§ Mr. SpeakerI have a third application. Can I ask if this application arose from information that came into the hon. Gentleman's possession after 12 o'clock.?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWithin 24 hours, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 10, which is urgent, important and specific namely,
the anti-competitive nature of the Laird-Leyland-Department of Trade and Industry discussions on the future of Leyland Bus.The matter is specific in so far as it relates to negotiations now going on between the Laird group, Leyland and Department of Industry officials on the future of Leyland Bus's three plants, which cover 2,500 workers.
The matter is important because I have learned that, despite assurances, the BL board is looking for the best deal for Leyland Bus, and the Department is deliberately obstructing interest shown by other parties who might be interested in exploratory discussions on the future of Leyland Bus. That means that the BL board is favouring the Leyland group in a most unreasonable and anticompetitive way.
The Department is acting against the public interest. The BL board knows the danger of the takeover. It knows that if Laird pulled diesel multiple units and railbus work out of Workington, it would be removing, at a stroke, all competition to Laird-Metro Cammell Weymour, thus denying the possibility of dual sourcing of rail products, and leaving Leyland Workington to produce buses in a declining market. All Leyland work on the diversification of products and the move into railbus, much of which is funded by the taxpayer, would be lost.
The BL board also knows that the Laird group's bus market is a tiddler in the business which, although produces a good product, is but one fifth the size of Leyland Bus in terms of output. It lacks Leyland's technological base, export expertise, and component-manufacturing capability in axles and gearboxes. Laird is the tiddler in the bus business, endeavouring to marshall 788 the activities of the giant Leyland Bus. Leyland employees are most indignant about the way in which the matter is being handled.
The matter is urgent, because a decision on Laird is due in six weeks, and every day counts. If the objective of a retained and rationalised Leyland Bus reporting direct to the BL board is to be rejected, and the Government insist on privatisation, the company's negotiations should be open and above board, and invitations should go out to a number of parties inviting options. The Government are currently operating an inexcusable, highly irregular, closed-door, closed-shop series of negotiations.
Finally, the industry as a whole is bemused by the admissions in Laird Group's annual report 1984. That report accepts the inevitable decline of the British bus industry, yet that company will determine the future of the British bus industry. This is an admission of inability to bring the bus business round.
The matter is urgent. Every employee of Leyland Bus wants this debate to take place. They are worried about their future, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you in your wisdom will give us the debate that we request.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The action of British Leyland, under instructions from the Department of Trade and Industry, in preventing the competitors of the Laird group from bidding for Leyland Bus.I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 10 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business already set down for this evening, or for tomorrow. I regret that I cannot find that the matter that he has raised meets all the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. Doubtless he will find other ways of bringing the matter before the Chamber.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThank you, Mr. Speaker.