HC Deb 15 March 1971 vol 813 cc914-7

53 and 54. Mr. Millan asked the Minister of Aviation Supply (1) when he was first informed, and by whom, of the prospective redundancies at Rolls-Royce Limited, which he announced on Monday, 8th March;

(2) what discussions the Government had with the Receiver of Rolls-Royce Limited and the directors of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited on redundancies at Rolls-Royce Limited, before his own announcement on Monday, 8th March.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Mr. David Price)

On his appointment the Receiver made it clear to all concerned that substantial redundancies would be inevitable. He informed the Department of Employment on 3rd March that redundancies were imminent. Firm information that the redundancies would be announced on 8th March was given to the Government on 5th March.

Mr. Millan

Do not the Government take any responsibility in this matter? As the aero-engine division is to be transferred to the new nationalised company, should not the Government have had discussions with the Receiver about these serious redundancies? Is he not aware that the redundancies were announced without discussion with the trade unions and that the trade unions, at least at the Scottish factories, were told at the same time as the Press, and that there was no discussion about the selection of the individuals to go, contrary to all past practice in Rolls-Royce and contrary to good industrial practice everywhere?

Mr. Price

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the receiver is in charge of these assets and the running of the business, and the Government have no control over his activities.

I understand that the receiver inquired of the Board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited whether it would require the services of these people, and I understand that the Board went along with the redundancies. However, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, the redundancies were, so to speak, in the pipeline at the time of the receivership.

Mr. Rost

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the processes of consultation might have been improved if Rolls-Royce employees at Glasgow had not joined in the one-day strike on 1st March, but had followed the excellent example of the Rolls-Royce workers at Derby who did not strike and who do not intend to strike next Thursday?

Mr. Price

That is an interesting observation. I understand that the receiver informed the unions, although I recognise the difference between information and consultation. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any responsibility in the House for the actions of the receiver in so far as he acts within the law.

Mr. Benn

Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is that the Government accept full responsibility for the negotiations with Lockheed, when they choose so to do, but disclaim any responsibility for redundancies, although the receiver is in charge of the whole company?

Mr. Price

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we found that the state of affairs with the contract for the RB211 was such that the receiver was not going on with the contract. Whether we are able to renegotiate the contract with Lockheed will determine which of the assets the Government will require to be retained by the new Rolls-Royce company. But that is completely outwith the subject of current redundancies.

Mr. William Clark

Does not my hon. Friend agree that these redundancies were in the pipeline irrespective of the continuance of the RB211 contract?

Mr. Price

That is what my right hon. Friend said from this very Box last Thursday.

Mr. Whitehead

Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what conversations took place between 4th February and 3rd March between Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited and the receiver about the level of employment estimated for the new Derby Engine Division of Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Price

I am not aware of positive discussion in the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question although, as I understand it, the receiver did inquire of the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) whether the redundancies he intended to make would in any way make the job of Rolls-Royce (1971) more difficult when it eventually acquired the assets which the Government say it will acquire.

Mr. Dalyell

If it is true, as the Minister says, that the Government have no control over the receiver, will the Minister spell out precisely what the relationship is between the Government and the receiver, especially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said, when it comes to dealing with Lockheed? This is mystifying.

Mr. Price

The receiver's position is that laid down in the Companies Act, 1948. The Government are prospective purchasers of a large number of the assets, as has been explained by my right hon. Friend at this Box, and therefore the relationship between the Government and the receiver is the normal relationship between a receiver and a potential buyer of assets.