Previous Section Home Page

Column 1227

11.12 pm

Sir James Kilfedder (North Down) : I join in welcoming my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He will find that the Ulster people are kindly, hospitable and friendly. No matter how their representatives in the House may sound, there is a big heart in the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

It is impossible to deal with the order in the short time that is available, so I shall mention just three points. This is the European year of older people and it is appropriate to draw attention to their problems and their needs. They are seeking not sympathy or pity, but fair play, justice and proper consideration of their plight. Most of them are living on relatively small incomes which, in many cases, have been reduced as a result of the lowering of interest rates on, for instance, their building society accounts. Unfortunately, the majority of them are just above the threshold of eligibility for state benefits.

The cost of living in Northern Ireland is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Some of our senior citizens are endeavouring to eke out their pensions by eating less or buying cheaper items. Some even try to save on the cost of heating by restricting it to one room or one bar of an electric fire. Therefore, imagine my surprise and alarm when the Government announced in the Budget the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and power. Everyone in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will have to pay that tax--those who are earning enough to be obliged to pay income tax and those who are not.

In that sense, it is an unfair tax which will hurt, in particular, the retired people who do not receive state benefit, which I understand would then entitle them to some compensation, although I am not sure what will be available. It is well established that during winter there is a substantial increase in the number of deaths among pensioners. I fear that this harsh tax will cause more suffering to our senior citizens and expose them to greater danger of death through hypothermia. There is still time for the Government to abandon the tax on domestic electricity, oil, gas and coal. I am deeply concerned about the welfare of elderly people in residential care homes, whose numbers have mushroomed. Some homes are excellent, some are not, according to the complaints that I have received from the relatives of the elderly residents. It is all very well for the Government to state that registration may be refused if the health board considers that the applicant is not a fit person to operate a residential care home, but frequent visits should be made every year and without notice. Relatives should be given leaflets inviting complaints and stating where they should be made. Telephone numbers should be provided so that someone with a grievance can immediately contact an official, who can then immediately go and check that home.

I understand that some residents who are supported at public expense in residential care homes are not being given by the owners the statutory allowance of £12.65 a week--or, at least, not being given the full amount. I am deeply concerned about that. Often, those residents are vulnerable and cannot look after some aspects of their affairs. I hope that there will be an investigation into that throughout Northern Ireland, as we must ensure that they are receiving the money to which they are entitled.

I deplore the moves by the Department of Health to close state residential care and nursing homes, which

Column 1228

provide the standards by which private homes can be judged. I urge the Government to preserve, in particular, the Banks residential home in Bangor, which was purpose built and provides an excellent and homely atmosphere.

In speaking of the elderly, I think of the loving care shown by the nurses who look after them, either in residential homes or in hospitals. I pay tribute to those nurses, male and female, who, by their dedication and hard work, make life more comfortable for patients of all ages in hospital. Young people in Northern Ireland who have the vocation should be encouraged to train as nurses. It is annoying and perplexing that, in an area of high unemployment, young people who are eager to become nurses are discouraged. It is ridiculous that some nurses are made redundant when it is clear that the nursing staff in hospitals are overworked. We need nurses as well as doctors to ensure the highest possible standard of patient care. For years, I have been fighting the various plans to reduce the number of beds in the Ulster hospital in Dundonald and in the Bangor hospital and the transfer of essential services to other hospitals in Belfast.

Here in London, the movement is the other way round. The Secretary of State for Health maintains that money and facilities should go to densely populated areas outside the capital. That makes sense. But the Eastern health board, which covers North Down and Belfast, moves the beds from my constituency into Belfast, thus depriving the dense and growing population of North Down of its rights. That is a form of discrimination, and I resent it. In the name of the people of North Down, I challenge the Eastern health board to play fair. The people in my constituency deserve the best hospitals. The doctors and nurses demand them, and certainly the patients deserve them.

I should like to mention many other matters, but, in fairness to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who wishes to speak next, I shall stop here, adding only that it is unfortunate that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, do not have an adequate opportunity to examine the issues set out in the draft appropriation order. I look forward to the day when we shall have a truly democratic forum.

11.21 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity, albeit brief, to participate in the appropriation debate. First, on behalf of my party, I welcome the new Minister of State, who introduced the debate, and his ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, whom I have already welcomed on a previous occasion. I hope that their endeavours in Northern Ireland will be for the benefit and welfare of all the people there and, on that basis, we promise our co-operation.

It is appropriate to put on the record the fact that the shortness of the time allowed to us tonight will allegedly be compensated for by extra time in the autumn, when the debate will be reconvened, as it were. On the understanding that that is a firm undertaking, I feel that it would be inappropriate to deal at this late hour with many of the broader issues that the appropriation debate would normally involve. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to the matters that cannot wait until the autumn to be debated and acted upon.

Column 1229

The first such issue concerns the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the potato feedstuffs scheme, which was introduced to alleviate the financial plight of potato farmers in Northern Ireland. The Department succumbed only after five months' pressure but, although it is late, the scheme is still welcome. The danger is not yet over. Many of the potato farmers, who form the bedrock of the agricultural scene in Northern Ireland, have been so financially devastated in the past year that despite the scheme they still require assistance in the new planting season, so I hope that some effort will be made to provide that, by means of either the structural fund or the special potato board funding.

One peculiar circumstance now affecting the farming community may cause some mirth, because it is the fact that cattle have no passports. Nevertheless, that circumstance is causing some distress along the southern border. Cattle that have been imported from the Republic of Ireland do not get any identification, so they are ineligible for cow and beef premiums in Northern Ireland. I ask the Department of Agriculture and the Minister to make representations to the appropriate department in the Republic of Ireland so that there can be co-operation over the certification and identification of animals that travel across the border.

It will not surprise the Minister if I touch briefly on the crisis in the fishing industry, because two of the three ports in Northern Ireland are in my constituency.

The fishing industry, like the potato farmers, has been devastated. It has been devastated not by the weather, but by Government policy and legislation. In that regard, I refer particularly to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act and the follow-on from that, the Sea Fish Licensing (Time at Sea) (Principles) Order 1993. They represent the most devastating revision of the common fisheries policy since 1983 which is having a tremendous effect on the environment and the economic environment of the hinterland of those two ports and of Portavogie.

There is no doubt that the so-called Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 has nothing to do with fish conservation and that it will not achieve the objectives that it set out to achieve. It is incapable of performing that function. That point was debated at the time and there is no point re- examining the issue tonight. The more important, immediate and urgent point relates to sea fish licensing. As a result of pressure, the implementation of that proposal has been postponed until 1 January 1994. That is an indication of the difficulties that it is causing. The fishermen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland seem to be the fall-guys for fish conservation policies in Europe. It is evident that other countries fishing around our waters do not abide by conservation and licensing matters. It is particularly galling when one can stand, as I can in South Down, and see the fishermen from the Republic of Ireland putting out just a mile across the water virtually without restrictions and with a policy of an enhanced fishing fleet, when the fishermen of Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie cannot do that. I urge that the licensing time at sea provisions be re- examined to assist those fishermen. The real way to achieve conservation is through decommissioning. However, the Government have turned their face away from a meaningful decommissioning

Column 1230

scheme. The efficient and modern vessels will go out of action and that will leave an inefficient and non-modern fleet to carry on fishing. The decommissioning scheme should encourage those with the largest quota drives to set aside, if they so wish, like the farmers, part of their endeavours to provide for conservation.

I must briefly refer to the Department of Health and Social Services, as I am sure all hon. Members would, because of our dramatic experiences in Northern Ireland as a result of the changes imposed by the Department. There seems to be an attempt to centralise even the most modest acute services in the conurbations.

As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, we are a rural community and we must have reasonable access to acute facilities. We are not looking for anything other than that. One of the most galling aspects of all this is that we had a so-called consultation period. However, when representatives of the community or of the duly elected councillors of Down and Mourne went to the Eastern health board, they found that there was no consultation.

When those representatives asked the board what was meant by acute services, by midwifery-led maternity services and by emergency and casualty services, the board bluntly refused to define what it meant. How can we have consultation in respect of a paper when the authors cannot explain what they mean? That is happening right across Northern Ireland. We have not had the required consultation. One of the most interesting events in health and social services in Northern Ireland in recent times has been the intervention by the Department in the contractual goings-on of the Eastern health board vis-a -vis the Royal Victoria hospital. For the first time, the Department has admitted that ultimate responsibility is with itself. Until now the Department has said, "No, you cannot consult us at this stage ; that is all to do with the administration on the ground at board level." We always knew that ultimate responsibility was with the Department itself.

I ask the Department to intervene to ensure that acute facilities are left in the area which is broadly covered by Down and Mourne health authority. There were three hospitals in the area. One has already been closed, one hospital in Banbridge is threatened, and Kilkeel hospital will be closed. Only the Down group of hospitals will be left.

I take the point about the so-called maternity services throughput of 2,500. The last I heard, it was 2,000. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has clearly said that that is not the case and that it is a departmental figment. It would be quite happy with a proper liaison group. Throughput could be as low as 500 and there could still be an effective maternity service. That is what the rural populations of Northern Ireland require.

I must finish, to be fair to the Minister, but I should refer to the closure of statutory residential homes. The Department says, "Cut 12 per cent." It does not matter whether 12 per cent. of beds is a realistic figure for the demographics of an area. It is a balance sheet exercise of cutting 12 per cent. If the Minister would listen for a moment, we are talking not about closing beds but about closing homes. The rooms are people's homes. They are not beds, they are the homes and environment of old people. We must take great care. Already, two homes in

Column 1231

Newcastle have been closed and people have been shuffled off to three other homes which are about to be threatened with closure. I ask the Minister to review that matter.

I see you looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker ; I take the hint very clearly. However, we have only scratched the surface of the topic. Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Northern Ireland what will happen to the European fund to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred in great detail? The Northern Irish people are disgusted by what is happening. We would like to know what new instructions, if any, are being issued to the Minister and the negotiating team in the Council of Ministers to ensure that Northern Ireland deprived region No. 1 gets a reasonable funding allocation to enable it to sustain a measure of economic growth.

11.32 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins) : I have but seven minutes to try to respond to the debate. I therefore agree with comments about the shortage of time to examine several important and urgent issues for hon. Members who represent the various strands of opinion within the Province.

I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and others for their kind words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who recently joined the team. They appreciated those comments and they look forward to working, as I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Earl of Arran have done for some months, with such a friendly bunch. Several issues have been raised. I will write to hon. Members on matters that I cannot address in my brief reply--or encourage my ministerial colleagues with certain responsibilities to do so. Perhaps I shall touch on matters that are my responsibility within the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment, and conclude, if I have the time, on matters relating to the problems of unemployment. I agree that there are still a great number of concerns. Much of the unemployment is endemic for reasons that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members understand. It is my task and that of the Industrial Development Board and other organisations to do what we can to create new jobs and encourage new companies to come to the Province and provide opportunities for new employment. We had a successful year in 1992-93. Nearly 2,000 jobs were created in new major companies around the Province. That task continues with the tacit and often overt support of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies who do a great deal to assist in that respect.

I pick out the point raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) about his activities and those of the organisation in his constituency with the delightful name of TEDI. Other hon. Members and organisations are also encouraging links between various parts of the United States and, indeed, other parts of the world. The work done by those organisations, properly constituted, is valuable and is appreciated by IDB and others.

Column 1232

There is always some concern when there is a potential conflict between the activities of local councils and the IDB when they are not properly controlled. If they are not properly controlled, we get conflicts and difficulties. Essentially, if the organisations are properly set up, they do a great deal of work.

The hon. Member for Wigan raised a point about the airport. I will be delighted to see him and anyone whom he wishes to bring. That matter is important. I am sorry that he has not yet had a reply, but he should get one--I make a pledge now.

I agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. They were sensible and thoughtful and I will try to implement them as soon as possible. He made some points about planning in rural areas. Hon. Members know my view on planning in rural areas, but let me put it on the record now. I am entirely in favour of industry in rural areas--I am not against it. However, it must be recognised that there are pressures on rural areas when that happens.

Let me repeat that I am entirely in favour of housing in rural areas. It is essential that those who work in agriculture and other small industries have the right to be housed, especially if they have a family connection that involves them wanting to stay in the area in which they live. I have no argument with that. The only discussion--I suspect that hon. Members share this concern--is perhaps about the quality of the properties.

I spent a delightful day with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his constituency. We looked at a number of planning concerns. We found--perhaps to his astonishment, if not to mine--an identity of purpose and understanding about what is happening there. Hon. Members will understand that there is an interest there. I shall conclude my brief remarks--I want to return to a number of issues, perhaps through correspondence--by referring to the points raised about the structural funds, which are exercising all hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Antrim, North. To answer his question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others have fought hard for not simply a significant increase for Northern Ireland. We have asked for a significant increase on what was requested last year plus inflation, so that pressure is firm. The hon. Gentleman and others will have heard on the wireless this morning comments from Commissioner Millan who made it clear that the British Government, through my right hon. Friend, have been fighting extremely hard for the cause of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke directly to Commissioner Millan on the telephone. He made clear to Commissioner Millan, who was receptive in this regard, the importance of Northern Ireland maintaining its objective 1 status, but having no more than its fair share. We must recognise that there is pressure on EC funds at present. I think that everyone understands that. We recognise that the specific pressures are coming from the former eastern part of Germany, parts of Portugal, Greece, and so on. I make the point--this shows how hard we have fought for Northern Ireland--that Northern Ireland's gross domestic product per capita is about 76 per cent. of the EC average, which is well above objective 1 status figures in other parts of the EC. We have fought hard against the odds to ensure that Northern Ireland gets

Column 1233

a fair crack of the whip. If hon. Gentlemen are fair, and I know them to be so, they will understand that. We must continue that fight as Northern Ireland is entitled to a fair share of these moneys. My right hon. and hon. Friends in my Department and in the Government pledge that we will do so.

We have had an all-too-brief debate. All the points raised by hon. Gentlemen will be considered. We will respond as urgently as we can on the details of health services and residential homes--a subject which my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) raised. He speaks with great care for the elderly in his constituency. I hope that we can talk about these matters again after the recess and at some length so that hon. Members on both sides of the House and the official Opposition have the opportunity to raise matters and I, as a Minister, and my colleagues have the opportunity to respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Andrew MacKay be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Column 1234

PETITIONS

Post Office Services

11.40 pm

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : I rise to present a petition which is signed by my constituents who are concerned about Government plans to privatise the Post Office and to transfer VAT payments from post offices to banks. This has been an extremely contentious issue and the House may be astonished to know that in a little over six weeks I have secured no fewer than 11,490 signatures from my constituents in suburban and rural areas. My hon. Friends have similar petitions to present. I shall read the material allegations.

The Humble Petition of the undersigned presidents of Gordon sheweth that we express deep concern that the Government proposes to privatise post office services and compulsorily transfer social security payments from post offices to banks, and we oppose these measures jointly and severally as they threaten the very survival of rural post offices and deny the efficiency and convenience of the present system, especially in rural areas.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

11.41 pm

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute) : I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the residents of Argyll and Bute regarding their concern that the Government might remove their right to receive pensions and benefit payments at local sub-post offices. If that happens, it will undoubtedy threaten the survival of sub-post offices and rural village shops, with which they are so often connected. That would cut deep at the heart of these communities. The signatures were collected throughout the length and breadth of Argyll and Bute and I pay special tribute to the sub- postmasters and mistresses and all involved, both young and old, who helped collect them. The petition is signed by more than 9,500 of my constituents and I support it. It concludes with the following words :

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

11.43 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : The petition that I present is signed by my constituents in Orkney and Shetland, by others in other parts and by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It is in similar terms to those presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

Column 1235

The signatures have been collected in a relatively short period of time. I echo the thanks to sub-postmasters and mistresses who have helped to collect them.

