House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Mar 1992

Home Page

Column 1231

House of Commons

Monday 16 March 1992

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Orders of the Day

CONSOLIDATION FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL

Considered in Committee ; reported without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL

Not amended [in the Standing Committee), considered.

Bill reported without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed.

CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Boswell.] Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [12 March]. Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of

(a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money by way of remuneration and allowances to the officers and employees of the Charity Commissioners ;

(b) any administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the Act by the Charity Commissioners ; and

(2) the charging on the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for making good to any person sums for which the official custodian for charities may be liable in connection with land vested in him in accordance with section 1 of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any act resulting from the Charities Bill [Lords] , it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the charging of fees payable to the Charity Commissioners and the imposition of other charges so payable ;

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [12 March].

Clauses 1 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column 1232

Clause 79

Short title, commencement and extent

Amendment made : No. 1, in page 72, line 23, leave out subsection (8).-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 7 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment ; as amended, considered. Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

COMPETITION AND SERVICE (UTILITIES) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

TRANSPORT AND WORKS BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments agreed to.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL

Ordered,

That further proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill be suspended until the next Session of Parliament ;

That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session--

(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time, to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Standing Committee ; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to that Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith on Standing Order No. 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Land and Deeds (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Registration (Land and Deeds) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : With the leave of the House, I shall put together the remaining motions--Nos 11, 12 and 13 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 101 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Petition--Mr. Harry Greenway.

Motion made, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Column 1233

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall not put the Question on the Adjournment, because that might be unfair to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) : we have moved very fast. Accordingly, I shall suspend the sitting until 10.30 am.

9.43 am

Sitting suspended.

10.30 am

On resuming--

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An important precedent has been set today, in which the House was adjourned because the business on the Order Paper was rushed through so quickly that time was exhausted. The Sitting was then suspended to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) to come to the Chamber to move his very important Adjournment debate.

That is an excellent precedent, and I hope that that practice can be pursued in the next Parliament. When something happens very quickly in the House, it is absurd that other business on the Order Paper should, as it were drop off the end of the table, simply because the business has been rushed through.

While this may not be within your power at the moment, in your final hours as Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will be able to send a letter to the Procedure Committee about what has happened, so that the next Chairman of that Committee can do something about it.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Good try. The hon. Member is aware that that is a matter for the Procedure Committee. We must wait and see what happens in the next Parliament.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but I regret the fact that, for some procedural reason, it was not extended this morning to

Column 1234

petitions. By chance, I was in the House but not in the Chamber, and had I intended to present an important petition on behalf of the residents of Northolt and elsewhere which was signed by 5,000 petitioners and the chairman of the Northolt village residents association

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should raise a point of order with me and not present a petition. If he is about to raise a point of order, will he come to his point so that I can deal with it?

Mr. Greenway : My point of order is that, procedurally, I am delighted by the precedent of allowing the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) time to move his Adjournment debate. However, can that precedent now--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I think I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

Mr. Greenway : May I just explain--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. No, I have the gist. The hon. Gentleman was in the House, but he was not in the Chamber. That is to be regretted, but he cannot now officially present his petition formally. However, he can place it in the bag. I hope that he will do that now and allow us to get on with the Adjournment debate, the motion for which has already been moved.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was in the House when the sitting was suspended. As I understand it, the suspension took place in order to allow time for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) to come to the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is a long-standing Member, and he is very familiar with our proceedings. However, he is not correct in this instance. The Adjournment was moved and I must now call the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). Time is being taken from him.

Column 1235

British Nuclear Fuels (Warrington)

Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

10.33 am

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : I must first thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to move this Adjournment debate. There were some procedural difficulties, and thanks to the kindness of the House, I have been allowed to initiate this debate at this time. Like other hon. Members, I was in the Chamber earlier. I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) because I understand that he faced some small local difficulties [Interruption.] --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. As a courtesy to the hon. Member for Warrington, North, will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly?

Mr. Hoyle : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Minister because he was not aware of my Adjournment debate until almost the last minute. Like me, he was caught unawares by the sudden collapse of our business this morning. However, this is a historic occasion, as the Minister and I will be participating in the last debate of this Parliament. Although I cannot speak for the Minister, I must say that this is the first time that I have had such an opportunity.

The subject of this debate is very important for Warrington, and I note the presence of the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) in the Chamber. This debate is about British Nuclear Fuels plc, and the 750 redundancies that are due to take place by the mid-1990s. The announcement of those redundancies caused some shock, as it closely followed the press announcement of an agreement between British Nuclear Fuels and Scottish Nuclear Ltd. under which they signed a contract for fuel-cycle services which will last for 15 years and probably lead to contracts worth more than £2.7 billion.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that this is a narrow debate about unemployment in his constituency at the British Nuclear Fuels headquarters at Warrington. However, in view of the importance of the occasion, the issue of redundancies will echo around the United Kingdom. There has been a stream of redundancies in the textile and engineering industries in my constituency, where 29,000 people depend on those industries for their jobs. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that in his debate. I congratulate him on obtaining his Adjournment debate, but I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that redundancies are hitting at the heart of British manufacturing industry. Since 1979, some 2.5 million jobs have been lost under the Tory Government.

Mr. Hoyle : I totally agree with my hon. Friend and I will refer to the effects of the recession shortly. My hon. Friend is aware of my keen interest in the textile industry since I entered the House in 1974. The textile industry requires a more stable economy if it is to expand in future. I was pleased to give way to my hon. Friend about that.

As I was saying, a deal worth £2.7 billion was completed. We all knew that, when THORP ceased operating, there would be some redundancies. However,

Column 1236

the number of the redundancies and the fact that the announcement was made so quickly after the good news, took everyone by surprise. The search by British Nuclear Fuels for alternative contracts has not been helped by the recession. It has been extremely difficult even for a company with the expertise of British Nuclear Fuels to find alternative contracts which might have meant fewer redundancies at Risley and elsewhere.

Last year's reorganisation in British Nuclear Fuels did not help matters. British Nuclear Fuels was divided into three

divisions--United Kingdom, international and engineering. It is clear that British Nuclear Fuels is still making large profits, but it would have been easier for the company to be more flexible if it had not been divided in that way.

Each division appears to stand in its own right. There is no flexibility in relation to profit distribution. It is not as easy to transfer the labour force across the company. I remind the Minister that it is the expertise and skill, particularly of design, that have created the wealth that is accruing to the United Kingdom division. I hope that the Minister will consider that when he replies. I hope also that he will say that there would normally have been an opportunity for work transfer. As I have said, the overall profits might have cushioned the effects of the recession and the shedding of jobs in the engineering division.

British Nuclear Fuels has always had a human face. I pay tribute to its work in the Warrington community and further afield. It has supported the environment, helped sport, and, in particular, taken an interest in the youth in the town and in education projects. That is why it is rather regrettable that, among those redundant people, there are 76 apprentices. The apprenticeships, both trade apprenticeships and design apprenticeships, have always been of a very high calibre. That training is applicable not only to that industry but to engineering elsewhere. One of the sad matters was the ending of the apprentices' school roughly 12 months ago. In the past three to four years, British Nuclear Fuels has not retained any apprentices.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend accept that, while out canvassing in Bradford recently, I met an apprentice-trained engineer who had worked for one firm for 37 years, was made redundant, obtained another job with an engineering firm, and then was told that he would be made redundant because of the recession? One of the points that my hon. Friend is making about his constituency and which is echoed elsewhere is that a pool of skilled engineering ability is simply being thrown on the dole by the Government's economic policies. That is a terrible shame and a waste of human resources.

Mr. Hoyle : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is a tragedy, and that is why I appeal to the Minister on behalf of those young people.

Mr. David Bellotti (Eastbourne) : Does the hon. Gentleman share my disgust at the Government cutting, at this very time, £100 million from the budget for employment and youth training? When I previously visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency in Warrington and saw the YMCA there, I saw the pool of talented youth people who are ready to go on training courses, yet, at this very time, when they have the ability, such as that of the young people I know in Eastbourne, the Government are cutting their training programme.

Column 1237

Mr. Hoyle : I could not agree more with the hon. Member. The tragedy is that overall training has not been good enough. I look foward to the change of Government, since the next Government will provide adequate training for all. The hon. Gentleman will be very dismayed to know that the training of young people at the YMCA in Warrington is also coming to an end. That is the world that young people are now facing, and that is what will happen to young apprentices if there is no change of mind on the part of British Nuclear Fuels.

Unfortunately, having had an excellent record, British Nuclear Fuels has not retained any apprentices in the past three to four years, but it has offered short-term contracts, and some apprentices have been on contracts for up to four years. Those contracts are not being renewed.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, like Warrington, in many mining areas such as Pontefract and Castleford our mining apprenticeship schemes and mechanical and electrical schemes were the pride of the country and probably of the world? That is not now the case. Throughout the country, there will be an untrained work force if and when the economy ever lifts. We will not be in a position to use expertise, because it will not exist.

Mr. Hoyle : I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) with a little pain, because I went to Castleford the other Sunday and saw Warrington badly defeated there. However, I agree with my hon. Friend on apprenticeships. Mining is another industry in which apprenticeships are being cut. British Coal is renowned throughout the world for its training of engineers. It is sad that that is also coming to an end.

Although volunteers are taking up the redundancies that are being offered to them, in relation to the 76 apprentices, work is still continuing for agency staff. Some agency staff have been employed for 15 years. How temporary is that work? Surely, if work has been carried out by agency staff in the past 15 years, permanent posts should have been created during that time. When I discussed the matter with company representatives--they are always ready to discuss matters with me--it appeared to me that there were at least 12 months' work and perhaps more for those young people. In addition, people who have retired have been retained as specialists. Again, it might be possible to find such work for those young people.

Over the past few years, the company has been taking on 10 to 20 young clerical trainees. They have come into the company from local schools and colleges, and they have received training in business skills. They have also been well equipped for work in the community or, as has happened, been absorbed into the company. I appreciate that the company may not be able to do that in future, but I hope that it will continue the training scheme for 10 to 20 young clerical workers. Even if they cannot find a job with British Nuclear Fuels at the end of their training, they would be well equipped. Perhaps there will be a change of Government and better opportunities outside than are being offered at this moment.

It appears that the unions are not being given all the information they need on which to question what is happening to those young people and redundancies generally. I understand that, in certain areas, overtime is

Column 1238

continuing, but they cannot get the full picture. I also understand that they cannot get the true picture of what is happening with agency staff. It appears that company employees are going, while agency staff are being retained. It would be good if the Minister could give an idea of the future corporate plan that British Nuclear Fuels announced when splitting into the four divisions. I do not want to take up much time, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope that he has some positive and constructive comments.

Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the interesting points about the debate is that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend? One of the reductions in accountability to Parliament has been the privatisation of important public utilities, from which British Nuclear Fuels is exempt. The accountability and answers that my hon. Friend is seeking are no longer available from Ministers because they have shrugged off accountability. My hon. Friend has all our backing for his plea for information from the Minister, because that is the process of accountability which we call democracy. During the ensuing election, we shall bring that issue to the fore. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees.

Mr. Hoyle : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, as I have said on the two previous occasions when he rose to his feet. It is absolutely essential that we are able to question Ministers. As my hon. Friend rightly says, I can ask such questions in relation to British Nuclear Fuels because it is still in the public sector. Even in the public sector, such as the Department of Employment and elsewhere, quangos and agencies are being created. That makes it difficult to question Ministers. When one writes in, one is referred to the head of a quango instead of to a Minister. Ministers are ultimately responsible, but they can pass the buck, and that is what has been happening. That is one of the tragedies.

The Minister has given up his time and I am extremely grateful to him, because the matter was visited upon him at a late hour and he has had to perform at a rather earlier hour than he imagined this morning. However, I managed to have a word or two with him. My great anxiety is that the overall total of 750 redundancies should be made by voluntary means, and that as much work as possible should be taken away from the agencies so that the company can retain employees. I hope that the future stategy will not be to use agencies and consultancies rather than directly employing people.

Even if the Minister cannot answer about the 76 apprentices this morning, I ask him to consider them in particular and whether they could be absorbed in some way and allowed to take over some of the work that is being done by the agencies. I have no criticism of the company. Indeed, it has good standing in the community for all the work that it has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford knows, rugby league has also benefited from sponsorship by British Nuclear Fuels, as well as by the coal industry and various other companies.

We are therefore grateful to the company, but we ask that the apprentices be retained. We also ask the company to retain clerical training. Even if it is not able to take on the young people at the end of the training period, at least

Next Section

Home Page