| Home Page |
Column 267
House of Commons
Wednesday 17 March 1993
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Pit Closures
1. Mr. Barron : To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the future of the 31 coal mines currently in his review.
9. Mr. Janner : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his proposals concerning the closure of 31 pits.
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : The future of individuapits is a matter for British Coal. The House will be aware that extensive discussions and negotiations are continuing to be held by the parties concerned. The Government will publish a White Paper on the prospects for 21 pits identified for closure by British Coal. The Boyd's report on the remaining 10 pits currently subject to a consultation process between British Coal and the unions was placed in the Library of the House on Monday 15 March. British Coal has today announced that the existing redundancy terms have been extended to the end of December this year.
Mr. Barron : Why will miners and their families in my constituency have to wait until the end of March or even until April for the Government's view, when we had the view of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in January this year? Is not it the case, as was shown in the disgraceful speech by the right hon. Gentleman last Tuesday, that the Government have no intention of doing what the House and the country wanted them to do last October--that is, to save the British coal industry?
Mr. Heseltine : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should feel that what I said, which merely repeated some of the Select Committee's recommendations, was disgraceful. I thought that I was helping the House by explaining that in the case of the interconnector, the legal obstacles to breaking the contract appear to be insurmountable. I thought that the House would wish to have that information. It is right that I should give the House the clearest possible picture about the position as quickly as possible. To do that requires that contracts should be in place in an ideal way. I have no powers to make people sign contracts.
Mr. Janner : Has the right hon. Gentleman read the unanimous report of the Employment Select Committee
Column 268
on the proposed pit closures and, in particular, the Committee's recommendation that before deciding to close any pit, the Government and British Coal should take into account the financial circumstances of that pit, the social consequences of the closure and the national consequences of unloading people into unemployment? Will the Minister undertake to bear those points in mind before deciding to close any of the threatened pits?Mr. Heseltine : The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that the report by the Employment Select Committee will be carefully considered- -indeed, it is already being carefully considered by the Government. We shall reply to that and to the many other submissions that we have received in the context of the White Paper.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the coal industry has a vital part to play in a long-term, integrated energy strategy? Does he accept that the manufacturing and engineering companies associated with coal are a vital part of our manufacturing base and one of its more successful parts in terms of exports? Will he take all those matters into account before he announces to the House that there are to be any pit closures? This industry is vital to the country in the long term.
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will realise that one of the commonest requests from the manufacturing base is that it should have cheap energy costs. He will also know that other parts of the energy industry are among our more vibrant manufacturing sectors. The uncomfortable fact is that one has to make a balanced judgment about the extent to which subsidising one industry or imposing costs on another actually advances the interests of the manufacturing base. That is the range of decisions that the Government have to reach.
Mr. Butterfill : Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are grateful that he sent the Minister for Energy to France to negotiate with and talk to the French about the interconnector, which was an important element in the deliberations of the Select Committee of which I am a Member? Can he tell us what progress he has been able to make with France?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is most kind. We have had extensive conversations and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy visited Paris to carry on those discussions. The House will be aware that I explained in a recent debate that the legal advice--a summary of which I shall publish for the benefit of the House--is that the contract, first approved by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), is not one that allows me discretion in these matters. In those circumstances, although I have to explore every conceivable opportunity, I do not anticipate that I shall be able to come back to the House with news that significantly improves on that which I have brought to the House already--although I have to say that there has been a relatively small but positive step since I spoke to the House.
Mr. Skinner : Why does not the President of the Board of Trade admit that there is no subsidy for British Coal and has not been since 1988 and that he is wrong when he talks about a £1 billion pound subsidy, as we are talking about the consumers, not about the taxpayers?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the Boyd's report, to which he referred, the financial costs of
Column 269
each of the 10 collieries has been calculated on the first six months alone, when anyone who works in the pits --including management--acknowledges that, because the first six months includes nearly all the holiday period and the second six months is the period during which pits make profits? That applies to every pit in Britain, not just to the 10.Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that what miners are concerned about is saving British taxpayers' money? If 100,000 people are thrown on the scrap heap, that is equivalent to £900 million, to be paid for by a diminishing number of taxpayers. If the right hon. Gentleman saves the pits, saves the dole money and allows the miners to pay national insurance and tax, the net result will be that the Chancellor will not have to introduce his value added tax measure.
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman will know that I appointed Boyd's as a result of what I thought was the clear indication of the courts that that would be a positive suggestion. Therefore, I acted on the very-- [Interruption.] I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is ever satisfied about anything.
Mr. Heseltine : This is a matter of the greatest importance to the House and it is important that I should be able to answer the questions thoroughly and carefully without interruptions that disrupt the flow of my answer. I am happy to treat Labour Members as they treat the House, but it will not help us to have an informed debate on the coal industry--if that is what they want.
Lord Justice Glidewell indicated that I might be able to make a positive contribution towards the consultation between British Coal and the unions if I appointed Boyd's, an internationally reputed engineering consultancy firm, to provide an independent element in the consultative process. That is what I did. The Boyd's report was made available to the House the other day and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it as it is part of the consultative process that is now taking place between British Coal and the unions. That is where I must let the matter stand.
The hon. Gentleman raises the much wider but equally important issue of the degree of subsidy for British Coal.
Mr. Heseltine : Perhaps I may explain what I mean by the element of subsidy--
Madam Speaker : Order. Sedentary interventions and barracking are not helpful to our discussion of what is, to all our minds, a crucial issue.
Mr. Heseltine : Under the contract between the electricity generating industry and British Coal, entered into some three years ago, the price that British Coal currently receives for 65 million tonnes of coal is £1 billion a year more than the world price of coal would imply. That is the degree to which the prices of British coal are in excess of what could be purchased at world market prices. The hon. Gentleman says that there is no question of subsidy, but he will be aware that the Select Committee, which
Column 270
looked into the matter with great care, suggested that a subsidy which could be calculated broadly at £500 million would be a significant policy advance, if I were to make it.Mr. Batiste : Is not the real long-term problem for the coal industry, as the energy industry is presently structured, that it can sell coal to only a small number of generators? Would not it make a great deal more sense in the longer term if the coalfields and coal-fired power stations were put together so that coal could compete for electricity generation? Is not it time to refer the whole matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend asks an important question, but he will also recognise that my first political priority on becoming President of the Board of Trade was to facilitate the process whereby the generators entered into new contracts with British Coal to replace the contracts that will run out on 31 March--just a few days' time. It seemed to me that, rather than looking at alternative policies, the first priority was to see whether those base contracts could be put in place. I have to tell the House that, as I stand here today, those contracts are not in place. Therefore, from the end of this month, there will be no contracts between British Coal and the generators. I was assured in meetings that I had yesterday that there was a reasonable chance that that position would be significantly improved in the next few days.
Mr. Robin Cook : Does the President recall that last October he told us that the closure announcement could not be put off for one week until Parliament returned because of the need to put miners out of their uncertainty? What does he think that the week after week of delay in producing his White paper has done for uncertainty among miners? What is the point of criticising British Coal and the generators for not yet signing a contract if he cannot yet produce a White Paper? In view of the extended time taken by his energy review, has the right hon. Gentleman yet found the time to visit a single pit on the list for closure? Should not he see for himself the investment at those pits before he closes them down?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman knows that the issues with which I am grappling are equally dealt with by my presence where the people who can enter into contracts with British Coal are to be found--that is, within the negotiating operations that I am conducting. It does not change my position or give me any additional legal powers to have visited a particular pit. In so far as the law allows me, I have encouraged the processes of negotiation to produce contracts. But as of this moment, the contracts are not signed. Until they are signed, it seems inappropriate to come to the House with a White Paper. The only consequence of doing that would be that people would say, "Go away and come back again when contracts have been entered into." So there is no point in trying to debate the issues until we know something of the basis on which the future is to be determined.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that when he assesses the country's future energy requirements, full consideration will be given to the levels of investment and employment in the North sea oil and gas sector, especially in Scotland, where fewer than 1,500 people are involved in deep mining but more than 97,000 people are involved in oil and gas extraction?
Column 271
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend raises one of the most important aspects of the debate--one on which, as I explained to the House recently, the Select Committee has made an important contribution. The Committee has recommended that we do not interfere with the oil and gas industry for many reasons, but most importantly because it is at the heart of one of our most successful manufacturing sectors.
Scott Inquiry
2. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has given to the Scott inquiry.
Mr. Heseltine : My Department has supplied all the documents requested by Lord Justice Scott. They amount to more than 10,000 pages.
Mr. Dalyell : To help informed debate, could the President of the Board of Trade tell the House of Commons whether he has admitted to Lord Justice Scott that, when he put pen to his signature on the public immunity certificate, that could have sent Matrix Churchill directors to prison, he knew perfectly well that Paul Henderson had been supplying intelligence information to the British Government?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Member will know that Lord Justice Scott is examining those matters and that, if he considers it appropriate, he will examine whatever I did or said at the time. I am content to await his further good advice.
Assisted Areas
3. Mr. Madel : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to change the boundaries of travel-to-work areas as they relate to calculations for dividing areas of the country which might be granted assisted area status ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : Designating new travel-to-work areas based on 1991 census data is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. As indicated in the consultation document for the review, travel-to-work areas will continue to be the main geographical unit used in making decisions on the new assisted areas map.
Mr. Madel : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the present boundaries of travel-to-work areas do not properly show up the acute unemployment problems in Dunstable, following the devastating loss of truck jobs in the town? May I urge upon him that the TTWA boundaries should be quickly redrawn and that Dunstable should be granted assisted area status so that we can be helped out of our acute unemployment problems?
Mr. Sainsbury : I understand my hon. Friend's concern because Dunstable and his constituency form the top left-hand corner of a rather large travel-to-work area which stretches from south of Watford to north of Luton. However, those TTWAs, based on 1981 census data, are the best approximation that we have on self-contained employment areas and we shall not have better information until the 1991 census data are available, which is not expected to be until late 1994 or possibly early 1995.
Column 272
Mr. Eastham : For years, the travel-to-work area formula has distorted the true position and many major cities, especially inner city areas, are lumped together with suburbia miles away, which gives a distorted picture of unemployment. In many cities, including Manchester, unemployment is three times the figure given by the formula relating to the area.
Mr. Sainsbury : I can understand that sometimes an area that has, or appears to have, a local high level of unemployment resents being associated with another place in the same travel-to-work area which has lower unemployment, but there is a good deal of movement to work and that is the basis on which the TTWAs are assessed. They represent an area where approximately three quarters of the people who live there also work in the area. That is the best approximation that we have for a self-contained area, and help directed to that area will help the people who live and work there.
One-stop Shops
4. Mr. David Shaw : To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to see the first of the one-stop shops open for business ; and what is his timetable for opening a one-stop shop in the Dover and Deal area.
Mr. Heseltine : I expect the first one-stop shops to open for business by the summer. In this year's competition a bid was received from Kent which was not shortlisted for interview. A further round of bids will be invited in the autumn for centres opening in 1994-95. I hope that a bid will come forward that includes the Dover and Deal area.
Mr. Shaw : My right hon. Friend will be aware that small businesses offer the greatest opportunity for bringing us out of the recession, for recovery and for creating many new jobs. My right hon. Friend should not hide his light under a bushel or be a shrinking violet by ceasing to promote the opportunities that one-stop shops can bring about to help small businesses to generate the recovery that the country needs. May I commend to him the fact that the Dover area will undergo considerable change as a result of the channel tunnel and the single European market and that a one- stop shop based in Dover would be most welcome? I hope that he will ensure that his officials do everything possible to enable a proposal to be put forward and accepted for the Dover and Deal area.
Mr. Heseltine : I realise that my hon. Friend has noticed that it is my customary reticence which turns me into a blushing violet. I will have to improve my outlook. Challenged by him to do so, let me congratulate and support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on producing a Budget full of good news for small businesses, including help on the uniform business rate, capital gains tax, the small firms loan guarantee scheme, the business start-up scheme, exports, the simple scale charge for business bands, the deregulation initiative, simplified taxation and the auditing of small companies. Yesterday was a very good day for small businesses.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths : Why is it that the President of the Board of Trade announced on 10 July 1992 that his one-stop shop scheme would forge ahead when, eight months later--after 11 months in office and after 14 years of Conservative government--not one shop has opened but his policies have closed tens of thousands of shops?
Column 273
Mr. Heseltine : With characteristic zeal, the hon. Member ignores the fact that 400,000 small businesses started up last year.
Japan
6. Mr. Dunn : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the current annual level of exports to, and imports from, the empire of Japan ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham) : The United Kingdom's exports to Japan in 1992 were £2,230 million. United Kingdom imports from Japan in 1992 were £7,450 million. Our exports to Japan increased rapidly in the late 1980s. They have held up well in the past two years despite difficult economic conditions in Japan.
Mr. Dunn : Is the Minister aware that in certain sections of British industry there is a view that the Government of the empire of Japan erect unfair obstacles to prevent British goods from gaining entry to Japanese markets? Will he undertake to tell the imperial Government that unless they permit easier access for British goods to Japanese markets we may have to reconsider our position on the entry of Japanese goods to this country?
Mr. Needham : I hear what my hon. Friend says about the imperial Government. A very large number of Japanese investments in this country are now contributing to the British balance of payments in a much greater way than any other country's investments, with the possible exception of the United States. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are still barriers to our exports to Japan. One of the reasons for my visit to Japan last week was to raise those matters with the Japanese Government and demand that the remaining trade barriers come down.
Mr. Flynn : Does the Minister agree that one of the most successful products of British industry in the past 25 years was the transputer, the computer on a chip, which was exported to Japan very successfully? It will continue to be exported from the end of this year, but from France and Italy because their Governments have invested in the transputer. It will no longer be produced in Britain because our Govermnment have refused to invest in it. Why is that?
Mr. Needham : I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. He knows perfectly well that decisions made by companies are up to them, not the Government. Our technological collaboration with Japan is closer and has more depth to it than that of any other European country and has already had a major effect on the quality of research, development and production in this country.
Mr. Bill Walker : Has my hon. Friend noticed the massive imports coming from Japan, which seems to have achieved that despite the fact that it is not a member of the European Community? Will he explain how this possibility has come about and what he expects will change when the Maastricht treaty is concluded, if it ever is?
Mr. Needham : It is not the possibility of Japanese imports ; it is the reality of them. One of the major reasons for that is the quality of the goods that it produces. The counter to that argument is the ever- increasing number of
Column 274
Japanese companies that have set up in business here and are now doing so much to improve the quality of our manufacturing base. It is vital that we continue to attract and invite Japanese companies to invest in this country. It would be a great help in achieving that objective if, when we take missions to Japan, Opposition Members did not pull out, on the orders of their Chief Whip, two days before we are due to leave. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) was told by her Chief Whip that she could not go to Japan, even though we were pairing, which made it impossible for us, on a cross-party basis, to offer support for Japanese investment in this country and explain our role in Europe. That was an absolute disgrace.Pit Closures
7. Mr. Hinchliffe : To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the engineering industry to discuss the implications of the pit closure programme.
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) : I and officials in the Department have had regular contact with the mining engineering industry in the context of possible changes in the requirement for mining equipment and machinery. I shall be meeting representatives again as soon as practical after the White Paper is published to have further discussions on specific proposals for helping the industry.
Mr. Hinchliffe : The Minister will recall that I have raised with him on a number of occasions the specific problems facing the mining engineering sector in Wakefield in my constituency. Is he aware that the current proposal for the Swedish company, ABB, to build a green power station in the Wakefield district would offer hope for the future of the three remaining pits in the Wakefield district and the mining engineering sector in my constituency and elsewhere? Can he offer Government support for that project in view of its importance, particularly in the light of the major difficulties facing the Wakefield region as a result of the Government's energy policies?
Mr. Eggar : I was aware of the ABB proposals and other proposals in the district. They are being considered in the context of the White Paper review.
Dr. Michael Clark : Does my hon. Friend recognise that, due to our historic and successful coal industry, we have many companies which, in engineering terms, are market leaders in coal technology, particularly clean coal technology for power stations, long-wall mining, hydraulic supports and underground conveyor systems? Does he recognise that, if the coal industry is to contract and the home base to diminish, it will be harder for such companies to trade abroad and export? Therefore, will he undertake to give whatever help and assistance his Department can to those companies so that they may stay in business, export and help our balance of payments?
Mr. Eggar : The answer is yes, yes and yes.
Mr. Orme : Is the Minister aware that representations were made to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the very points just raised by the hon. Member for
Column 275
Rochford (Dr. Clark)? When will the Government issue the White Paper as its delay is having a disastrous effect on the mining industry?Mr. Eggar : My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade addressed that issue in answer to earlier questions. We are aware of the need to proceed as rapidly as possible, but we cannot proceed until we have finished the difficult negotiating process--in particular until contracts have been concluded for the supply of coal to the generating industry. There are no contracts currently available and if contracts are not in place by 31 March, theoretically no coal can be supplied by British Coal to the generators.
Mr. Riddick : Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Arthur Scargill and his fellow members of the National Union of Mineworkers executive must be out of their tiny minds to recommend strike action to their members now? Does he agree that such action will do nothing to help the mining equipment industry and will confirm in the minds of some people working in the power generation industry the need for a diversity of supply? Has not Mr. Scargill shot himself in the foot once again?
Mr. Eggar : My hon. Friend addresses a serious issue. If the country feels that there should be support for the coal mining industry, that industry and the miners must earn that support. The result of what Mr. Scargill has said has been to reduce the confidence that coal can be relied on as a secure source of power generation, which cannot be in the interests of the miners and cannot promote coal as one of a diverse range of sources of electricity generation.
Mr. O'Neill : Is the Minister aware that any contraction of the coal industry will, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, have an impact right across British engineering and, in turn, have a great effect on those existing on unemployment benefit? Is he further aware that, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the effect of the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel will be three times as harsh on the poorest families, many more of whom will be unemployed as a result of his dithering over the coal industry? Will he take steps to ensure that families who will be unemployed for a long time to come are protected against the worst excesses of yesterday's announcement of VAT on domestic fuel charges?
Mr. Eggar : The hon. Gentleman talks about jobs and, in particular, about the mining industry. He surely now understands that to save jobs in the mining industry and to increase electricity generation by the use of coal can only be at the cost of the loss of jobs in the gas-related industries, in the nuclear industry or in some other area. He must stop peddling the idea, or trying to get across the point, that it is somehow possible to expand jobs in the coal industry without any costs being incurred elsewhere in the economy. That is not reality ; he knows it and the Select Committee recognised that to be the case.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : Does my hon. Friend recognise that as we are to have a substantial coal-burning energy policy, it is essential that it is backed by proper research? The Coal Research Establishment is in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend congratulate that body on having just won major contracts in Taiwan and Kazakhstan, and it is about
Column 276
to be awarded a third major contract? Will he also congratulate that establishment for doing a thoroughly good job in the research work that it undertakes?Mr. Eggar : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing a delegation from the CRE to see me earlier this week. I was impressed by the success that it has had in gaining contracts internationally. My right hon. Friend and I will of course take into account the points that my hon. Friend and the delegation made when we produce our White Paper.
Shipbuilding
8. Mr. Ronnie Campbell : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the European Commission to discuss the future of shipbuilding ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Sainsbury : I have no plans to meet the Commission at present, but shipbuilding will be on the agenda at the informal Industry Council meeting in Denmark which I shall be attending later this week.
Mr. Campbell : Why are the British Government unable to help our shipbuilding industry when the Germans are able to help theirs? Or are the circumstances the same as coal, which can be subsidised in Germany but apparently cannot be subsidised here?
Mr. Sainsbury : I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the Communitywide rules affecting aid to shipbuilding. Our agreement with the Commission forbids the paying of subsidy to companies that were privatised as warship builders.
Mrs. Currie : Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are a number of industries, including shipbuilding, that have been dramatically affected by changes in defence requirements and that that includes the aerospace industry in areas such as Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire? [Interruption.] Would my right hon. Friend care to give Opposition Members and me whatever information he has-- [Interruption.] --about European Community funds to assist in the reconstruction of defence-related industries?
Mr. Simon Hughes : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker : Order. Points of order, as the hon. Member knows, come later-- [Interruption.] I have been attempting to listen to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and I might have been able to hear her but for the noise in the Chamber.
