§ Q1. Mrs. GillanTo ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 February.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mrs. GillanDoes my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder.
§ Mrs. GillanThank you, Madam Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the combination of BMW and Rover, creating the largest specialist car manufacturer in the world, is good news for Rover, for its work force and for the United Kingdom? Given the demand for Rover cars around the world, especially for the Land-Rover, does he agree that this is a far cry from the days when Rover was a state-run bankrupt shambles, producing cars that nobody wanted to buy?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the new arrangements will provide new export markets and more investment for Rover. BMW will be able to offer Rover access to new markets—for example, in Germany and the United States, where the Rover network is weak. With a world-beating product and that link, the prospects for Rover are excellent.
§ Mr. John SmithIn the light of that answer, is it now the Government's definition of success for a British company that it is taken over by a foreign competitor?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. and learned Gentleman really should catch up with the modern world. He simply does not understand how free markets work. Only a few weeks ago, he welcomed the Government's achievement in working for a successful conclusion to the GATT round. GATT stands for free trade. That means companies trading and buying across national boundaries. He may know that Marks and Spencer owns Brooks Brothers in the United States; Grand Metropolitan owns Jack Daniels; John Swire owns Cathay Pacific; and Hanson, GEC and Racal own foreign companies. That is the world in which we live, not the 1960s, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman covets.
§ Mr. John SmithI deduce, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. If hon. Members wish to make interventions, perhaps they will resume their seats in the normal manner.
§ Mr. John SmithI deduce from that rambling and defensive answer that the right hon. Gentleman believes that a takeover is a sign of success. Why does he think that that view is not held in Germany, France and Italy, which care about keeping their own car industries?
§ The Prime MinisterI deduce from that pre-prepared second question—[Interruption.]—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to the answer. Is he suggesting—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. Prime Minister.
§ The Prime MinisterI know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—does not like the fact that we know that he usually has all three of his questions written out, but is he suggesting that some form of protectionism is correct? Is he suggesting that we should have intervened to stop the sale? Is he suggesting that the ramshackle British Leyland that went into the private sector would have been the successful Rover that it is today but for that privatisation?
§ Mr. John SmithIs not the truth that the deal has been done not to further the long-term interests of the British car industry but to satisfy the short-term need of British Aerospace for cash? Is that a good reason for losing our only independent car producer? Did the Prime Minister know of the deal when he told business men in Leeds that he was "betting on Britain"?
§ The Prime MinisterI was unfair on the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He should have stuck to his written question, which undoubtedly would have been a good deal better. BMW spent £800 million on Rover because it sees the potential for growth and prosperity. That would never have occurred if the right hon. Gentleman's policy had kept Rover in the public sector. We would have had the drip, drip, drip feed of public expenditure maintaining British Leyland, not a privatised, world-beating company.