Harland and Wolff (Hansard, 10 November 1988)

§ 7. Mr. Jim Marshall
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to privatise Harland and Wolff, in the light of the recent breakdown of negotiations with Mr. Ravi Tikkoo.

§ 11. Mr. Tony Lloyd
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider reversing his decision to privatise Harland and Wolff, in the light of the breakdown of negotiations with Mr. Ravi Tikkoo and the implications for the company's ability to bid for military contracts of current uncertainty about its future status.

§ 16. Mr. Beggs
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Harland and Wolff Ltd., Belfast.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers)
The Government believe firmly that privatisation provides the best prospects for Harland and Wolff to achieve long-term viability and it is therefore our intention to return the company to the private sector. The breakdown in negotiations with Mr. Tikkoo was a disappointment, but discussions are continuing with other interested parties. The company chairman, John Parker, is also examining the feasibility of a management-employee buy out and this, too, will receive detailed consideration.
With regard to Ministry of Defence work, I have made it clear that a privately-owned Harland and Wolff will be free to bid for future contracts. The eligibility of the company for such work would be assessed by the Ministry of Defence in the normal way.

§ Mr. Marshall
I hope that the Minister will accept that Mr. Tikkoo is to be congratulated on discussing with the Government for so long the possible purchase of Harland and Wolff. However, he should remember that the only thing that Mr. Tikkoo wished to do in the first place was to have a ship built at Harland and Wolff. Why have the Government made it virtually impossible for a publicly-owned Harland and Wolff to do three things: first, to react in a positive fashion to the Tikkoo bid; secondly, to tender for Ministry of Defence work; and, thirdly, to react to the ban on the proposed building of the £8 million dredger, put forward by the south coast shipping company. Surely even the Minister recognises that a publicly-owned company which obtained at least two of the three orders would be far more attractive to the private sector than Harland and Wolff is at present.

§ Mr. Viggers
We gave every possible support to Mr. Tikkoo in his approach to build the Ultimate Dream cruiseliner and to acquire the yard. That was the basis on which he was content to negotiate. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to sell short the Government's efforts. The Government are in close negotiation with prospective purchasers of Harland and Wolff. It is an integral part of our discussions that substantial orders will be placed with the yard forthwith. If successful, the negotiations will secure the future of the yard and its order book for many years. That is the goal towards which Ministers are working.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The Minister has avoided the question of Ministry of Defence contracts. Will he tell the House why Harland and Wolff was prevented by his Department from tendering for the Ministry of Defence contract for the aviation support ship? Will he put it clearly on the record whether it was his Department that prevented Harland and Wolff from taking part in that process? Will Harland and Wolff be allowed to tender for Ministry of Defence work while it is still in the public sector?

§ Mr. Viggers
I have made it clear that it is obviously not sensible at this critical stage to proceed with other prospective ship orders, as they could be inconsistent with the shipbuilding plans of a new owner.
I confirm that Harland and Wolff, in the private sector, will, of course, be free to tender for Ministry of Defence orders and full intervention aid support will be available.

§ Mr. Beggs
How many customers have been put off and how many potential orders has Harland and Wolff not been permitted to tender for because of this mailed fist, or even blackmail, policy that has been used to push through privatisation? Does the Minister recognise that, unless Harland and Wolff accepts some orders soon, thousands of men will be out of work and it will be impossible to find a new owner or work for those presently employed in Belfast?

§ Mr. Viggers
I recognise that hon. Members are in some difficulty because they cannot be privy to the confidential discussions of Government, but the hon. Gentleman should not sell short the efforts of the Government and of the yard. I have had preliminary discussions today with another substantial company which has expressed interest in the future of the yard.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson
When the Minister told The Guardian last week that he was fighting hard for Harland and Wolff, was he referring to its being closed out of the initial consultations regarding the aviation support ship? Was he referring to the refusal to give Harland and Wolff the contract for the Ultimate Dream, unless it was in the private sector, or to the scandal, which was announced yesterday, of the Minister turning down a further order of a dredger from Harland and Wolff, simply because it was not yet in the private sector? Will he please attempt to make my constituents understand how Harland and Wolff would be less attractive for privatisation if it had a full order book?

§ Mr. Viggers
It is well known in Northern Ireland that my right hon. Friend fought long and hard to win the AOR order for Harland and Wolff. I would ask the hon. Gentleman where he was when the discussions were taking place. My right hon. Friend has not changed in his determination to do everything possible to secure the future of the yard.

§ Mr. Brazier
Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us—not all on this side of the House—very much wish the best for Harland and Wolff, but nevertheless feel that it has had every bit the upper end of the playing field in the various competitions for military vessels? We wish Harland and Wolff good fortune, but at the same time we must be fair to British yards this side of the water. There is a limit to how much we can listen to complaints on this issue.

§ Mr. Viggers
The Government have supported Harland and Wolff to the tune of £260 million in the past five years alone. That demonstrates their determination to support the yard. We are now convinced that the future of the yard lies not in the public sector but in the private sector, and we are determined to do our best to achieve that transition.

§ Mr. Ashdown
The Minister has not explained to the House why he believes that Harland and Wolff would be more attractive with empty order books than with full ones. Is it not the case that Harland and Wolff was excluded from the early stages of the MOD contracts for the AOR vessels? Why does he now seek to ensure that Harland and Wolff will not win that £8 million order and the yard will be sacrificed on the Government's mad ideology on privatisation?

§ Mr. Viggers
The hon. Gentleman is confusing the AOR with the ASS and the ASS with the dredger order. I 475 have answered the question. A prospective acquirer of the yard may well bring to the yard orders which would be inconsistent with other MOD or external orders.