Jaguar Land Rover secures future

Indian conglomerate Tata has told the British government that it no longer needs its help to support Jaguar Land Rover. It has obtained funds from different sources, including bank loans and guarantees in relation to £350m of lending from the European Investment Bank. It said the loans are "expected to be completed in the coming weeks".

Tata bought JLR from Ford for $2.5bn in early 2008, but only months later was in negotiations over possible loans of up to £1bn with the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said: "The government had offered bridging finance from the automotive assistance programme if necessary. We understand the Tata group will now be successful in resolving longer-term financial needs but we are willing to help again if necessary."

It is likely that the repayments for any such loans will be high, meaning further restructuring will be necessary at the luxury car group. It has already cut 2,500 posts and 300 more are to go from its Liverpool operations as a result of tumbling sales in the recession.

In a separate development the government has said the independent report on the collapse of MG Rover will be released on September 11 after the Serious Fraud Office said it would not be conducting a criminal investigation.

The government removed its bridging loan in 2005 leading to the company’s failure but in turn says the management team of John Tower and his three partners should be disqualified as company directors.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING:Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners, in the Times: "[The government terms were] neither commercially acceptable nor workable. [Tata] appears not only to have found better and more willing sources of immediate support, but also long-term support, too, on decent and acceptable commercial arrangements."

Dan Roberts in the Guardian: "Of course, any sensible industrial policy has to consider state aid when a company as important as this is facing existential crisis. But state aid has to be seen as a last resort. When taxpayers' money is put at risk it should be on terms dictated by the interest of the taxpayer, not private shareholders. Fortunately, it all worked out fine in the end. No harm was done and the principle of a government safety net in extremis was preserved. But let's hope the big cat does not get a reputation for crying wolf." ·