AS talks go on to put together a rescue package for the DAF truck
organisation, the issued surfaced yesterday at Prime Minister's Question
Time.
In heated exchanges Mr Major declared that the receivers had made
clear that at least parts of the company could be saved as a
commercially viable business and ''that is the way to proceed,'' he
declared, to Labour protests.
Mr Major was replying to Labour leader Mr John Smith, who said it was
''vital'' to British manufacturing industry that the company should not
be allowed to collapse. He demanded: ''Will you undertake that if the
Dutch and Belgian Governments rescue their parts of the company, the
British Government will do at least the same for Leyland DAF?''
Mr Major replied: ''The receivers appointed yesterday at Leyland DAF
have made it clear that they believe at least parts of the business can
be saved as a commercially viable business without unnecessary state
hand-outs. I believe that is the way to proceed.''
Mr Smith countered: ''Don't you understand the concern that exists in
this country because of the Government's record of neglect of
manufacturing industry and the hesitancy and ambiguity of statements
made by the Government?''
To Labour cheers, he demanded ''a clear undertaking that you will do
for Britain what the Dutch and Belgian Governments will do for their
countries''.
Mr Major retorted: ''You are asking us to do what has been tried in
the past by previous Labour Governments and others and has failed.'' He
urged Mr Smith to recall the ''disastrous outcome'' of Labour's merger
of Leyland and the British Motor Corporation.
''Millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money later they had
to nationalise it costing even more millions -- and much of that money
was paid for wasteful working practice and unjustified wage increases
insisted on by the unions.''
To Tory cheers, Mr Major taunted Mr Smith: ''That then was Labour's
idea of an industrial strategy. And it is clear from you it still is --
you have learned nothing.''
''That approach was tried in the 1960s -- it failed. It was tried in
the 1970s -- it failed.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article