§ 8. Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what part his Department played in bringing about the changes in the senior management of Rolls-Royce, leading to the departure of Mr. Ian Morrow and Lord Cole, and the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Wilkinson.
§ Mr. Michael HeseltineThe appointments were made by the board. The Government, as sole shareholder, were concerned in the appointments which were made with their approval.
§ Mr. DalyellIs the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is evasive to the point of being untruthful? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Was Mr. Morrow at any time given the opportunity of working with Mr. Wilkinson, and if not, why not? This is an absolute cover-up.
§ Mr. HeseltineWhat could have happened if certain decisions which were not taken had been taken poses a hypothetical question. In view of the circumstances, I do not think that there is any point in trying to answer such a question.
§ Mr. HeseltineAny company in which the Government have an involvement is bound to have discussions with the Government about changes of the sort that took place. It is right that such discussions should take place; they did on this occasion and the board came to its decision.
§ Mr. MillanIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it was widely reported in the Press that there had been a disagreement between Mr. Morrow and the Minister 12 and that Mr. Morrow had complained about too much ministerial interference in the affairs of the company? Was there a disagreement and, if so, what was the nature of it?
§ Mr. DalyellAnswer.
§ Mr. HeseltineI am not aware of any suggestion that there had been a disagreement on policy matters between Mr. Morrow and the Government.
§ Mr. Walter JohnsonDoes not the hon. Gentleman realise that such changes cause uncertainty among senior personnel and the staff of Rolls-Royce? Has the Minister assured himself that senior staff and workers have had the reasons for these major changes explained to them?
Mr. HesletineI do not believe it is the Minister's responsibility to explain matters of corporate policy—
§ Mr. JohnsonIt is a nationalised company.
§ Mr. Heseltine—to the staff of a company. That is a matter for the management. The House knows and welcomes the fact that Rolls-Royce is now achieving a record turnover and has just landed—
§ Mr. DalyellThat is not the question that was asked. Answer the question.
§ Mr. DalyellAnswer the question.
§ Mr. Heseltine—for the sale of TriStars to All-Nippon Airlines—
§ Mr. DalyellAnswer the question. This is of no relevance.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is not a time for debate. Questions must be answered fairly briefly.
§ Mr. HeseltineI merely wished to make the point that in terms of confidence the company has just landed one of the most important contracts it has ever achieved through the sale of TriStars to All-Nippon Airlines.
§ Mr. William HamiltonWriggler!
§ 14. Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to make a statement about workers' shares in the pre-1971 Rolls-Royce Company.
§ Mr. Michael HeseltineI have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the 13 hon. Gentleman on 17th July.—[Vol. 841. c. 28–9.]
§ Mr. JohnsonIs the hon. Gentleman aware that, whereas the debenture stock holders have been paid in full plus interest, those who invested their life's work and savings in this company have been treated in a shabby way? In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon about the continued prosperity of the company, which we all welcome, will the Government look again at the question of workers' shareholdings?
§ Mr. HeseltineI am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have looked at this matter with great care and attention. It is extremely difficult. It has been the subject of an Adjournment debate, and the arguments have been fully deployed. There is no other way round the very difficult decisions we have had to take.
§ Mr. EdelmanIn view of the lip service which the Government pay to the principle of worker consultation, will the hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had with the trade unions whose members are involved with workers who own shares in the company? If he has had no consultations, does not the Government's attitude make a mockery of the whole principle?
§ Mr. HeseltineI think there have been consultations, but there are clear issues of principle involved. There is no way of dealing with the problem of a limited liability company in which people own stock which goes bankrupt. The shares have become valueless.
§ 15. Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the contract value of components and materials supplied to Rolls-Royce Limited for which no payment has been received by the suppliers and which have been used by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited in jet engines supplied to Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. Michael HeseltineThat is a matter for Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the receiver of Rolls-Royce Ltd.
§ Mr. WarrenI was intrigued with the rapidity of my hon. Friend's answer, because this matter covers a very substantial sum. I hope he realises that a sum running into several millions of pounds is due to employees and shareholders of 14 companies who have not the full ability to complain about the amount outstanding because Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. is frequently their main customer and the Government, in turn, are often their main customer. It is 18 months since Parliament agreed that the money should be paid to these companies and some settlement should have been reached.
§ Mr. HeseltineI am sure my hon. Friend understands that this is a matter to be dealt with between the two parties concerned. The Government are not a direct party to it.
§ Mr. WhiteheadIs it not a shocking state of affairs that after 18 months this matter should still be going on? The company is already profitable and there have been several changes of management. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are still firms hovering on the edge of bankruptcy because of this situation?
§ Mr. HeseltineI realise that it is a very difficult situation. Whenever I have been asked to help in this matter—for example, in the appointment of the expert—I have done what was necessary to speed up the process. But the Government do not have a standing in it. It is a matter between the two parties concerned.