| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.18 pm
Mr. Rowe: I owe the channel tunnel rail link a great debt of gratitude. Without it, probably nobody in my constituency would know who I was. I am sure that every hon. Member has had the experience of being told, "I saw you on television, but I have no idea what you were talking about." But when people see me on television they always know what I am talking about, because it is always the channel tunnel rail link. I do not quite know what I shall do when the Bill has gone to the House of Lords.
I pay a big tribute to the people along the line who have given up hours and hours of their time, spent large sums of their own private money and worked enormously hard, not only for their own benefit but for that of their friends and neighbours along the route. At least two of the people in my constituency who took a tremendous interest in the subject have died--John Castle, who became a real expert
on freight, and contributed substantially to the development of some of the thinking both in the Department and outside, and Professor Bob Bottle, whose contributions on the subject of noise were much respected.
Lamentably, at the beginning of the project British Rail treated local people with the most profound contempt. But since Union Railways took over, that attitude has changed. I believe that John Armit, Bernard Gambrill and others, who have treated my constituents with courtesy, have discovered little by little that those people had a considerable contribution to make to the development of the project. Sometimes we tend to take far too lightly the wealth of knowledge, experience and sheer hard work that volunteers put into such operations.
I must add three short comments about my anxieties. I am still deeply anxious lest, despite the Select Committee, the private consortium should seek to cut corners in the provision of protection and the like. There is still a worrying lack of detail in many of the drawings. Fully detailed design drawings have not yet been produced, and in such things all sorts of devilment may lurk. So I want to be assured again that Union Railways really will be held to the protections that we have gained so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) cannot be with us tonight--I believe that he is representing the United Kingdom at the Council of Europe--but he asked me to associate his name with my statement that we need proper protections, bunds and noise barriers.
Some of the effects of noise are hard to predict. For example, the Department covered the newly extended M20 with a concrete surface, and the noise has now been admitted to be horrendous, despite the fact that when measured technically it does not reach a critical level. When one hears it, that noise makes a huge difference. In villages such as Harrietsham, in my constituency, which will be sandwiched between the channel tunnel rail link, the new M20 and the old A20, all in one tiny gap, there is a great need for proper protection. I much regret the fact that the Boxley long tunnel was not accepted by the Select Committee, and I hope that the Select Committee in the House of Lords will investigate the idea effectively.
I should also like to be assured that the speed for which the line is designed will not change once it has been determined. I have heard that the speed at which the trains should run has already been agreed, but if a decision were taken later to run trains at 20 or 30 mph faster, we should see the absurdity of an enormous bund of earth on which trees had been planted having to be uprooted to create further protection, if that were possible. So we need an assurance at the beginning that the speed for which the line is designed will not change sharply after the initial protection has been put in place.
The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association say clearly, and I agree with them, that the power to take and occupy land for the construction of the CTRL should be restricted to the absolute minimum. We want to keep the land out of its proper use for as short a time as possible. There should be no nonsense about the constructors hanging on to land "just in case" for years after it is needed.
Mr. Allen:
The Opposition unreservedly welcome the concept behind the Bill, and are pleased that the channel tunnel rail link now appears to be on the way. However, the Government have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by overrunning their 1988-89 costings from the £1 billion estimated then, when we could have had the line, to what is now projected to be about £5.4 billion. That is quite a feat, even by the Government's standards. The eight-year delay has also cost an incredible amount.
As I said, I welcome the concept. However, the light at the end of this tunnel for the Conservatives is the on-rushing train of a general election. It will thus be left to the Labour party to carry out the pledges and promises in the Bill, and we shall do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
GEC Closure (Gorton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
I am grateful, on behalf of my constituents, that Madam Speaker has selected this subject for discussion. I should like to associate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) with what I am about to say. He wished to be present for the discussion, but compelling circumstances have prevented him from being here.
East Manchester, and my constituency in particular, used to be a national centre of heavy engineering. We had many famous names in Gorton, and one can still go to the railway museum in York and see the great engines that were manufactured there. But now my constituency is an industrial graveyard, and out of 634 constituencies in Great Britain, Gorton is 30th in terms of unemployment.
We have almost double the national level of unemployment, and male unemployment, at 21.3 per cent., is more than twice the national average. In the Manchester area, we have lost 30,000 jobs in recent years, and now local unemployment is about to be increased as a result of a wanton action by GEC, which has decided to close down the Long and Crawford factory in Gorton road.
Long and Crawford manufactures switchgear. It has a high reputation. GEC bought it in 1988, and the productive efforts of the work force resulted in a profitability that meant that, by 1993, GEC had recouped the money it had paid for the company. Now, having used that company and its dedicated and skilled work force for its own convenience, and having turned my constituents and those of my hon. Friends into industrial pawns, GEC intends to close the company. The death sentence will be carried out on 16 August.
There is a work force of 234, and 127 are to be thrown on the scrap heap. The 107 remaining staff will be transferred to another site--which 107, it is not yet known. When they are transferred to the other site in Higher Openshaw, it will be at standards much inferior to those they now have, and on a much more precarious basis.
