HC Deb 21 February 1983 vol 37 cc647-9
2. Mr. Canavan

asked the Minister for Trade how many times since May 1979 a recommendation from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been overruled.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan)

The Government have not followed the commission's recommendations in three cases.

Mr. Canavan

Instead of hon. Members listening to the monkey, is it not about time that the organ grinder himself was brought from the House of Lords to the Bar of this House to explain why he is jeopardising the jobs of more than 3,000 Scottish workers at Anderson Strathclyde by abrogating his responsibilities and allowing the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to be overruled because he happens to be lining his pockets out of shares in a racist company—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am satisfied that that remark should be withdrawn. No one can be an honourable man and a Minister and line his pockets at the same time. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that charge.

Mr. Cryer

He has the shares; he does not hold them for charity.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) must stop that running interruption. I am addressing the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Canavan

I rephrase my words and say that he is filling his pockets with money from shares in Charter Consolidated.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am talking about a charge of dishonour in the accusation that a Minister of the Crown is lining his pockets at the public expense. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Canavan

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. No point of order arises on that. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his accusation.

Mr. Canavan

I shall withdraw it and replace it with the words, "filling his pockets out of shares in a racist company such as Charter Consolidated."

Mr. Speaker

Order. I believe that that is the company about which the Secretary of State overruled the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I give the hon. Gentleman one last opportunity to withdraw that remark. Otherwise, I shall have to instruct him to leave the House.

Mr. Canavan

I am not withdrawing something which I know to be true.

Mr. Speaker

I direct the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire to withdraw from the House for the rest of this day's sitting.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr. John Fraser

Why did the Secretary of State for Trade not declare his interest in Anderson Strathclyde at the time that he made the decision to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission rather than at the time that the commission announced its findings?

Dr. Vaughan

As the House knows, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State behaved with perfect propriety. Because of his shareholding, he has distanced himself from both the report and the decision. I think that that was correct, and so did the court.

Sir Russell Fairgrieve

Is it not a bit odd for a nation such as Scotland, which has sent its people all over the world to run other people's industries, to be so frightened of itself that it cannot accept a sensible rationalisation in Scotland's interests? The proper people to decide the issue are the shareholders of Anderson Strathclyde. It should not be done by a statutory body taking a subjective judgment about the public interest.

Dr. Vaughan

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. There are two important issues here. One is that we are discussing an engineering company with a great international reputation which needs its overseas markets to carry on its business. The other is that we are discussing the implications for Scottish employment. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recognises the need for the company to have its international base and my hon. and learned Friend has recognised that in his decision.

Mr. Maclennan

Does the Minister realise that it is a serious matter when a member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission feels prevailed upon to resign because of the Government's attitude in this case? Does he recognise that the entire management of the Scottish company is deeply worried about the implications for Scottish employment? Why have the Government paid so little attention to the considerations that have been in the minds of those who know the companies interests best?

Dr. Vaughan

I do not accept that the Government gave little attention to this matter. My hon. and learned Friend set out the reasons clearly in the press notice, which was issued on the report's publication, and in his statement to the House on 22 December. Professor Bain's resignation is regrettable, but it was a personal matter. Members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are free to make public statements of their views.

Dr. Bray

Why did the Secretary of State not make his interest known in the press release that was issued by the Department, but only when I raised the question with the Prime Minister at Question Time that afternoon?

Dr. Vaughan

As I have said, these events take their course, and my right hon. and noble Friend made his statement in a perfectly proper way at the right time.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the important points that many hon. Members have made about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is that too many people think that it should have the final say? Is it not proper that the House should have the final say as to what is in the public interest? Otherwise, we are handing over the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to those who were not elected. Should not we reinforce public control, not those who are selected to control?

Dr. Vaughan

The matter was established clearly by the courts recently. The primary function of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is to investigate and then to report on any matters that are referred to it, including whether those might be expected to operate against the public interest. It is then the Government's responsibility to decide what action, if any, is necessary.

Mr. John Fraser

Will the Minister now answer my question as to why the Secretary of State did not declare his interest on 2 June 1982 when he made a decision to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, rather in December 1982 when he received the report?

Dr. Vaughan

The hon. Gentleman is trying to go over ground that has been fully investigated. There is no point in going further.