HC Deb 06 March 1986 vol 93 cc445-8 3.30 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston)

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding Lancashire Enterprise Ltd.'s firm indication of interest in respect of the purchase of British Leyland.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon)

I understand from BL that Hill Samuel has offered a meeting this week with Lancashire Enterprise Ltd. to explore further the nature of its proposals following its preliminary expression of interest indicated to Hill Samuel on 4 March.

Mr. Thorne

That reply comes to me as a surprise, particularly if we refer to the statement made yesterday in the House by the Secretary of State, from which I quote: The deputation was given a full opportunity to declare a firm indication of interest but it did not do so. In reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please paraphrase?

Mr. Thorne

By inviting me to paraphrase, Mr. Speaker, you are inviting me to do what the Secretary of State did yesterday—deliberately or otherwise to mislead the House. I do not wish to do that, so I am quoting what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the rules.

Mr. Thorne

I shall read, because I am talking about what the Secretary of State said.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) knows that we have a very busy day ahead of us. Will he please get on with his supplementary question?

Mr. Thorne

I am doing my best to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but if you continue to interrupt I shall be in difficulty. In regard to LEL, the Secretary of State said: every assistance was given to it to try to get it into a position to make a firm indication of interest, but I understand that by last night it had not given any such indications."—[Official Report, 5 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 312–16.] That statement was made by the Secretary of State in spite of the fact that LEL, the firm I am talking about, had already sent a telex to Hill Samuel which read as follows—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I granted the hon. Gentleman a private notice question, not an Adjournment debate. He must ask a question, please.

Mr. Thorne

You draw attention to the fact that you granted the private notice question, Mr. Speaker. I assume that you did so on the basis of my being able at least to give the facts to the House—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a private notice question. Will the hon. Gentleman please ask a question?

Mr. Thorne

If I were to ask a short question of the Secretary of State, it would be why he misled the House yesterday but, to do that, I have to demonstrate the basis for my claim that he misled the House. That is why I shall read to you, Mr. Speaker, the telex that was sent to Hill Samuel at 6.25 pm on 4 March. It said: This telex is intended to formally confirm that interest prior to tonight's deadline". In other works, LEL got its name before Hill Samuel before the midnight deadline on 4 March.

Mr. Channon

I did not mislead the House yesterday. I have checked carefully what I said yesterday, and it was wholly accurate. By the appropriate night, Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. had not put in a firm intention to make a bid which those whom I described to the House yesterday had done. Nevertheless, Hill Samuel has helpfully offered a meeting. It seems to me that that is a helpful suggestion, not an unhelpful one, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is making a fuss.

Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pressure for consideration of LEL's offer has the support of all parties on Lancashire county council, including the Conservative party, and the support of my Conservative-controlled borough council? Does he agree that, in view of the wide disparity between the time allocated for General Motors to consider the matter and that available for other bidders, some flexibility should be granted when a definite interest is involved, such as my right hon. Friend has generously been able to do in relation to Leyland Bus?

Mr. Channon

There should be the meeting which Hill Samuel has suggested with LEL, and then all these matters can be examined.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

Is not the Secretary of State aware that one of the reasons why Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. was not able to declare a "firm indication of interest"—the right hon. Gentleman's words—until late on Tuesday night was that Hill Samuel had repeatedly refused to grant it the necessary documentation to put together proposals? Although we are glad to learn that, at this late stage, the Secretary of State has relented, as has Hill Samuel, to declare that negotiations with LEL must go ahead, will he instruct Hill Samuel to give LEL exactly the same documentation as was received by General Motors?

Mr. Channon

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not exactly true. Unlike all the other people, LEL has not signed a confidentiality agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been asked."] It most certainly has been asked. There were telephone conversations last week, and still no action was taken. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid that he is grossly exaggerating the situation. Nevertheless, Hill Samuel has offered a meeting. That seems an extremely helpful way forward. We should see what happens.

Mr. John Mark Taylor (Solihull)

Of the offers that were in by the deadline, especially that of Lonrho, did any involve the introduction to Land Rover of a high technology plant?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That question is out of order. The private notice question relates to Lancashire Enterprises Ltd.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

Will the Minister now answer this question directly? As the giant American consortium General Motors has had 18 months to put its bid together, will he give the House a clear indication that this bid, which is British and local, will not be —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. All this takes up a great deal of time.

Mr. Ashdown

I will have my question. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the bid, which is British and local, will not be decided on the grounds of a technicality?

Mr. Channon

I made the position clear regarding General Motors yesterday. Nothing has changed since 3.30 yesterday afternoon. In fact, Hill Samuel offered a meeting with Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. at 11 o'clock yesterday morning. When I came into the Chamber, no reply had been received. It seemed to me a helpful step that there should be a meeting to allow them to get on with it.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

My right hon. Friend might agree that there are few more nauseating noises than those made by someone who wants an American takeover one week and a British flag-waving operation the next. Leaving that aside, can my right hon. Friend help me? He has not yet managed to convince me that the Government are genuinely even-handed in their assessment of the General Motors bid as opposed to this bid and the other British bids. He has not yet managed to convince me that genuine equality of information has been offered for this bidder and for the other British bidders as opposed to the information offered to General Motors. Could he please try harder?

Mr. Channon

I tried hard at the same time yesterday afternoon to satisfy my hon. Friend. I am happy to come down every afternoon and do my best. I can only repeat the answer that I gave my hon. Friend yesterday, which assured him that we were treating all the firm indications of bids with extreme care.

Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East)

The Secretary of State will understand that we are looking forward with interest to his daily appearances next week. Before then, can he answer two simple questions? First, is it not the case that Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. showed its firm interest before what he called the "close of play"? Secondly, what is the purpose of this meeting? Will it be open to the Government to receive a bid from Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. as a result of what transpires at the meeting? Will he please answer that yes or no?

Mr. Channon

It is clear that LEL did not put in a firm intention to make a bid by the appropriate time. However, at the same time, it did put in a telex which I have described to the House and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand from Hill Samuel that the purpose of the meeting which it suggested was to explore all those points. If suitable assurances can be found, I would not wish to rule out anyone on a technicality.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Butterfill

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

I shall take it, then.

Mr. Butterfill

You will have heard the question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), Mr. Speaker, relating to the dismissal of local councillors and you may have seen early-day motion 547 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) calling for the dismissal of the judges who disqualified those councillors.

[That this House regards with grave concern the decision of Mr. Justice Glidewell, Mr. Justice Caulfield and Mr. Justice Russell to disqualify democratically elected councillors from Liverpool and Lambeth: notes that judges are themselves appointed and not elected; and calls for the immediate dismissal of these judges.] Is it not a gross abuse of this House to use an early-day motion to call for the dismissal of judges whose duty it is to uphold the laws made by the House?

Mr. Speaker

It is perfectly in order. In fact, the only way in which it is possible to criticise a judge is to put down a motion.