§ 7. Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he can now state the price paid by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited for the assets of Rolls-Royce Limited, and the basis upon which a price was reached.
§ Mr. CorfieldNo, Sir. Negotiations on the price payable are still at an early stage.
§ Mr. RostAs Rolls-Royce is continuing in business, through its new company, with the eventual probability of overall profitability, would the Minister not agree that the most valuable asset taken over by the Government in the new company is the goodwill in terms of the work force, in terms of the price of research and development and in terms of the technological team, and would he confirm that adequate compensation will be paid for this goodwill so that shareholders and creditors may at least be reassured that they will not have their assets expropriated?
Mr. GarfieldI do not think I can add to the Answer given to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion when he asked precisely that question. The basis of valuation must be the assessment of profitability, which will contain an element for goodwill.
§ Mr. BishopIs the Minister aware that one of the assets of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited is the subsidiary dealing with carbon fibres? The Minister, in reply to my Question last week, was unable to give an assurance that this subsidiary would not be sold to an overseas buyer. Will the Minister assure the House that this would be done only in the best interests of the firm and, 1208 secondly, would the assets of Rolls-Royce (1971) be helped by the income from the sale of the subsidiary?
§ Mr. CorfieldIn reply to the first part of the supplementary question, if an offer from an overseas firm were to be made, this would be considered in the usual way by the Treasury and my right hon. Friend. The sale price would go to swell the assets in the hands of the receiver and the liquidator.
§ Mr. EmeryDoes my right hon. Friend recall that he gave me and the House certain assurances that he and the Government did not wish to keep Rolls-Royce in the public sector for longer than was necessary? Will he tell the House what plans he has made for ensuring that this assurance is honoured?
§ Mr. CorfieldMy concern is to make Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited as potentially profitable as possible. This is crucial to the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
§ 17. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the position of the Rolls-Royce sub-contractors, in the light of Government decisions affecting Rolls-Royce and Lockheed.
§ Mr. CorfieldNow that the future of the RB-211 has been resolved, Rolls-Royce sub-contractors have the prospect of continued business with Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. on this project for several years ahead. Continuation of the project has also, of course, significantly improved sub-contractors' dividend expectations in the liquidation of the old company.
§ Mr. DalyellSo that prospects may be improved, do we have any assurance that there will be a higher degree of candour between Rolls-Royce (1971) and subcontractors than there was in the last setup when there was very great confusion caused, for example, by the degree of stocktaking and stock holding by the old company in relation to manufacture by sub-contractors?
§ Mr. CorfieldI find it difficult to see the relevance of those remarks to the Question on the Order Paper. But there can be no question of any lack of candour, and I am sure that it does not exist on behalf of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited so 1209 as in any way to affect the dividend payable to the creditors.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsDoes my right hon. Friend not agree that the development of the stretched RB-211 will have a great effect on sub-contractors? Will he look at the question again in view of his previous answers to supplementary questions?
§ Mr. CorfieldI must look at this matter in relation to the market for a stretched RB-211 and to the ability of Lockheed to produce such an aircraft. Then it would be right that I should look at Rolls-Royce's part in it.