Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Margaret Beckett Excerpts
Monday 25th June 2018

(5 years, 8 months ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

The following is an extract from the urgent question on Rolls-Royce Redundancies on 14 June 2018.
Margaret Beckett Portrait Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the announcement by Rolls-Royce of 4,600 redundancies over the next two years.

Greg Clark Portrait The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Rolls-Royce is one of our most important companies. It is a world leader in new technology, and plays a vital role in our industrial strategy. I spoke to Warren East, the chief executive, yesterday evening. Mr East explained that the company’s view is that the job losses are a necessary part of a drive to make the business more efficient and therefore more competitive. The jobs are principally in management and corporate support facilities rather than engineering and operational roles. Rolls-Royce has informed me that the announcement does not reflect a reduction in growth by the company; indeed, it reflects the reverse. It has a growing order book amounting to more than £170 billion, and Mr East told me that it would need more staff directly employed in both the manufacture of components and assembly to meet that demand.

[Official Report, 14 June 2018, Vol. 642, c. 1088.]

Letter of correction from Greg Clark.

An error has been identified in my answer to the urgent question on Rolls-Royce Redundancies.

The correct response should have been: