| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Northern Ireland
Agriculture
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point):
It is with regret that I present a petition to save Hadleigh school's playing fields. I should not have to save those fields, because the Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council could and should even now withdraw its claim to them.
The petition was raised by Hadleigh junior school and Hadleigh infants school to save their playing fields and was signed by more than 600 of my constituents. The petition reads:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
Since last October, I have been running a determined campaign seeking the reversal of the decision by Campbell's Soups of the United States of America to close the Homepride plant in my constituency. In an Adjournment debate in November, I set out the background to that decision, while expressing the anger of the people of Maryport over the loss of one of the town's foremost employers. Campbell's Soups, having paid £58.6 million for the plant at the beginning of August last year, promptly announced its closure11 weeks later.
The decision was an outrage. It has never been justified commercially, and has been repeatedly questioned during a number of television programmes and articles in the national press--notably the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, the Financial Times, the Daily Mirror, the regional media, and "Newsnight".
Since the announcement, I have lobbied the Prime Minister, raised innumerable questions on the Floor of the House, used every available parliamentary procedural peg to put the case for my constituents, attended Campbell's annual general meeting in Camden, New Jersey, to lobby shareholders, and visited the King's Lynn Campbell's Soups plant to which production is being transferred, with a personal appeal to the work force for their support.
During the campaign, I have written to 2,300 newspaper editors in every part of the kingdom seeking publication of a letter appealing for a national boycott of Campbell's Soups products; written to more than300 major supermarket groups and chains promoting the boycott; approached thousands of organisations throughout the country, either directly or by way of correspondence, drawing attention to the plight of my constituents; and secured the support of 340 Members of Parliament on a motion asking for the company to reverse its decision.
On the international stage, I have, in conjunction with British trade unions, sought the support of trade unions throughout the western world and liaised with Tony Cunningham, Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria, in promoting the boycott throughout the Community.
However, all that effort has been to no avail. The company, which is 58 per cent. owned by a single family and its successors in the United States, prefers to thwart the views of the majority in the House of Commons--as expressed in the early-day motion--by insisting upon pursuing its original decision. The motion received the 13th largest number of signatures of the 30,000 similar motions tabled in the past 56 years in the House of Commons.
The facts are that Campbell's Soups, through its wholly owned, unaccountable British operations, has proved completely insensitive to the very reasonable and commercially sound pleas that it has received from various parts of the world. To cap it all, the Homepride
work force have been driven into a financial settlement with the company under the pressure of changes in entitlement to unemployment benefit, while the redundancy package has been tailored in such a way as to ensure loyalty until the final day of operations. The work force have been effectively silenced. In my view, it is the worst closure decision in the constituency in the past 16 years--it is an outrage from start to finish.
My response, with the boycott campaign of Campbell's Soups and Fray Bentos products, has clearly been successful, considering the thousands of letters and approaches that I have had from all over the country. Recent attempts to provoke discussion among Campbell's Soups King's Lynn work force--the beneficiaries of the Maryport closure--have failed. It knows that King's Lynn does not need the Homepride lines. It knows also that offers of employment to Maryport workers ring hollow when the same jobs are being offered to King's Lynn workers.
The reality is that only half a dozen peopleare transferring from Maryport--mostly from management--and statistics produced by Coutts to identify employment opportunities in the Maryport area are nonsense. Coutts' statistics are the laughing stock of west Cumbria. Its well-meaning operation has simply succeeded in reducing the availability of job opportunities for the existing unemployed. Campbell's has not created a single job.
The King's Lynn work force, without union recognition, has been particularly unresponsive, and is kept on a tight rein by Campbell's management. Perhaps that accounts for the lack of national publicity surrounding the five scalding incidents and one fatal accident at the King's Lynn site, which were revealed in a parliamentary answer to me last week. The King's Lynn work force should be asking why Campbell's Soups promotes union recognition in America and not in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
No, I am sorry, but I wish to complete my remarks. I shall certainly give way if I have time, or the hon. Gentleman can intervene on the Minister.
To answer the boycott, Campbell's has employed the services of Barclay Stratten for advice. I believe that it has been poorly advised--indeed, journalists have described it as incompetent. It would have been better if the company had used its own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. He would certainly have corrected its wildly inaccurate interpretation of events, and particularly its suggestion that I was annoyed by his intervention. I can only advise Campbell's to review the Barclay Stratten account.
What of the future? I have argued repeatedly that Campbell's Soups purchased Homepride only for its brand name. The reality is that the Homepride brand name and the "Fred" advertising logo have opened the door to immense further potential in national distribution. Dalgety recognised that potential, which is why it decided to invest more than £9 million in Maryport in 1994.
Dalgety's former finance director, Mr. Peter Byers, who was responsible for Homepride operations and who now works for Campbell's Soups, recognised the potential for cook-in sauces. I suspect that he was the key to the Campbell's Soups decision. His role in the whole affair raises a number of questions. He, drawing on his time at Homepride, must have known that the Homepride label would open the door to increased market share.
The die is cast, and we must now look to the future. I now understand, and the House should know, that there have been early discussions in west Cumbria about a proposal to establish a new company, to be called Marypride. That company could manufacture processed food products. The idea is in its infancy. The Marypride brand name knocks on an open door. From the point of view of the local community in Maryport, it would capitalise on pride that the townspeople have in their community. What they have built in the past could be re-created in the future. I wish to say no more on that matter at this stage.
The House should also consider the lessons that can be learnt from the takeover of Homepride, and there are many. Campbell's Soups' acquisition arose only in conditions of binding confidentiality on bidders at the time of the Dalgety sale.
The question we need to ask is whether it is in the public interest for a predator in the market, hiding behind a wall of such confidentiality, to be able to acquire a target company without any element of accountability. Under current arrangements, the whole area is unregulated, and it is not my purpose to advocate onerous regulatory requirements that undermine enterprise and impede the operations of the market. Nevertheless, takeover arrangements in those limited conditions require some greater transparency to balance the interests of employees with those of shareholders and corporate decision takers.
In the Homepride case, at least six organisations submitted bids during the Dalgety auction. Most of the bids came from companies or consortia that intended to keep the Homepride plant open. In the case of at least one bid, I am confident that--if that company had won--not only would Homepride have been secure, but it would have grown into a substantial food manufacturing company over the years, and would have employed many hundreds of people. The problem was that the accepted bid came from a company whose intentions were closure. It all happened behind closed doors. The Mustoe agenda was realised in conditions of total confidentiality. No one knew of the impending holocaust.
I ask a simple question: is it in the public interest for bids to be transacted in such secrecy? Could corporate takeovers survive greater transparency? What would have happened if, at the time of bidding for Homepride, each bidder--having cleared the preliminary hurdles--had been required immediately prior to bids closing to indicate publicly their interest in Homepride?
The interested parties--the local authorities, the regional Department of Trade and Industry, the training and enterprise council, the local development agencies, the Member of Parliament and, most of all, the work force--would have known which companies were bidding, and, after the close of bids, whom to approach
about the prospects for the company. Every bidder would have received an approach as to their intentions. They might have remained silent, but we can be sure that a number of bidders would have been prepared to give assurances as to the future. Dalgety, subject to public pressure, would at least have taken those assurances into account.
One could easily devise a regulatory framework for such a proposal. All that it would require is a bid notification procedure. That single regulatory change would allow decisions on the acceptability of bids to be influenced by issues other than price, as is the case today on environmental matters. Transparency would open the door to an element of accountability.
In the Homepride case, if such a procedure had been in operation, Campbell's Soups would probably never have succeeded and, even if it had survived the bidding stage, public pressure would have forced a withdrawal prior to or even during exchange of contracts. Its motives would have been flushed out far earlier, and Dalgety would have been obliged to sell to a more sensitive predator. Alternatively, Dalgety itself, conscious of its public image, might have sought some form of undertaking about Maryport's future, if only to avoid a public row.
It is arguable that these transparency arrangements could be taken a stage further. Some might argue that bidders should be identified, and that there should be a regulatory requirement on them to define their intentions for a given period--for example, nine or 12 months. That might take the form of a time-limited statement of intent--I call it an SOI--at the time of public notification of the bid. I recognise the complications that could arise under an SOI procedure, certainly in terms of disclosure of commercially confidential information to bidders by vendors. Nevertheless, having given the matter much thought over recent weeks, I do not regard the difficulties as insurmountable.
The professionals would have to adjust. We could set a threshold below which notification would not be required, so as to avoid unnecessary burdens being placed on smaller acquisitions. I suggest a threshold of£20 million in cash or equivalents.
Some argue that such proposals might damage the bidder's commercial credibility if he were to fail--markets do not like losers. Equally, an element of market and employee instability might be induced in the target's work force. We must weigh these considerations against the rights of employees to influence where they are going. I believe that the exercise is damage-limitation manageable if the time between bid notification and ink on contract is limited. I accept that problems could arise where a bid is issued for loss-making assets.
Corporate decisions are often difficult and unpopular. Very often, the inevitable consequence of rationalisation in a sector where losses are being incurred is job losses. Bid notification could prove difficult in these conditions, especially if we regulated for an additional SOI requirement. The answer to the difficulty may well lie in the way in which the vendor presents his own options to his work force. That would certainly sharpen the debate over rescue packages, but these are not uncharted waters for talented management.
My proposal needs much refining if it is to be included in legislation. It is little more than the embryo of an idea for further consideration at this stage, but I believe that it should be taken seriously.
That the draft Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 230), dated 5th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled, the Humble Petition of the residents of Hadleigh and the surrounding area, Sheweth that we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Essex County Councillors decided to fence off and claim ownership of part of a playing field which had previously served Hadleigh Junior School. That the aforementioned Councillors did this as part of a political response to the democratic decision of parents to secure for the school Grant Maintained status. That we are deeply concerned that the whole playing field is needed by the children and should be retained for educational and community use. That we are deeply concerned about the County Councillors' intention to build homes on the land or to sell off the land for housebuilding at some time in the future. That we deplore the decision of Labour Borough Councillors to change the Local Plan Draft in order to remove the designation of the field for educational use. That we support Councillor Doug Robert's objection to the Borough Draft Local Plan to reinstate the land usage as exclusively educational and community use which would prevent further housebuilding and all the consequential adverse environmental and traffic implications. We are disappointed that the Educational Assets Board have rejected Hadleigh Junior School's claim against the County Councillors and we seek to have this decision reversed.
Wherefore your petitioners pray, that your Honourable House do urge the right hon. John Major MP, Prime Minister, to use his powers to reverse the decision of the Education Assets Board and save Hadleigh School playing field for the children.
And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.
10.17 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |