Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford): What about the Helms-Burton Act?

Mr. Davis: I was about to refer to that. We are deeply concerned by the measures in the Helms-Burton Act--which passed into United States law earlier this month--that serve further to tighten and internationalise the embargo. We have lobbied the United States Administration and Congress hard against extra-territorial and other provisions in the Act. Our lawyers are urgently studying the final details of the Act to assess its impact on British interests. We are considering what further action to take in conjunction with the EU and other key partners.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the fact that the Helms-Burton Act contains several objectionable provisions, in particular the attempt to extend the powers of United States courts over legitimate business activities of British companies who are active--or who would like to become active--in Cuba and to deny United States visas to British citizens who are trading legitimately with Cuba under British law.

We shall press the United States Administration to use the greatest possible discretion in implementing those provisions. We are deeply concerned about the potential damage that the Act could cause to our legitimate trading interests and are urgently considering the appropriate British response to it.

At this juncture, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do whatever they can to protect legitimate British business interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, the British Government deplore the recent shooting of two civil aircraft by the Cuban air force. Clearly, that has set back United States relations with Cuba. It could not be expected to do otherwise.

As we do not believe in isolating Cuba, we cannot share the sentiments that lie behind the Helms-Burton Act. Rather, with our EU partners, we feel that the best way to encourage economic and political reform in Cuba is to maintain a constructive dialogue as a means of encouraging reform and democracy there.

20 Mar 1996 : Column 337

Construction Industry Training Board

1 pm

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me to raise this matter today. Exactly two weeks ago, the Construction Industry Training Board announced that it planned to relocate its headquarters from Bircham Newton in my constituency to Peterborough. It also announced a comprehensive restructuring, but I shall concentrate on the relocation.

The CITB is answerable to Parliament under the Industrial Training Act 1982. The Secretary of State appoints the chairman and deputy chairman and is responsible for a number of other key matters. The CITB is one of the biggest employers in my constituency. I have always had an excellent relationship with the chairman of the board, Sir Clifford Chetwood, and the chief executive, General Ted Willmott. I have always been involved in debates in the House on the levy orders and I have been very much involved in the two reviews that have been carried out in recent years. I always felt that they trusted me. I trusted them and we worked well together.

I received no prior warning whatsoever of the announcement two weeks ago. I was not consulted and nor were the other local Members, one of whom is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is responsible for the CITB. I find it extraordinary that about a month before the announcement, I had a meeting with the chief executive, who told me that, in his opinion, there was no need to worry about relocation. I entirely accept that he is not a board member, but if that is not a duff steer, I do not know what is. I have been treated with complete contempt and a fair degree of arrogance. I am very angry indeed, as are my constituents. The chief executive, General Ted Willmott, has apologised to me for the inadequacy of communications and I accepted that, but there hasbeen no apology or anything else from the chairman,Sir Clifford Chetwood.

The CITB is important to North-West Norfolk. It has 400 employees in my constituency. Roughly 291 jobs in west Norfolk will be threatened by the relocation. That will have a large impact on a rural economy. We are not talking about King's Lynn, Fakenham or Norwich, but a remote, rural part of west Norfolk. The relocation will leave a considerable social and economic gap.

The work force is utterly appalled, as are many other organisations. In the past week, King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council expressed its grave concern. The local chamber of commerce and Norfolk county council are in outright opposition to the relocation. At present,it remains a local issue, but I have no doubt that it will become a national issue in due course. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge(Mr. Nicholls) in his place. He was the Minister responsible for the CITB a few years ago. I am also pleased to see in their places some of my friends among the Opposition who feel equally strongly about the matter.

When the CITB took over the disused RAF base at Bircham Newton in 1964, it established a training operation there, but in 1985 the headquarters was moved from London at a cost of £4 million and a further£5 million was spent to turn the buildings into first-class offices. I understand from Leslie Kemp, who is one of

20 Mar 1996 : Column 338

my constituents and a former chairman of the CITB, that roughly £1 million has been spent on windows alone in the past five years.

What reasons have been given for the relocation? The reasons for such a momentous decision must presumably be fairly compelling. I examined the reasons that the CITB gave board members at its recent board meeting.

First, the CITB wants better access to industry and other organisations. It wants to be in a communications hub. That might have been an applicable 10 years ago, but in the past 10 years there have been numerous improvements to the transport infrastructure in west Norfolk. We now have an excellent electrified railway. We have had many road improvements. Next Monday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads will open a £24 million seven-mile dual carriageway scheme on the A47 west of King's Lynn, improving our links to the motorway network.

Secondly, the CITB cited the need for better operational efficiency and effectiveness, claiming that bringing operations together in a single modern building will allow for a reduction in management layers. There is also a need for greater integration of executive and operational staff. That may well have been the case 10 years ago, but modern office technology, faxes and e-mail greatly reduce the disadvantages of a split site.

The CITB is concerned about the availability of skilled staff and argues that a larger employment marketplace would make it easier to recruit better-quality staff, especially in accounts and information technology. That is manifestly not the case. Firms in King's Lynn such as Campbell's, Dows, Master Foods, Bespak and Porvair are all expanding and recruiting new middle managers,IT programmers and other personnel into west Norfolk. In Norwich, which is just down the road, the Norwich Union is one of the biggest employers in the country and has no problems recruiting people from local universities and colleges and bringing in people from elsewhere.

The CITB also argues the need for a change in culture. That underpinned all the arguments and the debate at the board meeting two weeks ago. It feels that only by relocating out of Norfolk will it secure that culture change. The papers provided at that meeting suggest that


That is an insult to my constituents and a slur on hard-working loyal people who have given their lives to the organisation.

My constituents want fewer lectures and more leadership from the chairman and chief executive, particularly when the outgoing chairman has not shown sufficient leadership. The London headquarters costs £400,000 a year and the staff who occupy it do not visit Bircham Newton anything like enough to provide the leadership that my constituents expect.

When I visited the CITB last Monday, I spoke to many constituents and staff. I saw the IT department, which has been the subject of much discussion, where I found people who were committed, motivated and hard-working. They appeared to be completely on top of their jobs. The only difficulty is that they have been unable to recruit a new systems analyst. Apparently, the post has been vacant for

20 Mar 1996 : Column 339

the past six months or so. No doubt that is a problem, but I cannot accept it as the reason for spending £6 million on moving to Peterborough.

Let me examine the alleged unsuitability of existing buildings. I mentioned that a great deal of money has been spent on them. It cost £4 million to relocate from London and more than £6 million has been spent on the offices. That is a lot of money. The buildings are spread out, but, as the CITB made clear, under the restructuring there will be 90 fewer jobs at the headquarters. The staff occupy a number of buildings at the moment, but with the restructuring they can readapt and adjust. They will have a smaller headquarters staff and, with a little imagination and common sense, a huge amount could be done to the existing buildings without having to build a new office block at Bircham.

The work environment at Bircham is preferable to that at Peterborough. If I were an ambitious, bright graduate in IT or accounts or an up-and-coming middle manager, I would rather be at Bircham Newton in a lovely part of the country and a fantastic environment, driving some five miles into work, than in some large, impersonal, plate glass tower block in Peterborough where I would have to fight my way across a dual carriageway to the sandwich bar. The CITB has overlooked the work environment and the culture at Bircham. The organisation is about providing training to the young people of this country, and Bircham is a training centre: it has the plant and equipment and it is a hive of activity. If the CITB relocates to Peterborough, it will become just another amorphous financial services organisation and corporate headquarters.

Who has conducted the review? I asked the CITB whether the buildings at Bircham had been evaluated fully. The reply was that there had been an assessment, but no proper evaluation. That says a great deal.Mr. Richard McLoughlin and Mr. Mike O'Reilly were two of the consultants who carried out the review--both of whom are former directors of Wimpey, Sir Clifford Chetwood's ex-company. It seems to be a case of jobs for the boys.

What will the move cost? According to the CITB's figures, relocation to Peterborough will cost £6 million. That compares with the £3.5 million cost of building new premises at Bircham. But I am not suggesting that the CITB should construct a new building at Bircham, because I can advance a very strong case for ensuring that the existing buildings are adapted and adjusted to provide an excellent headquarters for the operation. According to its own figures, a move to Peterborough will mean an extra annual cost of £300,000, largely in rent charges.

We must have a comprehensive evaluation of the buildings at Bircham. It is an obvious point that has not yet been considered properly. The relocation argument collapses completely when one considers the economic factors. If one examines also the qualitative or judgmental factors, one comes to the conclusion that the CITB chairman and the chief executive have had a secret agenda for a long time: to move from Bircham to another site that is more convenient for them but not necessarily for Bircham employees, few of whom travel to and from other areas.

The staff at Bircham will not trust management and the CITB. They are very concerned about the future of Bircham Newton training centre. The future of training

20 Mar 1996 : Column 340

within the CITB is presently under review and the number of staff at Bircham training centre is to decrease from 96 to 76. After all the assurances and the promises that they have been given, how can staff trust a single word that the chairman and the chief executive say? The simple fact is that they cannot.

I turn now to the conduct of the chairman and the other directors at the board meeting on 6 March. It is extraordinary that the outgoing chairman, who will stand down at the end of the month, is prepared to put to the board a momentous scheme that he will not implement.I have seen the board papers and they do not go into detail or examine fully all the options--particularly the obvious option of remaining at Bircham, which will save much money at a time when the industry is in some difficulty.

The vote at the board meeting was nine to six in favour of relocation. I am concerned that two proxy votes were disallowed. I understand that the holders of those proxy votes--to whom I have spoken at great length--were under the impression that their proxies would be valid. The CITB told them that the proxies, although usually valid only for votes on levy matters, could be used at the meeting. The two board members concerned had to attend other very important meetings and they decided not to go to the CITB meeting on 6 March because they were given absolute assurances that the proxies would be used to vote against any relocation. However, the proxies were disallowed and I want to know why.

The CITB chairman met the federations the night before the meeting and I understand that he told them that he had the full support of the Government and of the Opposition in deciding the CITB's future. It is extraordinary that the chairman did not do his homework. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote a letter to Ron Davies, the Director General of the National Specialist Contractors Council, in which he said:


The chairman misled the federations.


Next Section

IndexHome Page