The men who will lose their jobs--the 127--are, in theory, eligible for redundancy compensation of up to £20,000. However, the maximum redundancy compensation available will be £17,000, and the median compensation will be only £8,000--and that is for men who have 25 years' service. Even the largest sum would not be of much help to men with mortgages to pay and with children to feed and clothe--particularly as there is an extremely unpromising prospect of new employment.
The closure notice that was distributed to the work force promised:
What good will that be in an area with such high male unemployment? One hundred and seven men will be transferred--in the inelegant language of GEC, they will be relocated. While keeping their jobs will be better than nothing, they will not keep their present pay and conditions.
A notice issued by N. F. Collins, director and general manager, said:
The notice continued:
The "long term viability" of Long and Crawford means that the company is shutting down the Long and Crawford factory and transferring the name and some of the work to GEC at Higher Openshaw. The scheme is outdated simply because GEC has decided to scrap it--and for no other reason. What does this mumbo-jumbo mean? It is GEC doublespeak for an ultimatum to the transferred workers.
Mr. Collins said in his notice that workers will be "invited" to agree to these changes. It means compel and force--they will have no choice. It is GEC doublespeak which means that the workers will be forced to agree to the changes.
Ending the payment by results scheme will cut the wages of the men who will be lucky enough to be transferred by some £60 a week--that is a severe pay cut. Management will buy out the scheme for a lump sum, but will not compensate workers for the loss of their bonus scheme over much more than a 12-month period--particularly as, even if transferred, they will have no guarantee of job security. They are subject to blackmail.
Another note was distributed to the work force. Under the heading "Co-operation", it stated:
Co-operation is not a matter for agreement between the company and the work force--it is an ultimatum imposed on the work force by the management, including compulsory overtime if management so decides. The workers will have no power to defend themselves, because if they try to do so, the scheme will be scrapped.
Apprentices will not be transferred as the sub-contract work at the new site will carry no apprenticeships with it. The skilled workers of the future will not be trained at the new site. What hope does that bring for Britain's industrial future if an area of high skill is not to train young people who can succeed and continue to do the work?
I am informed that the same applies to inspection. Inspection standards are high at the present Long and Crawford site. At the new site--where the work will be sub-contract work--inspection may be little, inadequate or even non-existent. We are talking about extremely important matters, because both supply and safety are involved. Several hundred thousand switchgear units may have to be refurbished at any time.
The work force have told me that a new product is coming, and that it will presumably be manufactured at the new site. I am informed that it will be developed only for the home market, and that potential export markets in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf oil states and South America are to be thrown away.
As for the Gorton road site, the closure notice states:
Again, that is GEC doublespeak. GEC has every intention of selling off the site and realising what money it can from getting rid of it--that is part of a classic asset-stripping operation.
Talk of creating alternative jobs is meaningless at best and hypocritical at worst. Just what are these alternative jobs going to be in an area with such high unemployment? I have asked GEC this, and it has been unable to give me any information that is meaningful in any way. If a powerful combine such as GEC is destroying jobs, who will be able to come along and create the new jobs that it says are possible?
I raised this matter at Question Time last week, and the President of the Board of Trade responded to my question. With respect, the President of the Board of Trade knew nothing of the matter--I do not criticise him for that, because I raised this matter as a supplementary question. However, in response to my question, the President of the Board of Trade immediately launched into a panegyric of praise for GEC. In Manchester, we know GEC all too well--we know it as a ruthless employer and as a company that has made a practice of shutting factories, sacking men and making money out of methodical asset-stripping.
Long and Crawford is not the first closure that GEC has inflicted on people in the area, but I hope that it will be the last--but with GEC's record, one cannot be sure. From my encounters with the people at the very top of GEC, I know them as arrogant and uncaring. GEC is run on the basis of a quick turnover and fast profits at the expense of its workers and products. Unlike other companies that I can think of, the record of GEC is a telling explanation of the industrial decline of this country and the transformation of much of Manchester from a centre of excellence and innovation into its present state, with all too many closed factories, and all too many derelict sites.
Manchester is a city of innovation and energy. Our people create things; we are the home of the computer; we have done things in Manchester that the rest of the country should envy. Nevertheless, because of the actions of GEC and companies like it, we have high unemployment, and the skills that my constituents would be only too happy to deploy are not used.
What hope is there for these men when the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have said that there are signs that firms expect to shed labour in the coming months? Despite the response by the President of the Board of Trade last week--which I realise was an off-the-cuff response--I hope that the Minister of State who will reply to the debate will offer some hope to my constituents.
8.26 pm
"Assistance will be given to those affected in seeking alternative employment."
"All 'relocated' employees will relocate on GEC ALSTHOM T and D Long and Crawford Limited contracts of employment. Terms and Conditions of Employment will remain unchanged with the exception of those employees who are covered by the payment by results (PBR) scheme."
"The Company proposes to remove the existing outdated PBR scheme and replace it with an improved basic rate, paid monthly, which will be more comparable with those elsewhere in the industry, thereby helping to ensure the long term viability of Long and Crawford."
"The scheme is conditional on full co-operation which includes the working of such overtime as is both required and approved.
Any instance of industrial action will result in the immediate withdrawal of the scheme."
"The Gorton Road site will be decommissioned and sold for industrial development which should lead to the creation of some alternative jobs for the area."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |