Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and Chelmsford, East): This is the first occasion on which I have addressed the House from the Dispatch Box. I am happy to be able to contribute to the general harmony of this place by agreeing with the Secretary of State and saying that we support the regulations. Indeed, I understand that they were drafted under the last Conservative Government.
I convey the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is in Hong Kong this evening, witnessing the handover. I have no doubt that he would otherwise have been replying to this short debate.
I do not believe that there is any need to detain the House on the regulations. The Secretary of State correctly explained that the first provision implements the European Court of Justice judgment, changing the basis on which the United Kingdom takes jurisdiction over a broadcaster. It is clearly sensible that that should be agreed common practice between member states. The European system--that jurisdiction is based on the country in which the broadcaster is established rather than the country from which the broadcaster happens to uplink--seems more appropriate. As I understand it, the change will have no effect on UK broadcasters and those broadcasting in the English language into the UK, merely removing an anomaly which could have been abused.
It is also worth noting that there have been suggestions that some other member states might have tried to challenge the UK's regulatory regime in an attempt to avoid having to accept broadcasts on the basis of an ITC licence alone. The change will remove that possibility so that, in future, ITC licences will be recognised without challenge across Europe.
On the second provision, the change is clearly beneficial. It will remove the distinction between domestic and non-domestic satellite services. Such a distinction is purely historic and has no relevance today. As a veteran of the Committee sittings on the
Broadcasting Bill, I can say from experience that the distinction was a source of considerable confusion because, as the Secretary of State has explained, no domestic satellite services exist and all satellite broadcasts are defined as non-domestic. On occasion, that has given the impression that those companies responsible for satellite broadcasts into the United Kingdom are foreign and that they may not be subject to regulation.
Neither of those impressions is true. The best-known broadcaster, BSkyB, is a British company, which invests billions of pounds in this country and deserves proper recognition as such. United Kingdom satellite services are also rightly subject to licensing by the ITC and to scrutiny by the Broadcasting Standards Council. The new description of satellite television services is therefore both more accurate and more sensible.
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough):
In the spirit of harmony, I, too, can say that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are very supportive of what is proposed. As a new Member, I must confess that the statement was one of the most confusing ever delivered, but I trust that, on reading it tomorrow, I will find it much clearer.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the hysterical press headlines that greeted the European Court of Justice ruling last year that satellite broadcasters should be licensed in the country in which they have their headquarters. One may make light of that, but there was a genuine fear that that interpretation would mean that broadcasting from countries with very liberal--I use that word in its true sense--laws, especially on child and other types of pornography, was allowed into the United Kingdom.
Mr. Chris Smith:
With permission, I should first warmly welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new post and thank him for his welcome support for the motion. I likewise thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for his support. I hasten to give him assurances on both the questions that he asked. The answer to both is yes.
As the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East said, it is of course sensible to do two things: first, there should be agreed common practice across Europe in relation to the definitions of where regulation should take place; and, secondly, the impression that domestic services are somehow foreign should be assisted by a much more accurate description--as well as unifying the two disparate definitions that we have at the moment.
It may have seemed from my speech that the statement was one of the most confusing that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has ever heard, but I think that when he reads it in Hansard tomorrow morning he will find that it is a model of lucid clarity. With that in mind, I commend the very sensible and worthy regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford, West):
I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of redundancies at Marconi Communications in my constituency. The issue is obviously extremely pressing and urgent for the people of Chelmsford and the mid-Essex area. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale) is in his place. With me, he has been involved in the matter over the past two weeks or so, pursuing it at a ministerial level and with the trade unions and companies in Chelmsford.
It is a cruel irony that, when unemployment is falling significantly in the mid-Essex area, unemployment in my constituency is down from the height of 4,600 during the recession in the early 1990s to about 1,600 people, economic activity is picking up significantly and the retail sector is doing so well, once again we face a body blow of devastating proportions. Due to the ending of the cold war, the peace dividend and the world recession in the early 1990s--when the market became worldwide and far more competitive, and contracts were more difficult to win--535 redundancies at Marconi Communications have been announced, as well as the closing down of the Marconi college, with the loss of 46 jobs in the town.
It is true that Chelmsford, like other parts of the country, has paid a very heavy price for the peace dividend over the past few years. In fairness, it should be pointed out that, of all the defence-related industries in my constituency, Marconi Communications is less reliant on defence contracts, because it has been diversifying for many years and has of course benefited from a number of civilian contracts. None the less, due to the peace dividend and the contracting of the world market, it, too, has found it very difficult in the new, highly competitive market to win sufficient contracts to maintain the level of employment that it has enjoyed in the past.
