Trades Union Congress (Hansard, 12 February 1986)

§ 2. Mr. Tom Clarke
asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the Trades Union Congress; and what matters will be discussed.

§ The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon)
I have no immediate plans to do so, but of course I am always prepared to have such a meeting.

§ Mr. Clarke
When the Secretary of State eventually holds such a meeting, will he bear in mind the worries of many people that for every three jobs that we had in the steel industry when this Government took office, we now have only one? Given that rapid decline, how long will it be before we cease to have an indigenous steel industry and no jobs in steel?

§ Mr. Channon
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the steel industry. He has raised it many times in the House. However, he overlooks the fact that during the past five years over £4.5 billion has been contributed to the steel industry. It is a little unfair to say that the Government have not tried to help it.

§ Mr. Favell
What would the position now be if our share of the domestic motor car industry market was not 34 per cent., but the 90 per cent. that it was 25 years ago? How many more jobs would now be secure at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh?

§ Mr. Channon
My hon. Friend makes the point extremely forcefully. Many of our problems would undoubtedly be very much eased if we had more than a 3.9 per cent. share of the European car market.

§ Mr. Hoyle
Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss the Government's disastrous plan to sell off Leyland Commercial Vehicles, Land Rover and Freight Rover to General Motors, with a loss of research and development and jobs in both Leyland Commercial Vehicles and General Motors? Why are this Government, who used to talk about batting for Britain, now continually batting for American multinationals?

§ Mr. Channon
The hon. Gentleman distorts the position. It was made clear to the House on several occasions last week that I am trying very hard to secure a viable future for those parts of British Leyland to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I want to try to ensure that that can be done, and that I shall obtain adequate assurances that will satisfy the House.

§ Mr. Robert Atkins
Does my right hon. Friend think that it might be possible to persuade members of the TUC that an approach by Leyland Bus to Laird, possibly to take it over, or at least to amalgamate with it, might be more acceptable to the trade unions than the reverse? At the same time, will he consider the possibility of negotiations between Leyland Trucks and a European manufacturer, such as Daf, which may have more in common with Leyland in terms of manufacturing trucks than General Motors has.

§ Mr. Channon
As my hon. Friend is aware, at present talks are taking place between British Leyland and the Laird group about the future of Leyland Bus. Obviously the board would consider other proposals on their commercial merits in relation to the company as a whole.

§ Mr. Williams
When the Secretary of State eventually meets the TUC, how will he explain that after six so-called leaner, fitter, Tory years, during which world trade in manufactures has risen by 27 per cent., our manufacturing output has fallen, our manufacturing investment has fallen and is still 20 per cent. below the level when the Government came to office, and our manufacturing imports have soared by 45 per cent.?

§ Mr. Channon
I must point out that our manufacturing investment rose by 14.5 per cent. in 1984 and by a further 6 per cent. in 1985. Manufacturing exports increased by 8.5 per cent. in 1985, and, in terms of both volume and value, are at a record high.