 | |
| Industry | Automotive |
|---|---|
| Predecessors | |
| Founded | 17 January 1968; 57 years ago (1968-01-17) |
| Founders | |
| Defunct | 1986; 39 years ago (1986) |
| Fate | Renamed asRover Group |
| Successor | Rover Group |
| Headquarters | Longbridge (Austin Rover),, United Kingdom |
Key people | |
| Products | Motor vehicles |
| Brands | |
Number of employees | 250,000 |
| Subsidiaries |
|
British Leyland was a British automotive engineering and manufacturingconglomerate formed in 1968 asBritish Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd (BLMC), following the merger ofLeyland Motors andBritish Motor Holdings. It was partlynationalised in 1975, when theBritish government created aholding company called British Leyland, later renamed BL in 1978.[1][2] It incorporated much of the British-owned motor vehicle industry, which in 1968 had a 40% share of the UK car market,[3] with its history going back to 1895. Despite containing profitable marques such asJaguar,Rover, andLand Rover, as well as the best-sellingMini, BLMC had a troubled history,[4] leading to its eventual collapse in 1975 and subsequent part-nationalisation.
After much restructuring and divestment of subsidiary companies as well as entering into a major alliance withHonda, BL was renamed theRover Group in 1986, becoming a subsidiary ofBritish Aerospace from 1988 to 1994, then was subsequently bought byBMW. The final surviving incarnation of the company as theMG Rover Group went intoadministration in 2005,[5] bringing mass car production by British-owned manufacturers to an end.MG and theAustin,Morris andWolseley marques became part of China'sSAIC, with whom MG Rover attempted to merge prior to administration. As of 2024,Mini,Jaguar Land Rover,Leyland Trucks, andUnipart are the most prominent former parts of British Leyland that still exist, with SAIC still operating its UK base out of the formerLongbridge site.
BLMC was founded on 17 January 1968 by the merger ofBritish Motor Holdings (BMH) andLeyland Motor Corporation (LMC),[6] encouraged byTony Benn as chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Committee created by thefirst Wilson Government.[3] At the time, LMC was a highly successful truck and bus manufacturer – as well as owning prosperous car brandsTriumph andRover – whilst BMH (which was the product of an earlier merger between theBritish Motor Corporation,Pressed Steel and Jaguar) was perilously close to collapse. The government hoped LMC's expertise would revive the ailing BMH, and effectively create a "BritishGeneral Motors". The merger combined most of the remaining independent British car manufacturing companies and included car, bus and truck manufacturers and more diverse enterprises including: construction equipment, refrigerators, metal casting companies, road surface manufacturers; in all, nearly one hundred different companies. The new corporation was arranged into seven divisions under its new chairman,Sir Donald Stokes (formerly the chairman of LMC). At the time of its founding, BLMC was the world's fifth largest vehicle manufacturer afterGeneral Motors,Ford,Chrysler andVolkswagen.[7]
The seven divisions were:
While BMH was the UK's largest car manufacturer (producing over twice as many cars as LMC), it offered a range of dated vehicles, including theMorris Minor which was introduced in 1948 and theAustin Cambridge andMorris Oxford, which dated back to 1959. Although BMH had enjoyed great success in the 1960s with both theMini and the1100/1300, both cars were infamously underpriced and despite their pioneering but unprovenfront wheel drive engineering, warranty costs had been crippling and had badly eroded those models' profitability.
After the merger, Lord Stokes was horrified to find that BMH had no plans to replace the elderly designs in its portfolio. Also, BMH's design efforts immediately prior to the merger had focused on unfortunate niche market models such as theAustin Maxi (which was underdeveloped and with an appearance hampered by using the doors from the largerAustin 1800) and theAustin 3-litre, a car with no discernible place in the market.
The lack of attention to the development of new mass-market models meant that BMH had nothing in the way of new models in the pipeline to compete effectively with popular rivals such as Ford'sEscort andCortina.
.jpg)
Immediately, Lord Stokes instigated plans to design and introduce new models quickly. The first result of this crash programme was theMorris Marina in early-1971. It used parts from various BL models with new bodywork to produce BL's mass-market competitor. It was one of the strongest-selling cars in the United Kingdom in the 1970s; being the second-most popular new car sold in Britain in 1973; though by the end of production in 1980 it was widely regarded as a dismal product that had damaged the company's reputation.[citation needed] TheAustin Allegro (replacement for the 1100/1300 ranges), launched in 1973, gained a similar reputation over its ten-year production life.
.jpg)
The company became an infamous example of the industrial turmoil that plagued the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Action by unions frequently crippled BL manufacturing. Despite the duplication of production facilities as a result of the merger, there were multiplesingle points of failure in the company's production network which meant that a strike in a single plant could stop many of the others. Domestic rivalsFord andGeneral Motors mitigated against this by merging their previously separate British and German subsidiaries and product lines (Ford combinedFord of Britain andFord Germany to createFord of Europe, whilst GM eventually merged the operations ofVauxhall andOpel), so that production could be sourced from either British or Continental European plants in the event of industrial unrest. The upshot was that both Ford and Vauxhall ultimately overtook BL to become Britain's two best-selling marques. At the same time, a tide of Japanese imports, spearheaded byNissan (Datsun) andToyota exploited both BL's inability to supply its customers and its declining reputation for quality. Continental carmakers includingFiat,Renault andVolkswagen were also achieving strong sales on the British market.
By the end of the 1970s, the British government had introducedprotectionist measures in the form of import quotas on Japanese manufacturers to protect the ailing domestic producers (both BL andChrysler Europe), which it was helping to sustain.
At its peak, BLMC owned almost forty manufacturing plants across the country. Even before the merger, BMH had included theoretically competing marques that were in fact selling substantially similarbadge engineered cars. The British Motor Corporation had never properly integrated either the dealer networks or the production facilities ofAustin andMorris. This had been done partly to appease poor industrial relations, as decades old rivalries between Austin and Morris workers at Longbridge and Cowley respectively, had persisted after the 1952 merger and creation of BMC. The upshot was that both plants were producing badge engineered models of otherwise identical Austin and Morris cars so that each dealer network would have a product to sell. This meant that Austin and Morris still, to an extent, competed with each other and meant that each product was saddled with effectively twice the logistics, marketing and distribution costs that it would have if sold under a single name or if production of a single model platform was concentrated in one factory. Although BLdid eventually end the wasteful double sourcing – for example production of the Mini and the1100/1300 was concentrated atLongbridge, whilst the 1800 andAustin Maxi ranges moved toCowley, the production of sub-assemblies as well as component suppliers were scattered all over the Midlands which greatly increased the cost of keeping the factories running.
BMH and Leyland Motors had expanded and acquired companies throughout the 1950s and 1960s which were in direct competition with each other, with the result that when the two conglomerates were brought together into BL there was even more internal competition. Rover competed with Jaguar at the expensive end of the market, andTriumph with its family cars and sports cars against Austin, Morris and MG. Internal politics became so bad that one marque's team would attempt to derail another marque's programmes.[8]
Individual model lines that were similarly sized were therefore competing against each other, yet were never discontinued nor were model ranges rationalised quickly enough; in fact, the policy of having multiple models competing in the same market segment continued long after the merger – for instance BMH'sMGB remained in production alongside LMC'sTriumph TR6, theRover P5 competed with theJaguar XJ, whilst in the medium family sector, thePrincess was in direct competition with upscale versions of theMorris Marina andAustin Maxi, meaning thateconomies of scale resulting from large production runs could never be realised. In addition, in consequent attempts to establish British Leyland as a brand in consumers' minds in and outside the UK, print ads and spots were produced, causing confusion rather than attraction for buyers.
BL marketing and management attempted to draw more obvious distinctions between the marques – most notable was the decision to pitch Morris as a maker of conventional mass-market cars to compete withFord andVauxhall and Austin to continue BMC's line of advanced family cars with front-wheel drive and fluid suspension. This resulted in the development of theMorris Marina and theAustin Allegro. The policy's success was mixed. Since the dealership network was still not sufficiently rationalised it meant that Austin and Morris dealers (which had, in BMC/BMH days, each offered a full range of cars both advanced and traditional) had their product range halved and found that they could no longer cater to many previously loyal customers' tastes. The policy was also carried out haphazardly: The advanced,Hydragas-sprungPrincess began life in 1975 sold as an Austin, a Morris and a Wolseley before being rebadged altogether under the new Princess name. The Princess (and theMini, which BL also turned into a marque in its own right) was sold across the Austin-Morris dealership network, making any distinction between the two even more vague to many customers. Critically, the new models that had been introduced by BLMC failed to sell in high enough quantities outside of the home market, despite the UK now being a part of theEuropean Economic Community – with the Allegro and Princess, in particular, having been tailored for European tastes. However, both these vehicles were saloons when the trend in Europe was moving towards family-sized hatchbacks, typified by theVolkswagen Golf in 1974 and theSimca 1307 (Chrysler Alpine) in 1975.
The company also wasted much of its scant funds onconcepts, such as the Rover P8 or P9,[9] that never entered production to earn income for the company.
These internal issues, which were never satisfactorily solved, combined with serious industrial relations problems with trade unions, the1973 oil crisis, thethree-day week, high inflation and ineffectual management meant that BL became an unmanageable and financially crippled behemoth. "Following a disastrous couple of years in the marketplace, by the end of 1974 BLMC was on the brink of bankruptcy. Its financial backers – the City banks – had become very nervous about its future, and persuaded Lord Stokes to approach Tony Benn for financial assistance."[10]
Sir Don Ryder was asked to undertake an enquiry into the position of the company, andhis report was presented to the government in April 1975. Following Ryder's recommendations, the organisation was drastically restructured and theLabour Government created a new holding company, British Leyland Limited (BL), of which it was the major shareholder, effectively nationalising the company.[11][12] Between 1975 and 1980, these shares were vested in theNational Enterprise Board which had responsibility for managing this investment. The original seven divisions of the company were now reorganised into four:[13]
There was positive news for BL at the end of 1976 when its newRover SD1 executive car was votedEuropean Car of the Year, having gained plaudits for its innovative design. The SD1 was actually the first step that British Leyland took towards rationalising its passenger car ranges, as it replaced two cars competing in the same sector, theRover P6 andTriumph 2000. More positive news for the company came at the end of 1976 with the approval by Industry MinisterEric Varley of a £140,000,000 investment of public money in refitting theLongbridge plant for production of the company's "ADO88" (Mini replacement), due for launch in 1979.[15] However, poor results from customer clinics of the ADO88, coupled with the UK success of theFord Fiesta, launched in 1976, forced a snap redesign of ADO88 which evolved into the "LC8" project – eventually launched as theAustin Mini Metro in 1980.
In 1977,Michael Edwardes was appointed chief executive[16] by the NEB. Edwardes embarked on a massive restructuring of the beleaguered conglomerate, selling off many of its non-core businesses such as Prestcold and Coventry Climax. Edwardes also took on the militant unions head-on, culminating in the dismissal of chief shop stewardDerek Robinson in 1979, who had been seen as the perpetrator of much of the strikes and industrial unrest that had crippled the company throughout the decade. Edwardes quickly reversed the Ryder Report's policy of giving prominence to the "Leyland" brand, and returned focus back to the individual brands. Leyland Cars was thus renamedBL Cars Ltd, consisting of two main divisions;Austin Morris (the volume car business) andJaguar Rover Triumph (JRT) (the specialist or upmarket division). Austin Morris included MG. Land Rover and Range Rover were later separated from JRT to form theLand Rover Group. JRT later split up into Rover-Triumph and Jaguar Car Holdings (which includedDaimler). At the same time the public use of the "British Leyland" name ceased, being abbreviated simply to "BL", whilst the company's "hurricane" logo was redesigned with the central "L" removed. The Austin-Morris division was given its own unique brand identity with the introduction of the blue and green "chevron" logo, which was later expanded in use when the car manufacturing operations were further consolidated into the Austin Rover Group in the 1980s.
In 1978, the company was the subject of an important legal development concerningcorporate civil liability.[17] In the case ofWalton v British Leyland, the court held Leyland liable for negligence owing to a design defect in the wheel bearings of their new model of the Allegro.[18] The company were aware of the issue but had decided against a recall.[18] They were held liable for damages as they had failed to take reasonable care, because the costs of the recall were deemed in proportion with the potential risks of injury.[19]
In 1978, the company formed a new group for its commercial vehicle interests, BL Commercial Vehicles (BLCV) under managing directorDavid Abell. The following companies moved under this new umbrella:
BLCV and the Land Rover Group later merged to becomeLand Rover Leyland.
In December 1978, British Leyland Limited was renamed BL Limited and its subsidiary, which acted as aholding company for all the other companies within the group. The British Leyland Motor Corporation Limited was renamed BLMC Limited at the same time.[20][21]
BL's fortunes took another much-awaited rise in October 1980 with the launch of theAustin Metro (initially named the Mini Metro), a three-door hatchback that gave buyers a more modern and practical alternative to the iconic but ageing Mini. This went on to be one of the most popular cars in Britain in the 1980s. Towards the final stages of the Metro's development, BL entered into an alliance withHonda to provide a new mid-range model to replace the ageingTriumph Dolomite, and more crucially to be a stop-gap until theAustin Maestro andMontego were ready for launch. This car emerged as theTriumph Acclaim in 1981, and became the first of a long line of collaborative models jointly developed between BL and Honda. At the same time, Leyland Trucks introduced theLandtrain, the first in a series of vehicles developed specifically for export markets.[22]
A rationalisation of the model ranges also took place around this time. In 1980, British Leyland was still producing three cars in the large family car sector—thePrincess 2,Austin Maxi andMorris Marina. The Marina was succeeded by theMorris Ital in July 1980 following a superficial facelift, and a year later the Princess 2 received a major upgrade to become theAustin Ambassador, meaning that the 1982 range had just two competitors in this sector. In April 1984, these cars were discontinued to make way for a single all-new model, the Austin Montego.
The Acclaim was replaced in that same year by another Honda-based product, theRover 200-series.
The MG factory atAbingdon and Triumph factory atCanley were both closed in 1980.
By the end of Michael Edwardes' tenure as chairman of BL plc in 1982, the company had been restructured into two parts – the Cars Division (which consisted of Austin-Morris, Rover and Jaguar, and was led byRay Horrocks) and the Commercial Vehicle Division (which consisted of Land Rover, Leyland Trucks, Leyland Buses andFreight Rover) – whose chief executive was David Andrews. The holding company BL plc was now chaired byAustin Bide in a non-executive capacity. Around this time, theBL Cars Ltd division renamed itselfAustin Rover, shortly before the launch of the Austin Maestro and Ray Horrocks was replaced byHarold Musgrove as its chairman and chief executive.
The emergence of the Austin Rover brand was intended to give a new public face to the company (with the 'Leyland' and 'BL' names fading from public view), although the conglomerate's holding company was still known as "BL plc". The name change also dispensed with theAustin-Morris andJaguar-Rover-Triumph divisions, since by this time, Jaguar now resided in a separate company called Jaguar Car Holdings and was now led bySir John Egan, and this was later de-merged from BL completely and privatised in 1984. That same year, with both the Morris Ital and the Triumph Acclaim being discontinued, their respective brands were effectively shelved, leaving only the Austin and Rover marques, whilst Land Rover moved into theFreight Rover Group alongside the light trucks division. After the divestment of Unipart and the van, truck and bus divisions in 1987 (see below), leaving just two subsidiaries – Austin Rover (volume cars) and Land Rover (SUVs) this essentially remained the basic structure of BL and subsequently the Rover Group until the 2000 break-up.
In 1986,Graham Day took the helm as chairman and CEO and the third joint Rover-Honda vehicle – theRover 800-series – was launched which replaced the ten-year-oldRover SD1. Around the same time, BL changed its name toRover Group and in 1987 theTrucks Division – Leyland Vehicles merged with the DutchDAF company to formDAF NV, trading asLeyland DAF in the UK and asDAF in the Netherlands. In 1987, the bus business was spun off into a new company calledLeyland Bus. This was the result of amanagement buyout who decided to sell the company to theBus & Truck division of Volvo in 1988.[23] That same year, the British government controversially tried to privatise and sell-offLand Rover, however this plan was later abandoned. The Austin name was dropped from the Metro, Maestro and Montego by 1988, signalling the end for the historic Austin marque, in a push to focus on the more prestigious (and potentially more profitable) Rover badge. In 1988, the business was sold by the British government toBritish Aerospace (BAe), and shortly afterwards shortened its name to just Rover Group. It subsequently sold the business toBMW, who, after years of investment that ultimately resulted in huge losses, decided to break up the Rover Group, and only retain theCowley operations and the rights to manufacture the newMINI family of vehicles.
Land Rover was divested toFord, who integrated it with itsPremier Automotive Group (of which Jaguar was already a part, therefore reuniting the two former BL stablemates), whilst the remains of the volume car business, including the massive Longbridge complex, became the newly independentMG Rover, which collapsed in 2005.
However, after suffering severe financial problems and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, Ford decided to dissolve its Premier Automotive Group, and sold off most of its brands, with Jaguar and Land Rover being sold to theIndian automakerTata Motors by the end of 2008. The only automotive manufacturing operations of British Leyland that survive today are MINI, Jaguar Land Rover, and Leyland Trucks.
Many of the brands weredivested over time and continue to exist on the books of several companies to this day.[citation needed]
In total, the British Government had invested over £3 billion (not adjusted for inflation) attempting to rescue British Leyland from bankruptcy.[24][25]
Until the 1980s, the Leyland name and logo were seen as a recognised and respected marque across India, the wider subcontinent and parts of Africa in the form ofAshok Leyland, a company formed from the partnership of the Ashok group and British Leyland. However, now the company has been largely Indian in its ownership for over three decades. A part of theHinduja Group since 1987, Ashok Leyland manufactures buses, trucks, defence vehicles and engines. The company is a leader in the heavy transportation sector within India and has an aggressive expansionary policy.
In 2010, Ashok Leyland purchased a 25% stake in UK-based bus manufacturerOptare, a direct descendant of Leyland's UK bus-making division.[citation needed] This stake was gradually increased to 99%.[26] In November 2020, Ashok Leyland announced thatOptare would be rebranded asSwitch Mobility.[27]
After British Leyland becameAustin Rover in 1982, a version of theRover SD1 was built under licence in India as the Standard 2000 from 1985 to 1988, briefly reviving theStandard brand which had been axed in 1968.[28]
British Leyland also provided the technical know-how and the rights to their Leyland 28 BHP tractor forAuto Tractors Limited, a tractor plant in Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh. Established in 1981 with state support, ATL only managed to build 2,380 tractors by the time the project was ended in 1990 – less than the planned production for the first two years.[29] The project ended up being taken over bySipani, who kept producing tractor engines and also a small number of tractors with some modest success.[30]
The car marques inherited by the company are as follows.
The dates given are those of the first car of each marque, but these are often debatable as each car may be several years in development.
Several of these names (including Jaguar, Land Rover and Mini) are now in other hands. The history of the mergers and other key events is as follows.
Pre-BL:
As BL:
As BL:
After BL:
As BL:
After BL:
In some cases, British Leyland continued to produce competing models from the merged companies at different sites for many years. However, any benefits from the broader number of models were far outweighed by higher development costs and greatly reduced economies of scale.
Potential benefits associated with rationalising parts usage were lost, as for example, the company made two completely different 1.3-litre engines (BMC A series and the Triumph 1.3-litre), two different 1.5-litre engines (BMC E series and Triumph), four different 2-litre engines (4-cylinder O series, 4-cylinder Triumph Dolomite, 4-cylinder Rover and 6-cylinder Triumph) and two completely different V8 engines (Triumph OHC 3-litre V8 and Rover 3.5-litre V8).
Examples of competing cars were:
In contrast to the continued development of competing models, British Leyland continued the practice ofbadge engineering of models which had started under BMC; selling essentially the same vehicle under two (or more) differentmarques.
 |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| Other | |