The Government have said that they will not go down the road of a compulsory transfer to banks, but they still encourage payment of benefit into bank accounts. That could lead to the destruction of the network of sub-post offices throughout the country, which is a valued rural service.

The total number of signatures on the petition, including those of my hon. Friends and myself, amounts to 42,000, which makes the message loud and clear.

Wherefore your petitioners pray

That your honourable House will do everything possible to impress upon the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Social Security the need for an autonomous post office service in the public sector and to abandon plans for the compulsory transfer of social security payments to banks.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 1236

Defence Industries (Chelmsford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

11.44 pm

Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : My constituents and I are grateful that I have an opportunity to raise an important issue in Chelmsford and in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).

The background to this short debate is somewhat contradictory, because, in the past two months, Chelmsford has benefited from a fall in unemployment, in both the local authority area and the parliamentary constituency, of 551 and 384 people respectively. Unfortunately, however, the good news created by those substantial and consistent falls in unemployment has been lost because of last week's announcement by Marconi Radar that, sadly, it had to make a further 300 people in Chelmsford redundant.

We have paid a heavy price for the peace dividend and a more peaceful world. It is ironic that those who are most critical of defence-related redundancies advocate even more defence cuts. The Labour party has consistently voted for a 27 per cent.--£6 billion--cut in the defence budget. The Liberal Democrats would like to see defence spending cut by 50 per cent.--half the defence budget--over the next seven years. Both policies would have an even more traumatic effect on defence industries in my constituency.

To understand the impact of the redundancies in defence-related industries in Chelmsford in the past 12 to 18 months, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town. Chelmsford has always been associated with the Marconi companies, and many people in Chelmsford consider them to be synonymous. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve were the town's major employers, providing jobs for 11,000 people with thousands of back-up jobs reliant on their success. The 1989 census of employment shows that three quarters of Chelmsford's manufacturing jobs were in the standard industrial classification group 3, which includes engineering and vehicles. Employment in that group was dominated by the GEC companies : Marconi Communications ; Marconi Radar ; and English Electric Valve. In the past 18 months, there has been an all too dismal repetition of job losses in those companies. In January 1992, 150 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications ; in March 1992, 140 jobs were lost at Marconi Phone ; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar when it moved its manufacturing to Leicester ; in June 1992, 225 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications ; in September 1992, a further 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications ; in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valve ; and now 300 jobs have been lost at Marconi Radar.

Almost 2,000 jobs have been lost in a relatively short time. I do not need to remind the House of the misery that that causes to the men and families directly involved, to the companies, which do not enjoy making people redundant, and to the town because of the knock-on effect those redundancies have on suppliers, back-up staff, shops and the area's commercial life.

Column 1237

The men who have been made redundant are highly trained and desperate to be in work, contributing to our nation's manufacturing base and using their skills to the utmost degree.

There are two reasons for that dismal catalogue of redundancies. First, the ending of the cold war and the subsequent peace dividend, coming as they did so swiftly and unexpectedly with the crumbling of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, have meant that we live in a relatively more peaceful world. Consequently, the Government have rightly had to reassess the defence requirement of this country. Secondly, we as a nation have an excellent record in defence industry exports, but the peace dividend has coincided with a worldwide recession, which has meant that the market for defence equipment and communications worldwide has contracted, and that the competition has intensified. As part of the need to remain competitive or lose out even more, the Marconi companies have had to take drastic action.

What of the future? I have a number of suggestions, which I am pleased to make, to help to alleviate the short-term problems facing my constituents and to try to help to improve long-term prospects for defence-related industries. I welcome the fact the Government have signed up to KONVER, the European Community programme to provide financial assistance to areas suffering from redundancies in defence-related industries.

Chelmsford will compete for that money to help with reskilling and retraining. However, under the EC rules, two thirds of the money is designated on a criterion under which Chelmsford would not usually be able to compete. That is farcical. A recent university of York report for the European Commission on the economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces on the regions of the Community identifies Essex as the second worst-hit area in the EC.

First, it is imperative that the criterion is changed so that Essex can bid in all the categories of the KONVER funding. I know that work is being done at county level to come up with an excellent idea to use some of that money directly to help over the long term companies facing problems from a contracting defence market.

Secondly, the companies must continue to broaden their base by diversifying into non-military products. The companies have long recognised that, and for a number of years they have been doing all that they can to diversify as quickly as possible. Marconi Communications has had an ambitious programme of diversification for a number of years and has met success in supplying communications equipment to the BBC, to the Independent Broadcasting Authority and to clients worldwide.

Similarly, Marconi Radar and English Electric Valve are channelling their energies into diversifying while recognising that there will still be important defence contracts to be won. It should not be forgotten that the defence market has not disappeared, but has simply been reduced because of changing circumstances.

It is important for diversification that it is remembered that it is a slow process and means either moving into new markets against well-established competition or investing heavily and speculatively in trying to develop niche markets. Neither can be achieved overnight, and it is

Column 1238

imperative that, during the period of uncertainty and realignment, the Ministry of Defence and the defence industries work closely together. At the end of the day, their needs are mutual. I am pleased that both the companies and the Ministry recognise that they need to co-operate because of mutual interests and mutual future benefits to both sides.

Thirdly, it is crucial that, whenever feasible, British contracts go to British companies to protect British jobs and British expertise. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor on ensuring that more than 90 per cent. of our defence contracts go to British companies. That is only right, because we must look after our own, as one can rest assured that no one else will.

In that respect, I make a plea for Marconi Radar with regard to the RAF tactical radar project. It would give a vital opportunity to put the Ministry of Defence seal of approval on an excellent new product with £300 million of export potential, which would protect jobs. It would also provide an opportunity to preserve unique skills and technology in this country. I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister is not in a position directly to comment on that, but in passing I wanted to make a constituency plea for the contract. When the Ministry of Defence puts out tenders for contracts, it is important that they be dealt with swiftly-- contracts for new products, for repair and maintenance, for spare parts or for updating and uprating equipment and services. I appreciate that this is a difficult area, because the Ministry has a duty to secure value for money for its paymasters, the taxpayers, but any speeding up of the process would help defence industry companies. If anything can be done to expedite the awarding of contracts, that would be warmly welcomed by the industry and by the country at large.

Lastly, it is important that everything possible be done to help redundant people to re-skill and get back into work as soon as humanly possible. All the companies in Chelmsford are continuing to do all they can to relocate workers within the GEC group, but that is difficult in today's economic climate. They are also doing all they can to help with counselling and setting up advice units to help these people over an extremely traumatic-- in the short term--time in their lives.

It is extremely heartening to see how the Essex training and enterprise council has moved swiftly to respond by trying to help, and by contacting the companies concerned--in this instance, Marconi Radar in particular--to see what it can do to alleviate the problems in the town. I know that everyone is grateful to the TEC for that response, and to the company for considering proposals put to it by the TEC for joint initiatives to tackle the problem.

We must continue to ensure that all possible help is given to re-employ these people and to protect our manufacturing base, which has thrived for so long in Chelmsford. Above all, it is crucial that these men should not be forgotten. No one in Chelmsford can forget their plight because for too long we have had to live with the problems that they are facing. I certainly cannot forget the trauma through which they are going, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon cannot forget them either, because their constituents are similarly affected.

Column 1239

It is important that these men appreciate that everyone is on their side, that we are not prepared to forget them, and that we are all prepared to work together for them. We must lobby the Ministry of Defence for contracts, and work with Essex TEC and the companies concerned to put together packages to help with re-skilling. I hope that the Government will do what they can to ensure that the recovery continues at a sustainable pace so as to create demand, especially in non- defence-related industries. When that demand picks up, companies will respond by taking on skilled workers to meet it.

All these factors amount to a package. We must work together to get workers back into manufacturing as quickly as possible, because there is nothing more debilitating or demoralising for people who desperately want to work than to be unable to use their skills owing to what is happening to defence industries and contracts, here and in the rest of the world, because fortunately we now live in a more peaceful environment.

11.58 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burnsnot only on his good fortune in winning the ballot and raising this important subject for debate but on the convincing and compassionate arguments that he marshalled on behalf of his constituency. My hon. Friend's constituency has had a long association with the defence industry, and particularly with GEC-Marconi and its predecessors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way that he has been so consistently energetic and assiduous in promoting the interests of his constituents, particularly in the defence industrial sector. He made a valuable contribution to the major debate that was held in the House in May on the defence industrial base, and he frequently tables parliamentary questions, writes to me and lobbies me and other Ministers in the Ministry of Defence on behalf of his constituents.

In this context, I should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who is here tonight. Many of their constituents also work for GEC-Marconi, and they champion the interests of their constituents. The defence industry workers in that part of Essex are fortunate in having three such doughty fighters for their interests in the House.

The backdrop to, and the reason for, tonight's debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has acknowledged, is the profound recasting of the strategic environment caused by the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and the disappearance of the Warsaw pact. Our recently published defence White Paper, called "Defending the Future", shows in more detail than ever before the way that we have remodelled our forces to take account of those great changes. Immense though the benefits are to our security and economic well-being, those changes are bringing in their wake painful reductions in some parts of the defence industry.

The outcome of the 1992 public expenditure settlement means that, between 1990-91 and 1995-96, the defence budget will reduce by around 12 per cent. in real terms. Sadly, the equipment procurement programme is bound to

Column 1240

diminish in absolute terms, even if not proportionately. However, those reductions start from a high base line, and we shall retain a substantial defence equipment programme. As my hon. Friend was good enough to say, it is certainly not disappearing.

It will still include highly sophisticated and technologically innovative equipment, which will sustain many thousands of jobs in the defence industries, as well as permitting our armed forces to receive the best and most up-to-date equipment. If one adds together our British domestic procurement budget, defence export annual sales, and the opportunities that exist for defence industries in market testing, one gets a total defence cake of well over £13 billion. That shows that there is still plenty for the defence companies to go for, despite the downturn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford was most concerned about the recent job losses at GEC-Marconi. I pay tribute to the company for the way that it has made, and is continuing to make, a major contribution to Britain's defence effort, for which we in the Ministry of Defence have been most grateful. I recognise that in recent years, and for a number of reasons, the level of employment in the company in Chelmsford has fallen considerably. I was sorry to learn of the most recent announcement of job losses by GEC-Marconi Radar and Control Systems.

The company employs 1,400 people in Chelmsford on the design and development of radar equipment, primarily for defence applications. The business in Chelmsford is relocating, partly to new premises elsewhere in Chelmsford and partly to another site. The proposed reduction of 300 jobs is in part because a number of jobs needed to run the old site will no longer be required at the new premises, and partly because the company is also reviewing its structure to reduce operating costs and improve its competitive position.

It is of no comfort to those who have lost their jobs that such restructuring is necessary, and indeed vital, if companies are to survive in the new tighter competitive environment. I understand the deep personal distress that those changes cause to individuals and their families. I thought that my hon. Friend was most eloquent on that point, and I can only add my personal sympathy to what he said. It is right to emphasise that, in the last five years, my Department has placed a large number of contracts with GEC companies in Chelmsford, 20 of which are each worth over £1 million. The total value of contracts placed with GEC companies in Chelmsford over that period is over £100 million.

Among the substantial contracts carried out for my Department in Chelmsford in recent years have been contracts with GEC-Marconi Communications for the supply of satellite communications equipment, and Triffid Army radio link communications equipment ; with English Electric Valves for image intensifier tubes ; and with GEC-Marconi Radars and Control Systems for tracker radars for the Sea Wolf missile system. These products make an important contribution to our nation's defence effort.

My hon. Friend referred to two projects in particular. The first of these is the programme for the conversion of type 911 tracker radars. We have surplus type 911 trackers as a result of a cancellation of a previous programme.

Next Section

  Home Page