Anderson Strathclyde (Prevention of Take-over) (Hansard, 30 March 1983)

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent any takeover of Anderson Strathclyde plc which is against the public interest; and for connected purposes. It was a former Tory Prime Minister who coined the phrase about the unacceptable face of capitalism. A decade or so ago the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was referring to the activities of a multinational company called Lonrho, which had South African connections. Ironically, we are today discussing the activities of another multinational company, Charter Consolidated, which also has South African connections and is in the process of taking over the Scottish company Anderson Strathclyde.
It is not simply another example of yet another takeover and the growth of power of multinational companies. It is an instance of the unacceptable face of capitalism infiltrating the corridors of power at Westminster, Whitehall and even the British Cabinet itself. It is an example of the abdication of responsibility and gross dereliction of duty by people who were appointed to responsible public positions, supposedly to look after the public interest, and who, far from looking after that public interest, have acted against it and put their own private interests before the public good.
I and other hon. Members have previously referred to the role of the non-elected Secretary of State for Trade, Lord Cockfield, with his vested interest in Charter Consolidated. It is worth pointing out that the Financial Times and other newspapers recently stated that Lord Cockfield had not dealt in the shares of that company since he became a Minister. In fact, the register of shareholders for Charter Consolidated tells a different story. It shows that Lord Cockfield's account for 2,500 ordinary shares was not closed until 24 May 1982—three years after his appointment as a Minister, and three weeks after Charter Consolidated's bid for Anderson Strathclyde was made. The week after the closure of Lord Cockfield's account, his Department formally referred the contested bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
There is also the role of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who, I understand, was, and possibly still is, a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Trade. He is a director of the large corporate public relations firm Charles Barker, which handles Charter Consolidated's PR account. I am informed that the executive director of Charter Consolidated, Mr. John Richardson, wrote to the hon. Member for Lewes at the Department—a lengthy personal letter—about the virtues of the merger.
Charter Consolidated was also being helped in its bid by its financial advisers Hambros—another company with good connections with the Tory party. According to the register of interests, the Tory MP for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) is a director of Hambros Bank, and the Hambros group has regularly given financial donations to the Conservative party—I understand of the order of £20,000 a year.
During a debate on the Floor of the House last week the Minister for Trade told my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that he did not live in the 357 same squalid world as my hon. Friend. I wish to tell the Minister, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me, that we are glad that we do not live in the same squalid world as he and his friends in the Tory party. The whole matter stinks.
Last week, the week before, last month, last year, or whenever, the Minister repeatedly failed to give a satisfactory explanation of his unprecedented decision to overrule the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am forced to conclude that people in high places have been nobbled by their rich Tory friends. We can see the result in the disastrous effect on the Scottish economy in terms of employment—or, rather, potential unemployment. We already have more than a third of a million unemployed in Scotland, and now more than 3,000 additional jobs in Anderson Strathclyde are at risk because of the reckless measures taken by the Government.
The history of the Scottish economy shows that the growth of multinational companies through mergers, takeovers, and so on, leads to increased non-accountability. It leads to people wanting to get their greedy hands on financial interests, with a minimum amount of accountability to local interests. The result is remote control, lack of local accountability to the work force, and so on.
For all those reasons, and others, not only the majority of members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the trade unions representing the work force, the board of Anderson Strathclyde, local authorities in Scotland, and most of the customers of Anderson Strathclyde expressed their total opposition to the takeover. Unfortunately, the Minister allowed it to go ahead, which led to the events of last week when a sufficient number of shareholders sold out to Charter Consolidated. Some people may think that the motion that I tabled three weeks ago has been overtaken by events, because the takeover is now a fait accompli, but I shall explain that that is not necessarily so.
My original intention was to say that no takeover of Anderson Strathclyde would be possible unless the proposed takeover had the approval of, first, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, second, the majority of the Anderson Strathclyde work force, third, the majority of the Anderson Strathclyde shareholders, and, fourth, the majority of members of the Scottish Grand Committee in this House. That would introduce an element of not only parliamentary but industrial democracy. If there is a case for saying that shareholders should have a say in the future ownership of a company, surely the same is true for the work force. If those who invest capital in a company have a say in the ownership and future ownership of a company, those who invest their labour should also have a say. The proposals in my Bill would ultimately be subject to the approval of the Anderson Strathclyde work force.
In view of last week's events, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to nullify the takeover and 358 preserve the public interest is to take out some form of public ownership of Anderson Strathclyde. I have a great deal of sympathy for full-scale nationalisation in an instance like this, and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would also see considerable merit in that. However, no doubt voices would be raised in the House about the possibility of demands for compensation, some of them legitimate, especially for those shareholders of Anderson Strathclyde who remained loyal to the company by refusing to sell out to Charter Consolidated.
There are other hon. Members who often speak of the merits of the mixed economy. So, in an effort to broaden support on both sides of the House for my measure, I shall moderate my demands and propose a mixed economy solution. In other words, I propose to take into public ownership only those shares that are now held by Charter Consolidated and transfer that holding to the Scottish Development Agency. That would ensure a major public stake in Anderson Strathclyde.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
Eminently reasonable.

§ Mr. Canavan
Finally, on the question of compensation, I should be prepared to consider needy cases on their merits. However, I am bound to say that some cases deserve nothing at all. For example, Lord Cockfield and his friends would have great difficulty in putting forward a case that was based on need. So I am of the opinion that he and his friends should not get a penny of compensation.
I should also bear in mind the morality—or rather the immorality—of the South African connection of Charter Consolidated, because those who willingly and knowingly invest in the evil of apartheid should not be compensated at all. Thus, compensatior. under the Bill would be kept to an absolute minimum and the majority public stake in Anderson Strathclyde would ensure that the company remains a Scottish-based one, responsive to the aspirations of its work force, the needs of its customers, and the general public interest. I therefore ask the House to approve unanimously my moderate Bill.

§ Mr. Cryer
The essence of moderation.

§ Mr. Canavan
Does the Minister for Trade wish to put his name to it?