JIM SLATER RIDES AGAIN

Once upon a time Jim Slater, the head of Britain's most powerful and diverse conglomerate, was a quiet man. Rarely in the news. He was seen (everywhere) but not heard.

More and more frequently, however, Slater is venturing into journalism to put the point of view of his section of British capitalism.

Recently he wrote about the things going on with so-called 'insider' deals on the Stock Exchange-transactions made by those with the advantage of knowing company results before anyone else.

A few days later it was a call for "socially responsible' capitalism which struck the headlines.

Now, the head of Slater Walker Securities has seen fit to advise his old partner in Former SWS partner Peter Walker (he quit to join the government in June 1970), is now, of course, head Britain's most powerful government ministry-the Department of Trade and Industry. As such he is considering, in line with British capitalism's requirements, the 'reform' of monopoly legislation.

Go-ahead As chairman of a £150m group with interests as far away as Hong Kong, Slater took time out to write a halfpage article in "The Business News advisi ig the government what to do rext.

But what he made a plea for was nothing less than a more efficient system where go-aheads are rapidly given for conglomerate takeovers of other industries, and mergers.

Undoubtedly Slater spells out in so many words that the policy changes are needed because British capitalism is breaking up under world competition in a trade war situation. The best thing to do, therefore, is to salvage, through ruthless rationalization, what you can and dump the rest.

"The most important single consideration of the government should be to ensure national economic survival within the context of the EEC and in the face of increasingly strong international competition,' wrote Slater.

He says one of 'the most difficult problems facing the government is to determine its polcy on conglomerate mergers, roughly translating into the takeover of industrial companies by firms like Slater Walker.

Naturally enough, chairman Slater makes out a 'case' for allowing such mergers. Unless they were given the go-ahead, 'the largest and second largest companies in an industry would literally be safe from takeover'.

And if this happened it *would surely be against the national interest, he argues.

Just to illustrate what new monopoly legislation should enable the conglomerates to do, Slater supplies details from a takeover his company made in May 1968.

At the time Critial-Hope was taken over it was, admits Slater, by far the leading metal window manufacturer in the United Kingdom. In the three years the company was wholly owned by Slater, Crittal-Hope underwent a dramatic transformation in its assets position and many workers got the sack. a little distinct possibility that this type of acquisition might be described as "asset-stripping" or dismissed as being an undesirable conglomerate merger,' he tells "The Times' readers.

Asset-stripping, "a relatively rare occurrence', according to Slater, should not be contused with 'industrial rationalization and putting assets to much better use'.

For much of his article Slater talks of the need to be sober when deciding on allowing the formation of monopolies and the need for legislation 'aimed at better protecting the public interest. Peter Walker (left) and Jim Slater, partners and millionaires. middle-class, potential Conservative voters who think that everyone in the City is speculation mad.

But in fact Slater makes out the best possible case for the expropriation of companies like his own and the socialization of the entire means of production.

Much of industry is today in the hands of industrial and financial conglomerates like Slater Walker Securities.

The question to be asked is: what right have a handful of multi-millionaires and big companies to break up the