Examination of Witnesses (Questions 37-68)
UNITE THE
UNION
12 JANUARY 2010
Q37 Chairman: Thank you for coming
in for this important evidence session. Most members of the Committee
know very well who you are but for the record could you introduce
yourselves?
Mr Dromey: I am Jack Dromey, Deputy
General Secretary of Unite.
Ms Formby: I am Jennie Formby,
National Officer for the Food and Drink Sector.
Mr Hoyle: I am a member of Unite.
Chairman: A number of members of the
Committee are also members of Unite: Mr Wright, Ian Stewart and
Roger Berry.
Q38 Lembit Öpik: You have heard
what passed in the previous session. What are your main concerns
about the proposed takeover of Cadbury?
Mr Dromey: May I make two brief
preliminary points?
Q39 Chairman: I understand that you
would like to make an opening statement. I am sorry; my memory
is playing tricks.
Mr Dromey: As was said earlier,
we have a microcosm and macrocosm. First, Cadbury is a world-class
British success story. It is efficient and effective and has proven
products; it is part of our national heritage and it has an admirable
tradition of philanthropy. It is now being put at risk by decisions
being made in a boardroom in Illinois by a company whose debt
has gone from £6 billion in 2006 to £18 billion in 2008.
It is now taking on a facility for an additional £5.5 billion
in order to achieve the takeover of Cadbury. Our fear is based
upon the history of Kraft. Cadbury will be an irresistible target
for cost-cutting and asset stripping to free up capital to reduce
debt. The history of Kraft in this country is a sorry one, including
the promises made to our union over Terry's which, sadly, is now
history. Second, this morning I listened to a very interesting
interview with Roger Kerr, the Chairman of Cadbury. He spoke about
shareholder capitalism. It was said in the previous evidence session
that no-one challenged the fact that we live in a market economy.
I was never one of those who advocated the nationalisation of
the top 200 monopolies. But it simply cannot be right that in
the way the market works good companies can be subject to predatory
bids that put at risk the real economy and the public interest
with no regard for workers, local communities and suppliers. Instead
of responsible shareholder capitalism what we have now at its
most obscene is nanosecond trading and, in relation to Cadbury,
hedge funds in the form of boys wearing red braces who move in
to make a quick buck at the time of a British icon's vulnerability.
A long-term approach on the part of shareholders is absolutely
essential. Perhaps we shall come to this later on. We welcome
the debate that has been generated, including that by Lord Mandelson,
about what you do in practical terms for the wider and longer-term
but in the here and now keep Cadbury British.
Chairman: I have to stop you because
you are anticipating all of our questions. That is why generally
I do not allow witnesses to make opening statements. You have
ripped through the first three or four questions. I will give
Lembit Öpik and Mr Hoyle an opportunity to cover them in
detail.
Q40 Lembit Öpik: To provoke
you further, are your concerns specific to Kraft about which you
have made comments or are they about preserving the independence
of a UK company? If there was another food company in America
or China that had a better reputation than Kraft's as you perceive
it would you be making the same points?
Ms Formby: It is always interesting
to be with my colleague because he steals most of my thunder and
the points I intend to make. I shall try to cover what he has
not covered so far. This is an area where we agree very strongly
with Cadbury. Cadbury was not for sale and it is not for sale
now because of all the things that Professor Bones has covered
in a fascinating way in his evidence earlier. In our view it is
not good for it to be taken over by anybody. He made reference
to Hershey. Hershey may be a better fit than Kraft but the reality
is that there is no need for Cadbury to be taken over by anybody.
It is an extremely profitable, stand-alone company; it has shown
organic growth of about 6% for the past four years; it makes tremendous
profits; and it provides very high-qualify and highly skilled
jobs. The attitude and approach to the workforce who are a key
stakeholder in any company is on the whole positive. Of course
there are elements where we disagree. It would be very unusual
if that was not the case, but in general there is nothing about
Cadbury to suggest it should be taken over by anyone else. We
share all the points made by Professor Bones about the very serious
potential risks to all stakeholders, whether it is the shareholders,
workforce, suppliers or the local communities, which are key,
if anyone takes over this company.
Q41 Mr Hoyle: Quite rightly, Mr Dromey,
you have pointed out the finance vultures wearing red braces who
are there just to make a quick buck. British jobs do not matter
and they will just take their cut. You referred to seeing Lord
Mandelson. Was it one of those meetings to provide tea and sympathy
but no action or one where you believed the government was willing
to take steps to protect British brands, profitable companies,
good employers and huge R&D? Going back to a comment by the
Chairman, we have seen water and energy companies go; Liverpool
and Manchester United have gone. The big difference is that you
cannot move those abroad whatever happens, whereas in this case
this could spell the end of a great brand name like Cadbury.
Mr Dromey: My colleague was at
the meeting with Lord Mandelson.
Ms Formby: Certainly, Lord Mandelson
showed interest in developing further the arguments we raised.
In any meeting of that nature time was of the essence so we did
not have an opportunity to have a detailed discussion on some
of the key points, particularly trying to ensure that the regulations
provided a voice for workers and the rights of employees to have
full disclosure of information, which has been very frustrating
to Unite in representing Cadbury's workers throughout the process.
Those are matters we very much want to explore together with a
number of other elements to which my colleague will refer later.
There was certainly an indication of interest. There was less
than a sympathetic response to our views about the involvement
of RBS, but I agree that to some extent that is another issue.
The key point is that the Kraft takeover of Cadbury highlights
the situation.
Q42 Mr Hoyle: Do you believe that
he would really review the laws governing takeovers?
Mr Dromey: As to the immediate
situation, he used some rather interesting words about the court
of public opinion and the need for the proposed takeover to be
judged not just by the immediate interests of stockholders but
by the long-term interests of the country. On the wider point,
he has said—we welcome it—that real issues arise that
now need to be looked at very seriously. The background to this
is the shock to the system over the past couple of years. First,
we are looking at new financial architecture; second, there is
a welcome debate led by Lord Mandelson on the need for industrial
activism and the rebalancing of the economy with more not less
real financial engineering. Therefore, real issues arise. If one
is serious about going down that path as Professor Bones said
how does one ensure that strategic national industrial and manufacturing
interests, with all of the associated skills, are properly protected
in Britain?
Q43 Mr Hoyle: I understand that.
Obviously, the meeting took place. You have said that he will
look at what you ask for. To get a feel for what happened at that
meeting, do you really believe that some positives will come from
it? In the end we have a great brand name, an ethical company
that is very profitable and is getting on with its business, and
yet there are vultures flying round the world picking up good
companies that do the right thing by their workers. What could
you wish for in a review of legislation on takeovers? What is
the one thing that you believe would make a real difference to
stop it happening?
Mr Dromey: In the here and now
what we want is for a predator not to take over successful British
companies. Looking to the longer-term, I believe this has generated
a very welcome debate. A number of issues may arise at the next
stage. This is the single biggest one from our point of view.
There is also the role played by government. But from the point
of view of workers Cadbury is a classic example. We have 3,000
members there; they are good men and women who have invested their
lives in the company. There is a total lack of transparency. We
need to look at how we strengthen information and consultation
rights; how workers are able to express a view as to their future
and crucially how guarantees can be given in the process and we
do not have the cloak of secrecy that it is said the Takeover
Panel demands. We simply reject that view.
Q44 Chairman: In this debate we have
had Professor Bones' academic view about the breakdown of the
joint stock company model with the divorce of ownership from control,
which I believe raises very important questions about the future
of free markets and capitalism. Lord Mandelson has been hinting
that he shares all these concerns for quite a few months. He told
the Wall Street Journal in September that he had "started
to become concerned that over a lengthy period of time, certainly
not overnight, UK manufacturing could be a loser", and he
also said things in December and last week which indicated that
he believed that to be the case. I want to push you not on the
employee issues which Ian Stewart will deal with but the ownership
issues. Have you expressed views or heard any from Lord Mandelson
to suggest that the comments he has been trailing in this debate
have any substance behind them, or is it the case that nothing
is actually happening in the department to explore these very
interesting concerns?
Mr Dromey: They are very interesting
concerns. The shock to the system is now causing a fundamental
rethink. The statements being made by Lord Mandelson are very
welcome. The direction of travel including the emphasis on industrial
activism is also very welcome but, to be absolutely frank, if
it comes to tackling these problems and preventing predatory takeovers
we have yet to see effective action by Government. Therefore,
the question raised by this Committee's inquiry, which is welcome,
is: in practical terms what should government do both in terms
of strengthening the rights of workers but also acting at the
strategic level, which perhaps we shall come to shortly?
Q45 Chairman: We may not do so. You
heard Professor Bones talk about the kinds of conditions that
might be imposed on major manufacturing companies with large research
and development bases in the UK of strategic importance to the
economy. For example, he argued that Cadbury's research facilities
were of strategic importance on the grounds of food security.
Do you believe that is a route that the Government should look
at in more detail?
Mr Dromey: Yes, I do. Professor
Bones' evidence was very interesting. We have a very substantial
membership in the food industry. The supply chain for that industry
has a million-plus workers.
Q46 Chairman: It is a much bigger
part of our manufacturing base than people sometimes realise.
Mr Dromey: That is absolutely
right. It includes many world-class centres of excellence. It
is very important to our economy generally, in particular certain
regional economies. One can do a number of things. The amendment
of the criteria in terms of the ability of government to make
a strategic intervention has already been touched upon. I do not
want to repeat what has been said earlier. I believe that is absolutely
right. It is interesting that this debate is not taking place
just in Britain. First, Angela Merkel has already acted on this
front to say that the German Government needs the ability to make
strategic interventions to protect the best long-term interests
of the real economy. She put it in the particular context of not
wanting Chinese state company takeovers on the one hand or sovereign
wealth funds on the other acting as predators of successful German
companies. Second, it is interesting to look at the French experience
and their approach. There is shareholder democracy but they have
a greater emphasis on takeovers. There are weighted votes for
those who are long-term shareholders. To make the obvious point,
that would make it very difficult for the boys with red braces
in hedge funds to move in to make a quick killing. Third, Belgium
and Holland allow companies to have articles of association that
do not prevent takeovers but focus the debate on whether they
are in the best strategic long-term interests of the enterprise.
If we are to have this debate at the next stage—we warmly
welcome the fact that the good Lord Mandelson has opened up the
debate and this Committee is now focusing on this important area—we
need to move beyond general statements, however welcome they are,
to ask: what in practical terms can we do? Government has the
ability to make the market work better in the best long-term interests
of the country.
Q47 Miss Kirkbride: Can anything
be done now to stop this happening because it seems to me that
a lot of what you are talking about requires legislation?
Mr Dromey: It is true that one
would require legislation in certain respects at the next stages.
First, the power of advocacy by government is very important.
The stronger the statements in support of a good British company
the better. Second, it would not be a bad thing if the phone was
picked up to ask RBS what the hell they think they are doing.
Q48 Ian Stewart: The assistant general
secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has made public statements
on behalf of the union.
Mr Dromey: That is correct.
Q49 Ian Stewart: In one statement
he concludes: "We must see off the Kraft bid and any others
which do not have this company and its workforce's best interests
at heart, and we must persuade our government and regulators to
act fast so that healthy UK businesses cannot again fall prey
to finance vultures." I want to press you on the role the
union has played and the attitude of its members and then my colleague
Mr Clapham will ask about your relations with government. Mr Hoyle
asked you about his earlier. What do your members feel about this
bid?
Ms Formby: The overwhelming majority
of the workers are very concerned about the bid. The matter has
been somewhat confused by statements from Kraft in relation to
the Somerdale plant, implying that effectively it would come over
the horizon on a white charger and rescue that plant from closure.
Somerdale in Keynsham is due to close later this year with its
production being transferred to Poland. That was referred to earlier
by Professor Bones. Kraft said that it would like to keep a manufacturing
facility in Somerdale, not that it would guarantee to save the
jobs or anything like that. We have tried to get more information
out of them and their response has simply been to say that they
cannot say anything more because they do not know enough about
the company to say what they would do at Somerdale or anywhere;
they do not really know much about Cadbury at all, which is slightly
surprising. There was a little ambivalence among the people at
Somerdale but the overwhelming majority if not all of the employees
on all of the other sites are vehemently opposed to it. They have
seen what Kraft has done elsewhere. Rather than see Kraft as a
terrible US company that comes in to attack it just for the sake
of rhetoric, we need to look at what it has been forced to do
to service its debt. The reality is that over the past 10 years
Kraft has made 60,000 redundant and closed over 30 sites. That
is a fact associated with carrying significant debt. However positive
and good may be the intentions of any employer—Kraft has
clearly stated positive intentions toward all of the UK sites
and has said it intends to maintain manufacturing, investment
and everything else—there comes a stage when there is an
irresistible imperative to cut costs. Once you have cut costs
in marketing, sales, R&D and everything else in the way we
are so concerned about in terms of transporting all of that over
to Illinois the soft option is to look at other things like closures,
offshoring and outsourcing. Kraft has outsourced tremendous amounts
of real core stuff, such as Fig Newton cookies, of which I had
never heard before. Fig Newton is an iconic brand in the States.
That has been offshored to Mexico. We also have real concerns
about the sorts of companies that are implied in this third-party
outsourcing work. I am sure that if Kraft were here they would
say we were making a tremendous leap in expressing concern about
the closure of all these sites and redundancies because they have
said they have an intention to maintain manufacturing in the UK,
continue to invest et cetera. They had no intention to close Terry's
of York and made very strong statements to that effect, but it
is not there any more; its production is in Poland.
Q50 Ian Stewart: You have given the
Committee your analysis of the situation and the views of your
members. What direct discussions has the union had with Cadbury
and Kraft?
Ms Formby: To be blunt, we have
had great difficulty in talking to either company. We have tried
to get disclosure of more information and they have said the takeover
code prevents them from talking to us in detail about anything
that potentially could be deemed to be price-sensitive. In this
situation just about everything is price-sensitive. We have seen
the shares of both companies go up and down on a daily basis.
We have been pretty much kept in the dark. I have had several
conversations with Kraft and a meeting with its senior management,
but they have not said anything to us that is not in the public
domain.
Q51 Ian Stewart: In a recent press
release Kraft said that it was unable to give any assurances about
jobs, employment and conditions.
Ms Formby: Yes.
Q52 Ian Stewart: Has there been any
progress since then?
Ms Formby: Nothing at all.
Q53 Ian Stewart: Is that the situation
you describe?
Ms Formby: We have asked for very
specific guarantees. We have said that whatever we may think about
Kraft taking over Cadbury and the way Cadbury operates at the
moment clearly the people we represent are the workers, so if
Kraft says that strategically it is very important and it will
grow and develop the business, expand the markets and so on, fine;
get on with it, but if that is the case it should have the confidence
to give our members guarantees that it will not be making compulsory
redundancies, that sites will not be shut, that the pension scheme
will be saved, that terms and conditions will be safe and so on.
Kraft has said that it cannot give us any such guarantee.
Mr Dromey: To return to the cloak
of secrecy, you can imagine what it is like at the sites concerned
where people ask the whole time what is happening. The answer
is that we do not know. If we are looking at the approach in future
that must be tackled. There are some interesting precedents from
the past. For example, we have deployed people who have then signed
confidentiality clauses to be part of a big assessment process
on the one hand or have handled very sensitive information relating
to pension funds on the other. We simply do not accept this. Where
there is a will there is a way to ensure that workers' voices
are heard. At the moment we are effectively knocking on a closed
door because of the way the Takeover Panel works.
Q54 Ian Stewart: My colleague Mr
Clapham will ask about the union's view as to what government
can do to address that situation. Before we turn to that, can
you give the union's opinion about the potential effect on local
economies and communities in Birmingham and Sheffield if the concerns
you have expressed about factory closures become a reality?
Ms Formby: The potential impact
could be devastating. We have already heard how important Bournville
is to the surrounding area, and the Bassett site in Sheffield
is just as important. They are in areas that have been hit time
and again by job losses, closures and so on. The West Midlands
has a whole list of companies that have failed or have shed jobs.
There will be an extreme impact on both areas and other sites.
There are sites all round the UK that provide feedstocks and so
on for manufacturing. We also have Wrexham in Wales which is not
a massive area of employment. There are also sites in Devon and
Worcester.
Mr Dromey: First, there are very
big supply chains. Second, if you look at the two regional economies
although there has been a decline in car manufacturing in the
Midlands and engineering in Sheffield food is still a success
story in both and looms large in the thinking of, say, the regional
development agencies.
Q55 Ian Stewart: Are you putting
it to the Committee that whilst the initial thrust of the union's
approach is to protect its members and their employment conditions
by implication its campaign is also to protect the interests of
workers and companies in the wider community?
Mr Dromey: It is two sides of
the same coin: we want to protect members' interests but also
the public interest in the real economy and regional economies
in particular which are threatened by what Kraft might do.
Q56 Mr Clapham: Mr Dromey, I hear
what you say about the changes in Europe, for example in Belgium,
Holland and Germany, and the way it looks at strategic intervention
to make the market work better. What do you believe can be done
in practical terms? Do you believe it is possible to have legislation
or regulation that would guard against an acquiring company going
back on undertakings that it has given? Ms Formby referred to
Terry's. We know what undertakings were given in relation to Terry's
and yet Kraft just turned its back on the undertakings it gave.
Is it possible to have legislation that would force an acquiring
company to stick to its undertakings? I do not know whether this
was discussed with Lord Mandelson and, if it was, what kind of
response he gave.
Ms Formby: We did not have time
to go into detail about the various things we wanted to look at.
One matter we talked about, which we discussed with Cadbury who
said it was unable to deal with it under the rules of the Takeover
Panel, was reaching agreement with us on guarantees of jobs and
terms and conditions. We believe that that should be looked at
to see how we can ensure that workers are not sacrificed in this
situation. It is extremely important that we start to look at
that. There are a number of things that my colleague has been
discussing.
Mr Dromey: One requires a combination
of factors. If one took the German approach towards the protection
of strategic interests, or the Belgian and Dutch approach towards
articles of association to compel a more sensible debate about
the best long-term interests of the company, and if one also had
enhanced rights for workers in terms of their ability to be consulted
and be part of the process when talking of guarantees for the
future, would it necessarily mean that in every circumstance all
would be well? It is like TUPE. The unexpected can arise; there
may be what is called an ETO reason and suddenly protections afforded
are no longer there because of circumstances that have arisen,
for example the collapse of a particular company, marketplace
or whatever. Having said that, can one ensure that guarantees
given are honoured? If one lays down the right framework one can
do so.
Q57 Mr Clapham: Presumably, the union
is now considering taking this up formally with government.
Mr Dromey: That process has already
commenced. We are very keen to feed into the next stage of the
dialogue on these issues that has been initiated as a result of
the discussions with Lord Mandelson but sparked off by what happened
in Cadbury.
Q58 Mr Clapham: Do you believe it
is likely to result in a situation where there will be more information
and greater consultation? Is that likely to develop from the current
scene where Kraft now threatens Cadbury which is a very prosperous
and successful company?
Mr Dromey: We live in an era where
there is demand for transparency and freedom of information. I
think that increasingly across the political spectrum dare I say
to have a situation where workers are kept in the dark is viewed
as unacceptable. In some cases three or four generations of good
people have worked in the same plant. It is simply wrong that
today all of this can go on in Illinois boardrooms or the trading
floors of hedge funds in this country.
Q59 Mr Wright: What discussions have
you had with the American trade unions and people who actually
work in Kraft itself?
Ms Formby: We have had discussions
through the IUF, the global union federation, and with the European
craft unions who themselves are very concerned about any takeover
of Cadbury because they can see that the pain they have suffered
for decades in terms of job cuts and closures of sites will only
increase as the debt goes up. There is absolutely no appetite
for this among the craft trade unions; they share our view that
they do not want Kraft to take over Cadbury.
Q60 Mr Wright: So, there is concern
among the workforce in the States as well?
Ms Formby: Yes, and in Europe
where they have a lot of members.
Mr Wright: With debt soaring potentially
to £22 billion or £23 billion no one is safe.
Q61 Ian Stewart: You were in the
room when Professor Bones gave evidence. You will recall that
he was against heavy-handed regulation in relation to markets,
but he did suggest that there were some labour market development
factors like skill standards that could be used. Would the union
be in favour of that kind of approach?
Mr Dromey: Without hesitation.
I thought Professor Bones' presentation was a very interesting
one. The question then is: how do you do it? You need to move
beyond saying this is desirable to ensuring that public policy
guarantees those outcomes. Without repeating everything I have
said, that is why the role of government to protect strategic
interests is so important. The current criteria enable that to
happen but in very limited circumstances. We believe there is
a strong argument in favour of expanding that. There is a welcome
debate being led by Lord Mandelson and BIS on the need for much
greater industrial activism in future as we rebalance our economy
in the 21st century.
Q62 Mr Hoyle: We can see from this
that in the UK 6,200 jobs are put at risk in future because Bertie
Bassett will be produced in Krakow and maybe Cadbury's cream eggs
will be made in Belarus or whatever. But we do not know the number
of jobs that feed into the Cadbury's operation in the UK that
could be at risk. Do you have a feel for how many thousands of
jobs could be put at risk in that area?
Mr Dromey: Interestingly, there
was a plant in Scotland in respect of which we did some work together
with the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. That company
had 600 people working in the plant but 8,000 people depended
on that plant in the Scottish economy because of the nature of
the supply chain. It varies depending on the product one is talking
about but it is a ratio of at least four to one. Incidentally,
there is also an issue of definition as to where it ends. There
are those directly employed in the supply chain and others employed
in logistics, for example transport all the way down to the butcher,
baker and candlestick maker whose livelihoods depend on the plants
in the communities concerned.
Q63 Roger Berry: I want to ask about
Keynsham. A good number of your members at Keynsham fought very
hard against the closure of that site. Obviously, a number of
them are my constituents. It is quite right to say that there
has been speculation in the local media that conceivably the Kraft
takeover may be of some advantage to Keynsham. Can you give us
your view of the implications for the Keynsham site of the Kraft
takeover so there can be no misunderstanding about the union's
view on this?
Ms Formby: It is essential to
be clear about it. I have been very disappointed by the fact that
Kraft has persisted in repeating what appear to be assurances
to the people in Keynsham which, as far as I can see, are very
hollow. It has said it wants to keep a manufacturing facility
in Keynsham. I have asked what that means. Does it mean that Kraft
will reverse the decision that Cadbury has made to close the site?
Will Kraft keep it open? The answer is that, no, it wishes to
maintain a manufacturing facility. What does that mean for jobs
in the future? Does it mean that if Kraft reopens it it will have
directly employed people on the site, or will it outsource it
somewhere else? The answer is that it intends to keep a manufacturing
facility in Keynsham. There is no meat on the bones at all. It
has said continually that it does not know enough about it; it
does not know how it is configured inside. We have said that surely
a company of its experience has an idea of what it looks like
inside because there are lots of things in the public domain.
The reality is that there is no intention to come and save the
jobs but effectively it may want to use it for something else
in future. But it is very difficult to say; it is not obliged
to say anything to us, and it will not say anything to us. I believe
that what Kraft has said not just once but several times to give
false hope to Keynsham is very unfair to people who have been
through several years of uncertainty and who are in some instances
in despair.
Q64 Roger Berry: Mr Dromey, you have
said that one thing the Government should do is pick up the phone
and speak to RBS. I agree with everything else you have said on
this issue. I believe in that takeover policy. What do you believe
would happen if the Government did phone RBS and say it should
pull out of it? What happens next?
Mr Dromey: I am the first to acknowledge
that the power of Government under the current public policy framework
is constrained. What is so welcome about this Committee's debate
is that we are looking at how we change that for the future so
we have no more Cadburys. But in the here and now to use Lord
Mandelson's words if the judgment of the court of public opinion
is that this takeover is not in the best long-term interests of
Britain then at the very least the phone should be picked up and
Government should say it believes RBS should put those long-term
interests first and not be associated with a predatory bid. I
know it is a controversial point. There is no guarantee that RBS
will necessarily heed that advice, but it is no bad thing for
such advice to be given to what is effectively a state-owned bank.
Q65 Roger Berry: In the court of
public opinion many of us believe that lots of things should be
done about those responsible for RBS's actions in the private
sector. If I was the Government I would make that phone call.
The story would then be that the Government had responded to the
crisis, the unions had achieved a victory—you demanded that
someone phone RBS—but, not wanting to be brutally frank
about this, in all honesty it would not make any difference to
the possibility of a takeover by Kraft. Is not playing the RBS
card really a token demand? It is the easiest thing for the Government
to say that it will do that and it and the union get some credit,
but I do not believe that it will save any jobs in Cadbury.
Mr Dromey: There is no magic wand.
What the Government has said thus far is welcome. Anything it
can do it should do. I agree that the big issue then is the future.
Where do we go from here in terms of ensuring that we do not have
Cadbury after Cadbury? In the here and now support from Government
and anything it can say and do are very welcome indeed.
Q66 Roger Berry: Do you have any
evidence that there would not be another bank out there that would
not provide the same facilities? Clearly, as everyone has said
in the financial sector there is a lot of money to be made out
of a takeover.
Mr Dromey: As things work at the
moment that is absolutely right, but it is anomalous that effectively
we have a state-owned bank not acting in the public interest.
I agree with you. I do not wish to place too much emphasis on
this other than to say that it would be very well received by
our 3,000 members in Cadbury. The stronger the support we get
the better because they are very concerned about their future.
Ms Formby: Ironically, Kraft had
a relationship with Cadbury going back decades and did not tell
them anything about their intentions. Cadbury found out about
it when the announcement was made.
Q67 Chairman: Is there anything else
you would like to say to us? I say it with hesitation knowing
your articulate nature.
Mr Dromey: The approach of the
Committee is very welcome. There is an immediate situation affecting
people about whom we care a great deal and communities and the
country. The Committee is absolutely right to focus upon the wider
and longer term and we hope that will help carry forward the crucial
debate into the future.
Q68 Chairman: One hopes that institutional
shareholders might listen and invest in the long-term future of
the UK and have a care about the future of British manufacturing
industry more generally.
Ms Formby: We shall be circulating
our own defence document to all Cadbury shareholders tomorrow.
We will ensure that the Committee has a copy of that.
Chairman: That is helpful. Thank you
very much indeed.
| 
