HC Deb 03 April 1984 vol 57 cc458-9W
Mr. Millan

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report details of the figures supplied to his Department by British Shipbuilders of the comparative costs of abandoning the Britoil contract or renegotiating it and the date on which the figures were supplied to him.

Mr. Norman Lamont

Costs of cancellation versus renegotiation of the Britoil contract were the subject of discussion between British Shipbuilders and my Department over a period of several months beginning in September 1983. Detailed estimates of the costs of various courses of action are a commercial matter for British Shipbuilders and Britoil. But I can assure the hon. Member that the Chairman of British Shipbuilders made it clear to the Secretary of State that renegotiation would cost substantially more than accepting cancellation, given that there was a significant risk arising from uncertainty about future developments at the yard.

Mr. Millan

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provision for losses on the Britoil contract at Scott Lithgow has been made additional to the provision at 31 March 1983; and how much of that additional provision is being borne directly or indirectly by his Department.

Mr. Norman Lamont

The reconstruction of Scott Lithgow's balance sheet prior to its sale to Trafalgar House involved substantial provisions relating to the Britoil rig additional to those made at 31 March 1983. The precise figures could be of importance in future dealings between Scott Lithgow, under its new owners, and Britoil and are thus commercially confidential. They are included in the £71 million net cost to British Shipbuilders of the sale. This cost is being borne directly by the Government.