2.
asked the Secretary of State for Industry what criteria he identifies as necessary to qualify industries for Government assistance by: (a) grant. (b) loan, (c) investment and (d) protection from overseas competition; and which category of assistance, and qualifying criteria, he identifies as applying to British Leyland.
Assistance to industry is provided according to statutory purposes and published criteria, in particular under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975. This applies to British Leyland, like any other company. Following the Ryder Report, British Leyland has received assistance in the form of equity capital and long-term loans.
Will the Minister of State give an assurance that the willingness of the Government to accept and not to funk the recommendations of the Edwardes Report will be a test of their credibility in attempting to get the economy into some sort of shape after four years of Socialism? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not throw good taxpayers' money after bad in financing car-making establishments such as Speke, which seem to be more like schools for industrial unrest than car plants?
The hon. Member should have referred to the first four years of Socialism. I do not think that it is up to the politicians to say what can be done. It is for the management to say how it will do it. It is then up to the Government to say how much money they will put in. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when she visited Cowley two months ago. I do not know that I go that far, but, on the whole, she was on the right lines.
Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the brave and sensible words that he spoke over the weekend in support of the management of British Leyland? Will he, however, assure the House that on this occasion at least he has the support of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and that he will not have to undergo a humiliating back-down?
The hon. Gentleman appears to be attributing to me words spoken by the Secretary of State, but I do not think that anyone in the House could quarrel with the statement that we must have a strategy for British Leyland which will arrest the decline and put it on a sound footing; that British Leyland will be managed by the management, not the Government; that British Leyland can succeed only on the basis of producing cars competitively, and so on. I think that those are universally accepted sentiments.
As well as giving the financial cost of sustaining British Leyland, will my hon. Friend say how many jobs are involved at British Leyland and how many jobs are involved in the private sector components industry which supplies British Leyland? Will my hon. Friend try to ascertain whether it is still the Opposition's policy that British Leyland should have gone into liquidation?
The Opposition are a bit bewildered about their policy on Leyland. They voted consistently against the rescue of Leyland, but, on the other hand, whenever there were by-elections in the Midlands, particularly Birmingham, they pretended that they were the saviours of Leyland. The Conservative Party would like to wreck a good deal of this country's manufacturing industry.
Does the Minister accept that the Opposition agree with the sentiments of the Secretary of State, if they are correctly expressed, in the weekend interview? We simply wait to see whether on this occasion he can carry the Cabinet and the Labour movement with him. At least, the Labour Party has realised the folly of the Ryder Plan, which appears to be being abandoned.
The Ryder Plan is being looked at again by the new chairman. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh".] That is very sensible. Just as the Conservative Party, when it published its White Paper on steel in 1973, said that such plans had to be flexible and subject to the course of events, so with any industrial plan. I am glad to see that the Opposition are regaining a little of the flexibility that they lost between 1970 and 1974.