unionists and senior management in British industry. It will then be up to the Government to decide what proposals they should make to the House, but it is much too early to say.

§ 8. Mr. Ridley
asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much public money has so far been advanced to British Leyland since its shares were acquired by the National Enterprise Board.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman)
Since the National Enterprise Board acquired its holding in British Leyland on 1st March 1976, £150 million of public money has been advanced to the company in the form of long-term loans. In addition, the company has received small amounts of assistance under a variety of schemes which are available to industry generally.

§ Mr. Ridley
As the industrial strategy of the NEB was to be to invest in winners, does the Minister not think that a disproportionate amount of resources has gone to losers? Is this not misleading the House again about the purpose of the NEB? Will the Minister now state to the House and to the country at large what requirements the Government will put on British Leyland for improvements in productivity, sales and labour relations before any further money is granted from public funds?

§ Mr. Kaufman
The hon. Gentleman is, as always, misinformed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I always had a funny feeling that I did not enjoy the full support of the Tory Party. British Leyland was not a National Enterprise Board investment. It was a rescue by the Labour Government of a failed private enterprise concern which was then handed over to the custodianship of the National Enterprise Board when it was formed.

§ Mr. Skinner
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, since the takeover and the use of public money to rescue this private enterprise firm, about £11 million a day has been poured into private enterprise generally in the form of various grants? Would now be the appropriate time, in the interests of open government, noticing the clamour by the Conservative Party over these matters, to publish every penny of the money spent on every individual firm and to note in the Official Report those firms that are contributing funds to the Tory Party?

§ Mr. Kaufman
I am sure that that will be of great interest, but it would be violating the canons of commercial confidentiality laid down by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Any stick will do for the Tory Opposition with which to beat public enterprise and nationalisation.