Mr. Sainsbury : I, too, was attempting to listen to my hon. Friend. Obviously, the shipbuilding industry, like other industries in many parts of the country are affected by the reduction in defence orders. We welcome the reasons for that reduction and we recognise--I hope that my hon. Friend agrees--that it is for the companies concerned to take the right commercial decisions, in the light of their individual circumstances, as to how best they restructure their businesses to contend with the reduction in orders from the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Loyden : When will the Government respond to the growing demand in the House for the revival of Britain's merchant fleet? Do the Government appreciate that Clydeside, Merseyside and north-east shipyards would
Column 277
greatly benefit from the revival of shipbuilding in those areas? There would be jobs for British shipbuilders and crews to man the British ships, if and when they were built.Mr. Sainsbury : As the hon. Gentleman knows, sadly there has been a long period of decline in British shipbuilding. I suspect that there would be widespread agreement that the unfortunate labour relations in the industry decades ago contributed to that. Now, the industry is becoming competitive and it is my intention to remove subsidies and to create a fair trade between countries in shipbuilding, as in other areas.
Mr. John Marshall : Would my right hon. Friend care to remind the House of how many billions of pounds have been poured down the gullets of British shipbuilders? Does he agree that the best hope for employment in the shipbuilding areas in the north-east of England has come not from shipbuilders, but from the advent of Nissan to Sunderland?
Mr. Sainsbury : I agree that many billions of pounds have been paid out in subsidies to shipbuilding. Of course, the industry is still receiving significant subsidies. I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the contribution to the north-east region that has been made by Nissan, which contributes not only directly through employment, but through its influence on employment among those companies that supply its factory.
Mr. Fatchett : Given the Minister's answer and the prejudiced comments by his hon. Friends, it is hardly surprising that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has lost 76 per cent. of its employment over the past decade, while the German industry has increased by 37 per cent. It is also hardly surprising that United Kingdom output has fallen by 81 per cent., while German output has increased by 96 per cent.
German yards have access to intervention funds. Now that the Government have at last discovered the importance of manufacturing industry, is not it about time that they gave British shipbuilders the opportunity to compete on a level playing field? Is not it about time that they protected British jobs and British industry and gave us the same conditions as exist in every other European country?
Mr. Sainsbury : I fear that the hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked the reunification of Germany in the statistics that he quoted. European Community rules affect the level of shipbuilding intervention that can be made. Those rules are the same throughout the Community, including reunified Germany and Britain. I recently announced that we were continuing with a shipbuilding intervention fund level of 9 per cent. for this year, which is the same level as last year.
BCCI
10. Mr. Gunnell : To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have been taken to court by Touche Ross acting in their capacity as receivers for BCCI.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton) : The joint liquidators of BCCI have sought sanctions pursuant to the provisions of section 167 of the Insolvency Act 1986, to commence, continue or defend proceedings involving 91
Column 278
limited companies. The number of such proceedings actually taken to court is a matter for the liquidators, but such proceedings are, of course, taken for the benefit of creditors.Mr. Gunnell : I thank the Minister for that and other replies that he has given me on the subject. Given that we know that the costs of Touche Ross in the liquidation now amount to about £100 million, what measures are the Department taking to ensure that there is value for money in that receivership? What plans are there for an audit of the accounts? Should the accounts go to the National Audit Office for consideration? Is the Department also conducting a social audit of the affairs of the receivership, so that we can be sure that at the end of it--for both creditors and those companies that have had dealings with BCCI--the maximum number of jobs are saved out of a debacle that is clearly in some way a responsibility of the Government?
Mr. Hamilton : It would be impossible for the Secretary of State to do what the hon. Gentleman has asked, because there are no powers to do so under current legislation. The costs and expenses of a liquidation are considered by a sub-committee of an informal creditors committee and are then submitted to the High Court for approval. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a meeting will be held on 27 May at Wembley stadium, where the creditors of the company can come forward and at which we hope that a liquidation committee of creditors will be elected. That committee will then have the responsibility for the scrutiny of the costs and expenses of the liquidators.
| Next Section
| Home Page |