To understand the impact of the redundancies, it would be sensible to put into context the history of the manufacturing base in the town and the surrounding area. Chelmsford has always been associated with Marconi companies. In my constituency, there is Marconi Communications, Marconi Radar and the English Electric Valve company. We used to have Marconi Phone and Marconi Marine, and of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East has Marconi Research in his constituency.
Chelmsford and Marconi have been synonymous ever since Marconi set up his factory in the town at the beginning of the century. Twenty years ago, the Marconi companies and English Electric Valve employed just over 11,000 people in the town--one of the main employers outside the local authorities based there--providing jobs not only directly but for all the back-up services. Over the past five and a half years, though, we have seen the 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 Phones; in June 1992, 600 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar and 225 jobs at Marconi Communications;
in February 1993, 95 jobs were lost at English Electric Valves; in July 1993, 300 jobs were lost at Marconi Radar; in 1994, 180 jobs were lost at Marconi Communications; and last year, a further 150 jobs were lost, also at Marconi Communications. In the past two weeks, we have felt the body blow of 535 further redundancies at Marconi Communications.
With the latest redundancies, some 3,500 people will be left working for GEC companies in the town, compared with the 11,000 of 20 years ago. Those figures show the decline in manufacturing jobs in defence-related industries in that time, with some 2,500 of those jobs going in the past five and a half years. Marconi Communications' work force will have been halved to slightly more than 500 when the current redundancies have worked through the system in the next two years. I fear that the redundancies will be front loaded, and a majority of them will occur in the early months of those two years.
Behind that dismal story is a more worrying factor--the erosion of the manufacturing base in the town. The 600 redundancies at Marconi Radar that I mentioned earlier meant the elimination of manufacturing in the town when GEC moved that activity to Leicester. Worryingly, the majority of the redundancies that have been announced at Marconi Communications represents the remaining manufacturing base at that firm. If and when they go, the manufacturing base as we know it will go, and only an assembly line and research and development will remain. That would be a grievous loss for the town and for the industrial base in mid-Essex.
Two challenges face us before the redundancies come into effect. First, we must try to salvage what we can of the manufacturing side of Marconi Communications; secondly, we must provide every assistance possible to those facing redundancy to maximise their potential to get back to work as quickly as possible. I shall deal with those challenges in order.
On the question of manufacturing, I hope that, even at this late stage, Marconi Communications will be prepared to think again. I met the trade union representatives on Friday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East will meet them on Thursday. I have written to the managing director of Marconi Communications requesting a meeting with my hon. Friend, me and the trade union representatives to discuss whether it is possible for the firm to reconsider its decision. I understand that no company makes people redundant lightly. It is done because of economic circumstances. However, because Marconi will continue to assemble products on the site, it is worth asking the company to reconsider its decision.
I wish to suggest a number of options that may provide a way forward, although I know that it is not the Government's role to create jobs per se. It never has been, and it would be foolish of me, simply because we no longer have a Conservative Government, to change my long-held view and start blaming this Government for what has happened. Governments can--indeed, it is a fundamental responsibility of Governments, regardless of their political complexion--create the economic climate in which jobs can be created.
If industry and commerce flourish, that will stimulate demand so that people wish to buy the goods or services available, and that leads to job creation. Governments can also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in research and development to identify niches in the market and fill them with new products for people to buy, to safeguard and create jobs.
If it is not feasible or possible for Marconi Communications to reconsider and moderate its proposals, I wish to ask whether consideration can be given to a management buy-out so that manufacturing work can continue on the manufacturing site in the town to supply the assembly lines of Marconi Communications. The people who are facing redundancy are a highly skilled and trained work force, and are used to the ways of the company because they have worked there--in some cases, for many years. Why not harness that expertise and experience through a management buy-out so that the work force can continue to produce the parts and components that Marconi needs for the assembly of its products?
If that is not possible--the management may not wish to invest their redundancy money in a management buy-out--other workers may wish to group together to set up small satellite companies to do the supply work. Other companies in the mid-Essex area already supply the GEC companies and that option could be encouraged. It is a truism, but also a fact of life, that the small businesses of today can become the medium and larger companies and employers of the future. If people can use their skills, with advice, encouragement and help, to set up businesses--as happened to one small company when Marconi Radar made manufacturing redundancies a few years ago--part of the manufacturing base would be safeguarded. I hope that the company will seriously consider those ideas when our meeting takes place in the next few weeks.
The Government have a role to play, even if indirectly, in job creation. As I said earlier, Governments do not have the power to create proper jobs, although they can throw money at artificial jobs, which is in no one's long-term interest. Governments can ensure that the available schemes are used to the maximum effect to help people facing redundancy. I wish to thank the Minister for her prompt reply to a written question that I tabled two weeks ago. She announced that employees from Marconi Communications would have immediate access to the Government's training-for-work programme and that the normal qualifying period of six months' unemployment would be waived. That is greatly appreciated in my constituency as a positive and meaningful step forward to help people who are currently distressed by, and worried about, the uncertainty that they face.
The Minister also mentioned in her answer that further measures are being considered for the action plan, including advice, guidance, training courses, help with job search and assistance to individuals and groups interested in starting their own businesses. That action would dovetail easily with any aspirations to set up satellite companies. The written answer also mentioned help under the KONVER programme, which I remember pursuing vigorously, with my colleagues, when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry.
That will help, as did the long-term investment for the advanced manufacturing centre in Chelmsford when the last major wave of redundancies was announced in the
town. That has done so much to help the people who were made redundant to get retraining and to set up small businesses from a basis of a total lack of knowledge of how to do so. The centre does tremendous work, and has dedicated staff to whom I pay tribute. The scheme was financed with European money, and I subscribe to the old adage that, whatever one's view of a scheme, it is better for it to come to one's constituency rather than go elsewhere.
We are grateful for all the work that is being done to try to help people and to minimise uncertainty, as that is as great a problem for individuals as their redundancy. It is good that the company has hired consultants to help the work force with advice and counselling. I am pleased by the actions of the Employment Service, the Essex Careers and Business Partnership, the Business Development Advisory Service, business link, Essex county council and Chelmsford district council. The advanced manufacturing centre and Essex training and enterprise council are also involved, and I saw the chief executive of Essex TEC on Friday morning.
The swift action from those organisations and the Government's regional offices is heartening, and they have tried to come up with practical help for those people, rather than just sitting around a table and talking in meaningless platitudes. I have seen the programme produced by the TEC for the different activities and time scales of the different organisations and its projections of what they will be doing in the future. That part of the package has been prepared and is greatly appreciated. I should like the Minister to elaborate on the help, advice and training to which she has referred, so that we know exactly what will be on offer and what people can expect. They can then start thinking seriously about the best way forward to maximise their opportunities in securing another job.
Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Procurement--whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East and I visited last week--for his comments on the Government's defence procurement policy. Clearly, this is not a significant matter for Marconi Communications, but it is important to the other companies in the town which are more reliant on defence procurement contracts. Obviously, a great deal of the work of Marconi Communications is in the civilian sector, although there are overlaps with military contracts.
I was pleased by the assurances from the Government that they plan to continue the policy of the previous Government of a £9 billion-plus defence procurement budget, in which about 90 per cent. goes to British companies--or to conglomerates of which 50 per cent. consists of British companies--to safeguard British jobs. Clearly, contracts can be placed only when it is feasible to do so, as the British taxpayer must get value for money and the armed forces must get the best equipment possible. It is heartening that the Government are committed to continue the last Government's policy where it is feasible.
I should be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what the Government's plans for a defence diversification agency mean and how they would impact on defence-related industries. From a philosophical, rather than a narrow party political point of view, there is a potential difficulty which, without knowing the full details about the agency, means that one has to be cautious. We have seen in the past--particularly in the 1970s--
well-meaning, although misguided, examples where agencies sought to guide and influence commercial decisions. That failed because business men and their companies know the best decisions to take. I should be worried if an agency were to be seen as interfering in the running of a company.
That may not be the case, and we are in the dark as to the aims, aspirations and purpose of the agency. It would be interesting to know more about how the agency would impact on larger companies, although I can see how it could impact on small and medium companies. Marconi has had the commercial sense in the past decade to see that it was important to diversify and broaden its base. In fairness to the Marconi companies, they have done so. The trouble is, as any business man knows, that when a company seeks to diversify beyond its core business into areas where there are already established companies, it is more difficult entering the new markets. Notwithstanding that, the Marconi companies have made strenuous and successful efforts to diversify their base into civilian markets, and that is a positive thing.
That the draft Satellite Television Service Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.--[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.
7.5 pm
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |