Rolls-Royce Ltd. (Hansard, 3 March 1971)

§ 1. Mr. Sheldon
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on Rolls-Royce.

§ 4. Mr. Barnett
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a further statement on the proposed purchase of Rolls-Royce.

§ 46. Mr. William Rodgers
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what conditions were discussed with Rolls-Royce Limited in the course of negotiations for a further loan on or about 6th November, 1970; how far they were embodied in subsequent agreements arising from the decision to provide additional launching aid for the RB211 engine; whether he is satisfied that all parties were fully aware of the Government's position; and if he will now make a statement.

§ The Minister of Aviation Supply (Mr. Frederick Corfield)
I will, with permission, answer this Question and Questions Nos.4 and 46 together.

§ Mr. Rodgers
On a point of order. I am reluctant to interrupt business at this stage, Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that exchanges took place last Friday about certain matters concerning the RB211 and statements which had appeared in the Press that day. As a result of those statements there was an 1678 exchange between myself and the Minister, who agreed to make a statement in the House early next week on this very important matter which is still causing great concern.
With this in mind, I put a Question down to the Attorney-General which is Question No.46, now to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation Supply. This is a wholly unsatisfactory position and will be thought to be so not only in this House but outside. May I ask through you, although I know the difficulties of precedence, that this Question should not be answered now but should be answered at the end of Question Time so that there may be a full discussion and examination of what the Minister has to say?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. The way in which Ministers choose to group Questions is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Corfield
I was going on to say—and thereby take the opportunity of expanding on the statement I made in the House on Friday in relation to certain allegations that appeared in The Times on that morning—that in November last the Government agreed in principle to provide more launching aid for the RB211 engine. I made clear in the House on 11th November the conditions under which this launching aid was to be provided. It was subject, inter alia, to a check by independent accountants and to satisfactory contractual arrangements. These arrangements were in negotiation, pending receipt of the accountants' report, when the company went into receivership.
The statement I made on 11th November was absolutely clear, and I do not believe that there were any grounds either for Rolls-Royce or for any of the financial institutions concerned to misunderstand the Government's position. So far as there was a question of additional bank credit, that was a matter between Rolls-Royce and the banks concerned, and it was not for the Government to explain to the banks the terms of an agreement to which they were not party. In the event, before Messrs. Cooper Bros., the independent accountants, had completed its investigations, the Board of Rolls-Royce concluded that it could not proceed with the RB211 contract without 1679 vastly greater financial assistance than was ever contemplated in November—

§ Mr. Benn
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is making a major parliamentary statement in such a way as to make it impossible for the House to cross-examine him and I do ask, through you, whether the Minister would be prepared, by leave of the House, to answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Whitehead
Further to that point of order. Will it be in order for the Chair to receive supplementary questions which relate to the statement which the Minister is now making as well as to Question No.1?

§ Mr. Speaker
The question of allowing supplementary questions is a matter for me, and I will rule on it when the time comes. The practice of points of order during Question Time is very much to be deprecated. [interruption.] There are a great many questions about Rolls-Royce on the Order Paper and it would be better if the House got on with the business.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On three consecutive occasions complaints have been made from both sides of the House that hon. Members are not able to reach Ministers cited as beginning at, say, Question No.35, as, for example, today the Lord President of the Council. Have you observed my Question No.38, which will not be reached if the abuse of the House of which my right hon. Friend is guilty continues?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman's point of order has only delayed that possibility a little further.

§ Mr. Corfield
I conclude by reminding the House that the Rolls-Royce board then decided that in these circumstances it could not continue trading in conformity with its obligations under Section 332 of the Companies Act, even if the additional £42 million launching aid and the extra credit facility from the banks were provided in full. No part of this money had been paid, nor did the accepting parties' 1680 commitment in November to renew their facilities to Rolls-Royce after April, 1971, become operative.

§ Mr. Sheldon
But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he said on 9th December was not precisely that? He said that the moneys available to Rolls-Royce were not dependent on the outcome of the accountants' report. If the House was misled, is it not likely that the banks and other companies were also misled? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman had from the banks about this matter?

§ Mr. Corfield
The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "none". I think that that indicates that there is a good deal of evidence that they did not feel that they were misled by anything I said in the House.

§ Mr. Barnett
Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a little confusion in the matter, to put it no higher? After the statement of 9th December. would it not be. if not the legal thing to do, the honourable thing to do to pay in full the sub-contractors and others who gave credit after that date? Would the hon. Gentleman also contradict the reports which appear to indicate that he is trying to buy the assets of Rolls-Royce on the cheap and so prevent the sub-contractors and creditors from getting an adequate return?

§ Mr. Corfield
I am very anxious to contradict those reports. There is no question of the Government negotiating on anything other than the basis of a fair price. As I have explained in the House, I understand that the Receiver is entitled to the basis of a valuation most favourable to him.

§ Mr. Rodgers
I make it clear that we regard the statement made by the Minister in this form as totally unsatisfactory. As my Question No.46 was tabled to the Attorney-General, it is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to fulfil his obligations in the House and answer for his part in the matter.
In our debate on Friday the Minister of Aviation Supply said that his Department had seen the heads of agreement 1681 between the banks and Rolls-Royce. I understand that this was after the meeting at which the Minister made clear, as he believes, the conditions on which the £42 million was available. Would he say now whether the heads of agreement included reference to the conditions which he put in the House on 11th November? If they did not, Why did not his Department draw attention to this matter? Will he publish all the relevant contract documents relating to that period so that we may see precisely how matters stand?

§ Mr. Corfield
As I made clear on Friday, the note on the meeting which I had with Rolls-Royce made it abundantly clear that these arrangements were subject to investigation by independent accountants. The heads of agreement between the banks and Rolls-Royce were matters to which the Government were not party. I do not believe that the condition was specifically referred to, but I think that it was clear.

§ Mr. McLaren
Does my hon. Friend think that the Rolls-Royce affair and the Concorde are inextricably linked, as some have suggested, or does he recommend us to treat them as separate matters?

§ Mr. Corfield
In my view, they are entirely separate matters, and my information is that this is the general view in America and on the Continent.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
This is not satisfactory at all. Is not the Minister aware that in an internal communications memorandum submitted to the joint shop stewards of the Rolls-Royce factory at Parkside, Coventry, the shop stewards were given to understand that the £60 million had already been made available?

§ Mr. Corfield
I had no idea of that, and it is not my responsibility. But what is abundantly clear to everybody who understands these things is that launching aid is always paid subject to a contract whereby the tranches are paid in relation to the stage which the engine has reached.

§ 6. Mr. Dykes
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply when he expects to make the necessary valuation of the purchase cost of Rolls-Royce by the Government.

§ 14. Mr. Deakins
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what criteria his Department has used in determining a purchase 1682 price for the undertaking and assets of Rolls-Royce Limited.

§ Mr. Corfield
The price to be paid for the Rolls-Royce assets acquired from the receiver by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd and the criteria to be employed in deciding this are essentially matters for negotiations which are currently in progress. I cannot, however, say when agreement will be reached.

§ Mr. Dykes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. There is a difficulty and natural uncertainty, but, to provide additional guidance to the House, can he say whether he feels that in the ultimate the difference between assets to be purchased by Rolls-Royce (1971) from Rolls-Royce Ltd. and the assets to be retained permanently will be negligible, substantial or as large as the original gross figure?

§ Mr. Corfield
That is a matter of pure speculation, because a great deal must depend on the success or otherwise of the negotiations currently taking place, to which I am returning immediately after Question Time.

§ Mr. Deakins
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is in the interests of the nation, the unsecured creditors of the Rolls-Royce company and its employees that the purchase price should be as generous as possible bearing in mind the worldwide reputation which Rolls-Royce enjoys and the fact that the Government are to buy those parts of the company which are a going concern?

§ Mr. Corfield
That is not entirely true of all the assets. I cannot add to what I have said.

§ Mr. Rost
Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past 24 hours there has been an increase in anxiety among the sub-contractors and creditors, not because they have not had any statement on whether they will get payment and, if so, how much, but simply because they do not have any official representation with the Receiver nor any way of achieving any such representation unless they themselves appoint a liquidator, which they do not want to do, although we may be getting to the point at which that will be necessary?

§ Mr. Corfield
If there is any lack of liaison of that sort I will certainly 1683 draw it to the attention of the Receiver, but I have not been aware of it hitherto.

§ Mr. Barnett
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not rule out the possibility of saving a lot of money for unsecured creditors not by having a liquidation but by having a composition with them?

§ Mr. Corfield
I made that clear on Friday.

§ 8. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what study he has made of the production capability, financial position, and indebtedness of firms a large part of whose output was geared to sub-contracting for Rolls-Royce.

§ 12. Mr. Scott-Hopkins
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in view of the nationalisation of the aero-engine division of Rolls-Royce, he will recommend continuance of those contracts negotiated by the former company, Rolls-Royce, with its suppliers of component parts for the aero-engines already in production, such as the Spey engine.

§ 25. Mr. Arthur Lewis
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a further statement on the Rolls-Royce situation; whether he will publish in HANSARD a detailed list of the sub-contractors which will be affected by the Rolls-Royce disaster; and what action he has taken, or intends taking, to safeguard these sub-contracting firms.

§ Mr. Corfield
As I told the House in the debate on 11th February, I put in hand at the earliest possible moment a study of the problem of the sub-contractors. This study had regard to the liabilities of Rolls-Royce to its sub-contractors as far as it was known to us and the manpower and financial position of these firms. The steps stated by the Chancellor in the debate on 8th February in respect of sub-contractors' needs for additional temporary finance have been taken, and any cases of particular difficulty have been discussed with the receiver, who has taken such measures to assist as are open to him in order to safeguard the continuity of supplies.
While I anticipate that the new company, Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd., would 1684 wish at any rate to continue such contracts as relate to engines already in production, it will I am sure be appreciated that the detailed arrangements must be a matter between it and the individual suppliers.

§ Mr. Dalyell
When is the study to be completed?

§ Sir G. Nabarro
A jolly good short question.

§ Mr. Corfield
As I explained on Friday, the study is really a continuing process. We have had a major study, but there are other factors.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Will my hon. Friend agree that what these firms need is certain knowledge of how soon the contracts will continue and that they need to know it at the earliest possible stage, and will he do all he can to expedite this matter?

§ Mr. Dalyell
Time is not on your side.

§ Mr. Corfield
As I have already explained, I think it is clear that most suppliers supplying in relation to engines already in production will be required by the new company.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Will the Minister now answer the second part of my Question?

§ Mr. Corfield
I do not think it will help sub-contractors or be a great deal of help to the House to answer this.

§ Mr. Lewis
Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say that in the original answer?

§ 9. Mr. Dalyell
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what is his latest technical assessment of the RB211 engine.

§ Mr. Corfield
It has been performing well in the development flight programme. Various technical problems remain; I am confident that they could be solved; it is a question of time and cost.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Does the Minister recognise that Mr. Daniel Haughton, of Lockheed, without, as far as I know, seeing the report of Sir William Cook, has already said that it is an excellent engine? Does he draw his own conclusions from that remark?

§ Mr. Corfield
I think there are other alternative conclusions which can be drawn, but I certainly will draw one.

§ Mr. Benn
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the problem now is not the technical problem of the RB211 but simply the problem of negotiating a settlement with Lockheed and the airline customers?

§ Mr. Corfield
It is a question of the time scale which is acceptable to both Lockheed and the airlines, and a question also of cost.

§ Mr. Adley
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Federal Aviation Administration and the airlines in America believe that the problem of the RB211 was the problem of the original contract?

§ Mr. Corfield
This, I think, has been basic to all our discussions.

§ Mr. Jay
Will the Minister not at least agree that, whatever mistakes may have been made in the past, there is now an overwhelming case for renegotiating this contract if that can possibly be done?

§ Mr. Corfield
If it can be done on reasonably acceptable terms.

§ 10. Mr. Willey
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will make a statement on the position of Rolls-Royce factories in Sunderland.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price)
No decision has yet been taken about which of the Rolls-Royce Ltd. factories are, or are not, to be acquired for operation by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.

§ Mr. Willey
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is not much comfort, and that the question of the future of the Sunderland factory cannot be divorced from Government policy for the development areas, nor from the fact that in Sunderland we have the highest persistent unemployment of any town in Britain? Can he assure me that these factors will be borne in mind when the future of this factory is decided?

§ Mr. Price
I can assure the right hon. Gentlemen that the effect on this set of factories is not forgotten by my Department, but, clearly, I must remind him that there are a number of other Rolls-Royce factories in development districts.

§ 11. Mr. Scott-Hopkins
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply, what plans he now has for future production of the RB211 of Rolls-Royce.

§ 18. Mr. Wilkinson
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will now make a further statement on the Lockheed/Rolls-Royce RB211 contract, and on its effect on the British aero-engine and component industries.

§ 19. Mr. Cronin
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the supply of Rolls-Royce engines for the Lockheed TriStar aircraft.

§ 26. Mr. Rankin
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply what further steps he has taken in seeking to negotiate a new contract to enable the development of the RB211 engine for the Lockheed TriStar to be completed, and with what measure of success.

§ Mr. Corfield
Negotiations with Lockheed started yesterday, following a careful appraisal of the basis on which a new agreement might rest. Both parties are very conscious of the advantages that would accrue from going on with RB211, but it is too early to say whether a satisfactory means of doing so can be found.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Will my hon. Friend accept that everybody hopes that these negotiations will be concluded satisfactorily and wishes him and my right hon. Friend all luck and good fortune in the negotiations? Will he accept also that it would be utterly wrong for the British taxpayer to have to subsidise or keep out of bankruptcy American companies, Lockheed and the airlines?

§ Mr. Corfield
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. Of course the second part is a factor which has to be taken into account.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Will my hon. Friend have regard to the second part of my Question, in particular that this engine has a crucial impact on sub-contractors in the Bradford area, Hepworth and Grandage, whose turbine division produces 50 per cent. of Rolls-Royce turbine blades, and that the Rolls-Royce RB211 is something like 18 per cent. to 20 per 1687 cent. of that company's work, that it already stands to lose £1.6 million, and that 170 men are already out of work?

§ Mr. Corfield
I appreciate that a situation such as my hon. Friend has described may well be inevitable in certain cases, but I have nothing to add to what I have said earlier.

§ Mr. Cronin
Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, apart from other considerations already mentioned to the House today, this contract is of crucial importance to Rolls-Royce workers, and that if Rolls-Royce workers were sufficiently exasperated as to withdraw their labour at some time in the future that would cause the grounding of most of the Royal Air Force and of a very large number of airlines throughout the world?

§ Mr. Corfield
I realise that this is crucial, but I think that it is rather inappropriate to make the sort of remark which the hon. Member has made.

§ Mr. Rankin
To save the RB211, are the Government prepared to come to an agreement to purchase Lockheed TriStars for that purpose?

§ Mr. Corfield
No. I could not give any commitment of that sort.

§ 15. Mr. Dixon
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply, in view of the involvement of Her Majesty's Government in the financial affairs of Rolls-Royce Limited, whether he has made an estimate of the average earnings of employees in that company in 1971.

§ Mr. David Price
No, Sir. With the present uncertainties it is not possible to make a useful forecast for 1971.

§ Mr. Dixon
Since the earnings of Rolls-Royce workers have in the last five years risen at an annual rate of about 2 per cent. higher than in British industry generally, does this not demonstrate that if they had no more than kept level with the national average Rolls-Royce would have saved about 10 per cent. of its total wage costs, about £13 million in 1970 and an even larger amount in 1971, and that all these savings would go a long way towards solving the company's problems?

§ Mr. Price
In my judgment, wage inflation has not been a critical factor in the RB211 project. It lay in the nature of the contract itself.

§ Mr. Orme
Will the Minister not agree that labour relations within this company have been excellent over a long period of years, that productivity has been high, and that wages have not been in excess of what has been earned generally in industry by the types of skill which these workers have?

§ Mr. Price
I am sure the hon. Member is right in that there have been good relations. I would not be prepared, having been a professional industrial engineer, to make a general judgment on all Rolls-Royce workers off the cuff.

§ 21. Dr. Gilbert
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make an estimate of the total penalties or damages likely to be incurred by Rolls-Royce Limited as a result of its failure to supply the RB211 engine in accordance with the terms of its contract with the Lockheed Corporation.

§ Mr. Corfield
Both liquidated and unliquidated damages could be claimed under the contract. It is not possible to make an accurate assessment beyond what has been said already.

§ Dr. Gilbert
Will the Minister not give us an assessment of the penalties for late delivery, as distinct from non-delivery, if the engines were either six or 12 months late? Does he realise that he is fast losing the original sympathy of the House in his difficulties by his evasive answers and, in some cases, no answers at all? In Committee on the Bill I asked him several questions which he said he would study in HANSARD and answer. That was on 12th February, and I have not heard a word from him.

§ Mr. Corfield
I apologise for the delay, but, as I explained on Friday, a good deal of work is being done on these matters. I really cannot give arithmetical answers to things that are unquantifiable. The £50 million mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in relation to a six-months' delay, but it was an estimate by Rolls-Royce of the magnitude of the claims with which it might be faced. One cannot be accurate on this.

§ 22. Dr. Gilbert
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement about the progress made so far in meeting the claims of the unsecured 1689 creditors of Rolls-Royce Limited with respect to debts owed by that company as of 4th February, 1971.

§ Mr. Corfield
No, Sir. This is a matter for the receiver.

§ Dr. Gilbert
Is the right hon. Gentleman still saying that he is not prepared to take a political decision on the price he will pay for the assets based on the return he wants the unsecured creditors to get? Are any of the unsecured creditors availing themselves of the suggestion of his hon. Friend, namely, that they should try to renegotiate their contracts with Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited at a higher price than the previous contract so as to recoup some of their losses?

§ Mr. Corfield
In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, one cannot take a political decision on price. It must be based on valuation. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I have no information, but the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited has been in being for less than a week.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
Despite what was said earlier, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the workers and the staff of Rolls-Royce in recent weeks have done a great deal to assist the company, and, therefore, the creditors, not only by not striking but by working extra hours to try to save the company in which they are involved?

§ Mr. Corfield
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Benn
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government assume legal liability for the further money that will be owed to the component manufacturers following the decision to keep their supplies going to Rolls-Royce for the three-week interim period for the production of the RB211?

§ Mr. Corfield
I thought I had made it clear that the Government had agreed to indemnify the receiver, which I think answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.

§ 23. Mr. Pavitt
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the firms in Park Royal and Alperton in the Brent, South constituency supplying parts in connec- 1690 tion with orders placed by Rolls-Royce or his Department.

§ Mr. David Price
The Department does not have this comprehensive information in respect of firms which are suppliers and sub-contractors to its main contractors, including Rolls-Royce. 1 am listing in the OFFICIAL REPORT those firms that can be identified as located in Park Royal and Alperton that received direct contracts from our Department in 1969–70.

§ Mr. Pavitt
Is the Minister aware that in the last few years more than 40 factories have closed down in these areas because of rationalisation and that 2,000 workers were made redundant by the A.E.I.-G.E.C. merger? Will he use his influence to keep open Rotax, where 700 workers are being made redundant, by giving that firm the aircraft industry work which is available instead of having it transferred out of my area?

§ Mr. Price
I am aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but he will realise that I have no direct influence over how contractors of the Department decide to spread their sub-contracts.

§ 27. Mr. Hugh Jenkins
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in his discussions on Government help for the RB211 engine, he will bear in mind that it is less noisy and likely to have a longer useful life than the Concorde Olympus engine.

§ Mr. Price
It is true that RB211 is less noisy than Olympus 593. But which engie will have the longer useful life is not clear.

§ Mr. Jenkins
Is it not the case, as was shown by the reception given to the right hon. Gentleman's last answer, that the Government are flogging a dead horse with the Concorde? Is it not understandable that, while hon. Members on both sides of the House with constituency interests in Concorde should continue to press the Government on this matter, in regard to the country as a whole, since we can only support one major aero-engine development, should we not transfer the Government interest away from Concorde to the RB211?

§ Mr. Price
I do not regard the two things as linked. One is supersonic and the other is an engine for a subsonic aircraft. They are not the same. The use of resources is a very much wider matter and should not be discussed in exchanges in supplementary questions.

§ 30. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether, in view of the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce Limited, and of Her Majesty's Government's intention to purchase the Company, he will now publish the Industrial Reorganisaiton Corporation's report on Rolls-Royce Limited.

§ Mr. Corfield
No, Sir.

§ Mr. McNair-Wilson
Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are interested in this report since it could have been a base document on which we might have learnt so much more about Rolls-Royce? Was the report made only to Rolls-Royce or also to the Government? Is it an accountants' report, and, if it is not, why has there been such secrecy about its contents?

§ Mr. Corfield
The situation is that these reports have always been based on the assumption that any information given would be treated in strict confidence. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is on record as having recommended this at the time of the passing of the Bill. I have always thought that we should stick to it. Once the I.R.C. or anybody else has taken advantage of that situation, it would be wrong to go against it. As to the nature of the report, it was initially handed to Rolls-Royce but parts of it were made available to my Department.

§ Mr. Dalyell
If the Government stick to their attitude that this is simply a matter for the Receiver, how can Members of Parliament in good faith say to sub-contractors, "You must go on supplying"? We just cannot do this.

§ Mr. Corfield
This is a question about the I.R.C. report.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Would my hon. Friend recognise that Members, irrespective of where they sit in the House of Commons, have a real interest in full employment in their respective constituencies? If he takes this obdurate view that he cannot make available information about sub-contractors' liabilities or the situation of creditors of Rolls-Royce, is he not handicapping severely men like myself who seek to secure proper employment for Joseph Lucas employees—a company which is owed some £9 million by Rolls-Royce?

§ Mr. Corfield
With due respect to my hon. Friend, I have not suggested that that information is confidential. I am referring to the report by the I.R.C. which was drawn up on the basis that the information given to it was confidential.

§ Mr. Benn
But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I gave that original answer Rolls-Royce has gone bankrupt and the I.R.C. has been wound up? This document is vital and should be made available to the House as part of the assessment of the history of the Rolls-Royce contract. I must ask him again whether he is ready to have a Select Committee to which all these documents could be made available and which could go into the whole of this story?

§ Mr. Corfield
I do not believe that a Select Committee, as opposed to an inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry, is the best way to investigate these matters. I am prepared to undertake that the document will be made available to the departmental inquiry.

§ 32. Mr. Edelman
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the origin and circumstances of the Rolls-Royce insolvency.

§ Mr. Corfield
No, Sir. The board of the company is to call a special meeting 1693 to request an inquiry under the Companies Act, 1948. This, I think, is the right procedure to follow.

§ Mr. Edelman
Does not this bankruptcy involve not only matters of commercial conduct but also questions of Ministerial honour? Is not a departmental inspection quite the wrong way of probing so far-reaching a national catastrophe?

§ Mr. Corfield
The terms of reference of the inquiry by the Department of Trade and Industry are clearly laid down. I see no reason for treating Rolls-Royce any differently from anybody else. Where the inquiry involves the conduct of certain individuals in Rolls-Royce, investigation by a Select Committee would have certain disadvantages.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of the people who might wish to be interrogated in such an inquiry might, by the time the inquiry comes off, be employed somewhere else in the world and would he also bear in mind the fact that the accuracy of memory generally does not increase with the passage of time? Does this matter not need to be expedited? Many people will be surprised to learn that the directors have not yet convened a meeting to request such an inquiry.

§ Mr. Corfield
I hardly think anybody would be surprised to learn that it has been impossible to convene a meeting during the postal strike.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Give the hon. Member an answer!

§ Mr. William Rodgers
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully on the situation which we have now reached? He has failed today to give satisfactory replies on matters with which we hoped the Attorney-General would deal, and he failed on Friday to answer a whole list of questions put to him in the course of my hon. Friend's debate. If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to agree to a Select Committee, surely in the interests of this House the time has now come to place the facts before us in the form of a White Paper.

§ Mr. Corfield
The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. During that debate I spent the whole half hour of my wind- 1694 ing-up speech answering questions. It is hardly surprising that I did not get to the end of them all.

§ 33. Mr. Walter Johnson
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply why Her Majesty's Government have not appointed to the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Company Limited someone with experience of the organisation of workers such as a full-time trade union official.

§ Mr. Corfield
In making appointments to the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. the Government's aim was to secure the strongest possible managerial team. Those who have joined the board were invited to do so as individuals, not as representatives of particular interests.

§ Mr. Johnson
Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the new Rolls-Royce to get off to a good start, and that it is absolutely essential that it should quickly gain everybody's confidence, including that of the staff? May I assure him that one way of achieving this would be to appoint a workers' representative, since in this way he could be sure that the staff would have confidence in the company? Would the Government be willing to reconsider this point?

§ Mr. Corfield
I accept that it is important to get off to a good start and restore confidence, but the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the main weaknesses in the old Rolls-Royce company was in management.

Mr. Heller
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is very deep feeling in various parts of the country, such as Liverpool, where there are about 1,000 Lucas workers who are threatened with dismissal because of the Rolls-Royce situation and who are now on a three-day week? Is not it clear that we must have a management at Rolls-Royce which will also be concerned with the problems of workers in other parts of the country who are affected directly as a result of the Rolls-Royce debacle?

§ Mr. Corfield
I accept that.

§ 34. Mr. Millan
asked the Minister of Aviation Supply if he will make a statement of his conclusions on the schemes 1695 that have been put to him for assisting the financial position of the unsecured creditors, particularly sub-contractors, of Rolls-Royce Limited.

§ Mr. Corfield
No, Sir. I am still examining those which have been put to me, and I am awaiting further proposals.

Mr. Milan
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the creditors are beginning to lose patience with the Government? Is not it a fact that whatever the right hon. Gentleman says about continuing contracts, they are of no use to the debt position on 4th February, and that it is that position which is likely to send many unsecured creditors into bankruptcy, with further liquidations? Even if the Government have no legal obligation, in the exceptional circumstances of the collapse of Rolls-Royce will not the Government take on some kind of obligation to look at problems affecting creditors who may otherwise go into liquidation, with subsequent redundancies, and allow some financial help at least to them?

§ Mr. Corfield
I cannot go further than I have gone already. I am examining these matters, and they are being considered seriously.