HL Deb 12 May 1982 vol 430 cc214-8

2.40 p.m.

Lord Lee of Newton

My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Jacques, may I apologise for his absence and ask permission to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would now agree, having regard to the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, that the Opposition are justified in their criticism of the way in which Her Majesty's Government are disposing of parts of state-owned corporations; and what action they are going to take to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield)

My Lords, the report in question is a report of a committee of another place. The correct procedure, therefore, is for Her Majesty's Government to reply in another place in due course. This is the procedure we propose following. Meantime, I would only say that a primary objective in all cases has been to secure the return of the organisations in question to the private sector. That has been successfully achieved.

Lord Lee of Newton

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that the comments of the Committee form a complete indictment of the manner in which the Government are disturbing publicly-owned industries and converting them to privatisation? Could he comment at least on one of their recommendations: We recommend that they "— that is, the Treasury— should re-examine carefully what steps could be taken in any future sales to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense".

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, this was debated at length in your Lordships' House on 21st April. I am sorry if the noble Lord was not able to be present on that occasion. But a very full reply was then given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of another place and the Government propose following the correct procedures in this matter.

Lord Kaldor

My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's initial reply that privatisation is an over-riding or paramount objective of the Government quite irrespective of the terms on which it can be achieved and the net cost involved to the nation in doing so?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, may I suggest, with respect, that the noble Lord reads my reply with more care than he listened to it? We have never said that privatisation is the one and only objective. It is an important objective and it has been successfully achieved.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that privatisation is more important than competence and efficiency?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, there are many matters which need to be balanced. The noble Lord is now trying to re-open a debate on the merits of this case, which were dealt with at great length in the debate in your Lordships' House.

Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

My Lords, is it not perfectly possible to listen to a lengthy discussion, especially involving the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and still find—because he is so stimulating—that there are other questions that one wishes to ask afterwards? One cannot limit debate by saying that the subject has already been discussed. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord to be a little careful in inferring that people are unable to understand what is said at the time? I think his reply to my noble friend required a little consideration.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, so far as the point of the noble Baroness is concerned, I have never attempted to limit debate in your Lordships' House on any matter. Nevertheless, if your Lordships have spent a great deal of time discussing a matter it is, I suggest, perfectly legitimate to refer to the fact that it has been discussed. The precise words that I used—and this was not a long reply because I take great care not to give long replies—were, a primary objective in all cases". This does not mean that it is an objective to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that it is also Government policy to dispose of those parts of state-owned corporations—and I am quoting from my noble friend's Question—which are making a profit and to leave the ones not making a profit in public hands?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with a report by, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee". The noble Lord will remember from his previous membership of another place that the correct procedure is for the Government to deliver their reply to a report of the PAC in another place. This is what the Government propose doing. I am sorry if this means that the noble Lord will have to wait with some patience until that reply has been delivered.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I am always patient in relation to the noble Lord and I am prepared to be so. Of course, one has to agree with what he said about the procedure in relation to another place. But in his reply he referred to the policies of the Government as adumbrated in their manifesto. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for supplementary questions to be put to him on the policies to which he referred.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, the noble Lord may have observed that I have replied to every supplementary question that was put. The fact that the noble Lord does not agree with the reply is not at all unprecedented.

Lord Parry

My Lords, will the noble Lord admit, on the question of time, that in this House time is entirely relative and that short times sometimes seem to be very long times?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

Lord Lee of Newton

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the report quoted in the question is now public property and it is quite wrong to segregate, as it were, the proceedings of this House from those of the other place? Is he further aware that, although I do not wish to quote at length, other quotes could be made showing the point I made, namely, that in fact the privatisation scheme is taking place at enormous cost to the public? Is he aware that quite a number of eminent Conservative Members of Parliament also signed that report?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, with respect, the Government's reply also will be public property.

Lord Kaldor

My Lords, the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is really two questions separated by a semi-colon. While as regards the first part of the Question the noble Lord's reply that it is for the Government to respond or reply to the Public Accounts Committee in another place was entirely right and proper, none of this excludes Members of this House from asking what action the Government are proposing to take to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense. Nothing in any of the noble Lord's replies dealt with this point.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's Question arose out of the first part, and it is perfectly correct and proper, therefore, that the reply to the second part should arise out of the reply to the first part.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister this question: when he is asked about larger profits being made at the taxpayers' expense when nationalised industries are sold off to private industries, has he in mind the sale of the Amersham company, which resulted in very large profits being made by private investors?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I am very well aware of the allegations to which the noble Lord refers. They are in fact part of the substance of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is why I say that the correct procedure is for the Government to reply to that report and that reply will then be available to the noble Lord.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the example of the Amersham company and the big profits it allowed private speculators to make will not be repeated in other cases?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, we have said repeatedly that any lessons to be drawn from what has happened on previous occasions will be drawn.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, in connection with the noble Lord's last reply, I wonder whether he recalls the words of Bernard Shaw, spoken many years ago, when he said: The only thing some people learn from experience is that they never learn anything from experience"?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I am very well aware of that statement, and it is one which might be taken to heart in many parts of the House.