| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the result of the final Division, what steps will be taken to change the names in some of our ancient customs? For example, will instructions be issued tomorrow for police officers to shout, "Hats off, Stakeholders!"? Will the Public Gallery be renamed the Stakeholders or Friends Gallery tomorrow? Can you give us any guidance on when those important changes will come into effect?
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that we do not have to change any of those things?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand that those matters will be looked at very carefully by Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the other authorities of the House.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given your ruling, may I ask whether the House of Commons Commission has a budget to allow for the changes that will take place to the notice boards and other structures of this House to meet the unfortunate decision taken tonight?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am always worried when people say that I have given a ruling. I did not think that I had given a ruling. I thought that I had just explained the situation to the House. As for the budget for such matters, I am sure that that issue may also be left safely in the hands of Mr. Speaker and his advisers.
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1407
Jaguar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7.12 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the issue of Jaguar. Looking around me, I have to say that I did not realise that I was so popular. There are often only two or three people present for Adjournment debates. My colleagues from the west midlands—in particular, the other two Members from Coventry—and I appreciate the fact that our right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry took the time to meet representatives of Jaguar workers. That was a big thing, and it reflected the degree of concern on the Government's part to try to sort out the problem that we have with Jaguar.
I also appreciate the fact that colleagues from the west midlands are in their places tonight. They have been staunch in their support for what the three Coventry Members have tried to do throughout and they have been ready to do anything that we have asked them to do. Some of my colleagues will be interested to learn that the Trade and Industry Committee has agreed to take evidence, on 2 and 17 November provisionally, from both sides. The shop stewards and the work force at Jaguar have wanted that for a long time, certainly since this problem arose. That announcement is a positive step.
I have some questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister, which I shall ask now, in case I lose track of what I have said later in the debate. What contacts have been made between the trade unions and Jaguar by her Department to start discussions or negotiations? If that has happened, what will the terms of reference be and at what level will the negotiations take place? We have the convenor from Peugeot at Ryton in the Public Gallery this evening. Workers at Ryton are concerned that the company has not yet confirmed whether it will take up the European grant. If it does so, it will give us a good indication that it is committed to staying in Coventry; if it delays, there is a question over that, but if it says no, it may be moving out. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those serious questions.
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate, which is extremely important not only for Coventry but for the surrounding west midlands area. Employment prospects in my constituency are heavily dependent on Jaguar. I remind my hon. Friend, however, that we have been here before: we can remember when the engine plant went to Bridgend, when the paint plant and the body plant went to Castle Bromwich and when one platform was sent to Speke. But at least all those places were in the United Kingdom. If Jaguar moves its production and its platforms out of the UK, there will no longer be a Jaguar car.
Mr. Cunningham:
That is why the debate is about Jaguar and west midlands manufacturing. I know that many of my west midlands colleagues are concerned about Ford's future intentions. I do not want to start
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1408
any hares running, but it is right to be concerned about the future, and I am positive that the trade union side will raise such issues with Jaguar if, as we hope, a meeting takes place.
I pay special tribute to my two colleagues from Coventry, who have been putting in a tremendous effort, although I was fortunate enough to secure the debate. The House will understand that one of them, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), as the Deputy Chief Whip cannot speak in the debate—he is often on the receiving end from people outside who do not understand the procedures of the House.
Over the last 20 years, in Coventry, we have seen the closure of some famous plants. I am sure that my west midlands colleagues will remember the Standard Motor Company. They will also remember that Rolls-Royce closed the Parkside plant where a considerable number of people were employed. Within the last two years, we have seen the closure of Massey Ferguson in Coventry. As I said, there is now concern about the intentions of Peugeot.
The situation is serious, and we must be concerned about these big issues. Recently, Ford announced the closure of the Browns Lane production plant in Coventry, giving us the sop, which we do not believe, that its headquarters and its wood veneering section would remain on the site. However, if the company is prepared to tear up a signed agreement, how can we believe what it says about the future of that site and of Whitley? When Ford moves from the Browns Lane site, we shall lose 1,300 jobs, no matter how the company dresses it up. To put it another way, there could be 1,300 new jobs that will not be created.
In 1998, a written agreement was made between the trade unions and the company, which stated that for increases in productivity, efficiency and quality the company would guarantee future products and investments—note those words. Only last February, in a letter signed by senior executives at Coventry, the company congratulated the work force on delivering their part of the agreement and their promises. There were vast improvements in productivity and quality; indeed, the work force were held up to the rest of Ford, especially Land Rover at Solihull, as an example of what could be achieved. I am sure that example was used throughout the Ford combine, yet by September, although the workers had clearly delivered their part of the bargain, the company's response was to close the plant. After congratulating the labour force and telling the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that things were okay in February, the management were prepared to tear up an agreement by September. They blatantly told my colleagues and I that, yes, the agreement had come to an end and they were tearing it up because they wanted to close that plant.
I have been in the trade union movement a long time and I know one thing: with relationships between the labour force and the company, the most important thing is that people keep the word that they have given across the table. If people break their word, it is one of the biggest crimes that can be committed in industrial relations because no one will ever trust their word again. Yet Ford wonders why my colleagues, who are sitting
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1409
beside me, and I have grave doubts about any guarantees that it has given for the future of the Whitley site.
This is the thin edge of the wedge in relation to the future of Ford. That is why we need to consider something like the legislation in Europe so that nothing can happen until the workers are fully informed and agreement is reached. It is about time that we looked at that. Only two or three years ago, the same thing happened when BMW told its labour force in Germany that it would close Rover in the west midlands, yet the labour force in the west midlands were told nothing about it. We can remember the demonstrations that were held throughout the west midlands and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry taking evidence. An asset stripper was lined up to take over the company, but that was stopped by the sheer pressure of public opinion and Members, with the support of the Select Committee. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)—did a magnificent job. No one who knows anything about it would quarrel with the way in which he handled that situation.
Ford has broken an agreement—that cannot be said too often—and it is important that it comes clean, puts its proposals on the table and offers them up to scrutiny, while being prepared to talk to the trade unions about alternative proposals. If the company thinks that its proposals are right, it should be prepared to have them tested and to say why it cannot accept the proposals that the trade union makes on behalf of the work force. Unless the company is prepared to do that, no one will take anything that it says very seriously. That must be said.
My time is up now because I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) that he could have 10 minutes, but I hope that the Minister will respond to the questions that I asked initially. They are serious questions, and we need some serious answers.
7.22 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |