| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The work of the IPU is vital. I again pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley for her work, and to her staff in the IPU. I see that Mr. Kenneth Courtenay is listening to the debate: as has been said, he does a great deal of work and organisation, often at very antisocial hours. The work of the IPU is vital, as is the work of its sister organisation, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which has not been mentioned this morning. I hope that they continue. I hope also that the right hon. Lady continues to strengthen her work, particularly in dealing with some of the nastier regimes throughout the world, to help to alleviate the suffering of those parliamentarians who are caught up in such regimes, and that through her work, human rights will be improved and the well-being and good governance of those countries will continue to improve.
10.50 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the role that she plays in the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and its important work to foster good relations with parliamentarians throughout the world. It is encouraging to hear about the positive work that the IPU undertakes on a range of difficult and topical issues.
I have heard in the debate and from my officials about the active inward and outward visits programme, and the important role that it plays in encouraging good government through a strong parliamentary system. Engagement with Members of these Houses of Parliament can only help the sharing of good practice with other Parliaments throughout the world. Hosting the inward visits programme gives Members the opportunity to share the strengths of our system, and travelling overseas allows many of us to experience at first hand the problems and challenges facing our colleagues in other countries.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been delighted to be involved in the programme of visits during the past year with delegations from Africa, the middle east, Latin America and eastern Europe, and we were pleased to offer help before and during overseas visits to regions including Latin America, the middle east and Africa. The visits complement the FCO’s traditional diplomacy. A recent good example mentioned by Members is the IPU visit to Iran, which added a welcome parliamentary dimension at a sensitive time in our relationship with that country. We look forward to continuing to help IPU programmes.
My right hon. Friend raised the
question of human rights generally and specifically. I have already
told her that I shall deal in correspondence with individual
cases and countries where appropriate and necessary. The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty’s Government are committed
to protecting and promoting human rights, democracy and good governance
throughout the world. Those fundamental values lie at the heart of our
foreign policy. Democratic countries that respect the rights of their
citizens are more likely to settle disputes peacefully and respect
their international commitments and obligations. The promotion of
democratic practices and values is essential if we are to help other
countries achieve the high goals that are set for emerging
democracies.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I was an IPU observer of the Palestinian elections at the beginning of this year. In addition to addressing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the two Palestinian parliamentarians who have been in prison for some time, will my right hon. Friend the Minister say something about the 21 further Palestinian parliamentarians who were picked up in the past few weeks, and the four Palestinian parliamentarians who are having their east Jerusalem residency rights revoked by Israel, apparently on the ground that they refuse to give allegiance to the state of Israel, when the city in which they live is occupied territory? He knows that those provisions are illegal under The Hague convention.
Mr. Hoon: I have referred to those cases, and I shall deal with them in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley.
We very much value the IPU’s work in working towards the goals of achieving democracy and respect for the rule of law. As chair of the IPU committee on the human rights of parliamentarians, my right hon. Friend has been active over the past few years. She recently presented her newest report, which details 118 cases in 21 countries where the rights of parliamentarians are curtailed or worse.
The ability of members of Parliaments to speak freely and question Governments properly is fundamental to a democracy. The curtailing of that right in some parts of the world is totally wrong. I am pleased that some cases have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion through IPU action. My right hon. Friend’s update is welcome, and it shows yet another aspect of the IPU’s positive work.
The British group continues to contribute positively to the work of the IPU through its active participation in the six-monthly assemblies. The Government strongly welcome the bilateral meetings that the IPU organises in the margins of the international conferences, and indeed, the feedback that we receive from them. Such meetings are vital if we as parliamentarians are to understand better what happens in other countries.
The work of the three standing committees is ably assisted by contributions from Members of this House, and that work in turn contributes to our efforts to alleviate the suffering of many people throughout the world. This year the committees have focused on combating violence against women, the control of small arms and the environment. They are all important ambitions, and it is right that the world’s parliamentarians should consider such matters of global importance.
I am pleased that the IPU continues to work closely with the United Nations. It is important that there is a dialogue between parliamentarians and the UN, and it is right that the IPU plays a leading role in that dialogue. As the UN continues to strengthen its links with civil society, the parliamentary dimension becomes even more important, and as the major global parliamentary group, the IPU has much to offer the UN’s work in support of democracy.
The Foreign Office takes part in regular discussions on the future programme of the British group of the IPU. Our geographical desks continue to offer briefings before visits overseas and our embassies contribute to the success of IPU visits, and that help will continue.
In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), the Foreign Office deploys its resources to meet its strategic priorities. I was intrigued by his Tesco Metro approach, and I hope it means that he will give strong support to our efforts in several countries to co-locate our embassies and staff with those of other countries. I know what an enthusiast he is for the European Union, and I am delighted to hear him advocate the way in which we have sought to anticipate his suggestion.
There may be times when we do not have a resident ambassador and it is not possible for diplomats to visit a particular country at the same time as the British group of the IPU. Those occasions should be rare, and I am sure that hon. Members will understand that in those circumstances our help might be more limited than that which we would usually expect to offer. However, we look forward to another year of continued co-operation. The Foreign Office and our posts stand ready to give what support they properly can.
In closing, I repeat my congratulations to the British group of the IPU for its effort and successes of the past year. I wish it well for the coming year, and I know that the British group’s participation in a range of activities will contribute enormously to the spread of democracy and good governance throughout the world.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hoon: I have one more sentence, but I am delighted to give way.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister say something about the British Council and Chevening scholarships before he finishes his speech?
Mr. Hoon: I judged that that subject was not strictly relevant to a debate about the IPU, but I am prepared to take note of the injunction that Members have set out, and I shall carefully consider the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
I congratulate the IPU and wish it well in its future work.
Defence Jobs
10.58 am
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue.
Shropshire has a proud and long history of serving this country in Her Majesty’s armed forces. There are 6,000 people employed in the defence sector in Shropshire, and long may that continue. The Shropshire work force are committed and skilled, and they are dedicated to continuing for many years to come the service that they have provided to the county and the nation.
Earlier this year, the Army Base Repair Organisation lost almost 100 jobs, but 770 jobs were saved as a result of the Government listening. They listened because of an Afghanistan inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who agreed to hold that inquiry, which considered attrition on vehicles such as the Warrior. I believe that as a result of the inquiry, the Ministry of Defence changed its mind about closing the ABRO facility at Donnington. That decision was only a three-year stay of execution, however, and I hope that today the Minister will commit to a further extension of the facility’s life. I ask for that because the deployment to Afghanistan will last at least three years—that has been put on record by Ministers and many in this House believe that the deployment might last beyond that. If that is to be the case, it is only fair that the work force should know. That would also make sense as far as military planning is concerned. Of course, we also have what I suggest will be a very long commitment in Iraq. I hope that the Minister will allow the ABRO work force to hear that the three-year extension has been agreed at long last.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) and to the former Under Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), now in the Privy Council but on the Back Benches, for their flexibility in the allocation of MOD resources.
I turn to the Defence Logistics Organisation. Sadly, it was announced two weeks ago that several hundred jobs will probably be lost at Sapphire House in Telford, the neighbouring constituency to mine. The DLO work force have given many years of service and commitment to the armed forces and this country. I question whether the merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the DLO is right, but if I put that aside and accepted that it is, I would still ask whether now is the right time. Given our deployments around the world—not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the Balkans, Congo, Cyprus and Gibraltar; we have more commitments now than since the second world war—is it right to make a fundamental, key change to the operating framework of the DLO? I think not.
If we
agree with the principle behind the argument that the timing of the
ABRO decision was wrong, that argument can apply equally to what is
happening with the Defence Logistics Organisation. I hope that the
Minister will say that the timing is wrong and that the plans to move
some jobs—only some jobs are involved—to Bristol and the
south west will be parked
for the time being. There is also much concern among DLO workers about
how the consultation has taken place and the new consultation that has
been announced. I hope that the consultation period will be extended
from 30 days to 90 days so that the case for Sapphire House can be made
again to Ministers.
I also want to comment on RAF Cosford. Unemployment in Shropshire has increased by 30 per cent. in the past year and it continues to increase because of an outflow of manufacturing jobs. Sadly, we are seeing the same all over the west midlands. I hope that the west midlands will reinvent itself and become a centre of environmental technology manufacturing, rather than try to hold on to the manufacturing of years gone by. The situation is a little like that which followed the second world war, when munitions factories were turned into car manufacturing plants. Perhaps we need to convert some car manufacturing plants. They could become involved with new types of technology—for example, they could make parts of wind turbines or biomass machinery, or do biofuels engineering.
RAF Cosford is key to the future of defence jobs in Shropshire. About 2,500 people are employed there, and we want that number to expand. I am talking not only about direct military and civilian jobs at Cosford, but the supply chain, not only in Shropshire but in the west midlands more generally. Hon. Members will know that the west midlands has a proud record of serving the aerospace industry. Given recent changes at Airbus, I hope that the Government will be mindful of their need to remain committed to keeping the aerospace industry and the sector’s skills, technologies and work force commitment throughout the west midlands within our region. That can come only through Government commitment and Government leadership. I hope that we shall have some response from the Minister today.
RAF Cosford is key. The defence training review, which we hope will be announced in a few months, must come to Shropshire, and not only because of our high unemployment. Around the other competing site, St. Athan, unemployment has decreased considerably, and I give all credit to the Government for that. However, if they are serious about addressing employment issues, they need look no further than the west midlands.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he knows, many of those who work at RAF Cosford are my constituents, so I am grateful to him. Does he agree that the threat to RAF Cosford and the jobs there is indicative of the Government’s lack of attention to Shropshire as a whole? Does it not show that, despite their lack of representation in that county, the Government need to take Shropshire far more seriously?
Mark
Pritchard: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s
intervention; he makes some valid points. In the past week or two, the
sugar beet industry in Shropshire has been under threat as a result of
British Sugar’s announcement of the closure of the Allscott
factory. If the Government are serious about climate change—I
digress slightly, but am answering my hon. Friend’s
point—they should come to Shropshire and encourage the extension
of biomass plants. There is one at the Harper Adams agricultural
university and another over
the border in Eccleshall; there may be one in north Shropshire as well.
Sugar beet can be used to help to reduce climate change and carbon
emissions through the use of biofuels, so I hope that the Government
will consider what they will do to save the livelihood of 700
Shropshire sugar beet farmers, as well as the factory work force. My
hon. Friend is right to underline the link to RAF Cosford, and the fact
that the Government need to show commitment to the west
midlands.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): As the hon. Gentleman knows, he will find unity across the entire west midlands on securing the future of Cosford, but I say to him and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) that the people of the west midlands watching this debate will be looking for unity across the Chamber on putting the west midlands first, rather than Members trying to score party political points on something so key to the future of our whole region.
Mark Pritchard: I am grateful for that intervention, but was unaware that any party political points were being scored. The intervention itself might be regarded as an attempt to score party political points, but I leave the audience to make their own judgment on that. It would be easy for me to say that the Labour Government were cutting the jobs, but I shall not go there. I am happy to stay united.
It is right to put party politics aside; my view is that we are all in this together. We have to work for the corporate good and that of the whole community. It is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to work for our constituents, putting aside party politics and working for the good of all. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on that point.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mark Pritchard: I spoke to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) outside the Chamber. He represents a Welsh constituency. Members with constituencies in Wales can raise points about defence issues in Welsh questions and Defence questions. Other Members with constituencies in the west midlands no doubt want to intervene, so, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall press on with the debate.
Chris Bryant: He’s frit.
Mark Pritchard: I am happy to invite the hon. Gentleman to RAF Cosford to see the fabulous facilities there. He asked about Wales. I have extrapolated some points from the vast amount of data available in the defence training review—I hope that the Minister is taking notes. The review calls for a reduction in the number of sites from 10 to two in a phased four-year programme. The key is a phased programme that is sustainable, that maximises previous investment and that does not require significant investment in local infrastructure.
Shropshire
has a marvellous road network, and we know that the Government and the
private sector are committed to extending the M6 toll road and linking
it with the M54. What better road than one to link up with Cosford?
There is also a commitment from local
railway companies—it is part of the
bid—to regenerate Cosford Halt station, which goes right into
the heart of the Cosford airbus area. What better railway than one
going into
Cosford?
Cosford also has access to Birmingham regional airport. Some Members may disagree with me, but I would be happy to have an extra runway at Birmingham rather than at Heathrow, as it would attract investment and jobs to the area. In addition, the Cosford bid provides for new accommodation and training facilities in the first year, not in the second, third or fourth year.
Most of all, Shropshire has a vibrant community. The Albrighton Traders Association recently handed me a petition that I handed in at 10 Downing street. It asks the Government to consider the consequences to the whole of the community if Cosford does not win the bid. The decision is not just about the military or the work force, although those people clearly are important. It is about the communities of Albrighton, Shifnal and the wider Shropshire area. The impact on local schools if we lost the bid would be dramatic: pupil numbers would fall, budgets would fall and schools would have a difficult time. What would be the impact on traders, bed and breakfasts, hoteliers and local public houses? Even hairdressers—I use the same barber as many of the people at Cosford, as hon. Members can probably tell. My hair is rather short.
Daniel Kawczynski: Very fetching.
Mark Pritchard: I can recommend Mark Egerton of Shifnal. I do not declare an interest: I pay every time and even give a minor tip.
Chris Bryant: Not more than £2.50, I hope.
Mark Pritchard: I pay £6.50.
The impact on the community would be serious. I hope that the Government will take an holistic, regional view of the effects should Cosford not win the bid.
Daniel Kawczynski: At present, I am negotiating with the chief executive of Arriva Trains, Mr. Holland, significantly to improve Arriva’s service between Shrewsbury and Birmingham, which passes through Cosford. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more difficult for local MPs and organisations to campaign for better rail services if Cosford were not successful?
Chris Bryant: He said that the infrastructure was already there.
Mark Pritchard: We must improve on a rail system that, for the most part, is a good service. My hon. Friend is right to push for improvements, and Arriva Trains, Central Trains or whoever might win future franchises must ensure that they continue to improve the services. This is—forgive me—a twin-track process, whereby the railways would benefit from Cosford, and Cosford would benefit from the railways. Obviously, the local community would benefit from both.
That
links nicely with the education sector. Wolverhampton university is an
excellent university. It works closely with organisations in the West
Midlands technology corridor, which is a cluster of aerospace and
technology companies. I hope that that will be a key
factor in the decision-making process of the Ministry of Defence. There
is an important geographical economy of scale as far as Cosford is
concerned. There is a skills set right on its doorstep, and that should
be a central
consideration.
People who might be required, asked, invited or told to move to St. Athan, should it win the bid, may not go. We are seeing that in the Defence Logistics Organisation. Much of its work force are unable to move to Bristol and the south-west. The fact is that the house prices in St. Athan are 30 per cent. above the regional average. Compare them with the house prices in Cosford, which are 30 per cent. below the regional average. If the Government think that everybody will up sticks and go to St. Athan, they are mistaken, as they were mistaken in respect of the DLO.
Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mark Pritchard: I am an admirer of the hon. Gentleman, but I always admire him more when he is silent. I am sorry to tell him that this will be such an opportunity. I told him earlier that I was unable to take his intervention, given that he has an opportunity to raise the issue during Welsh questions. I look forward to his tabling a question on St. Athan for the next Welsh questions. No doubt he will also ask a supplementary on Cosford. [Interruption.]
John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mark Pritchard: Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
The education sector is important. I pay tribute to Professor Caroline Gipps, who is the vice-chancellor of the University of Wolverhampton, and to all the work that is being done to help RAF Cosford to win the bid. It is vital that the Government take a regional and holistic view. I come back to that point, as the decision will be critical to the local education sector—not only primary and secondary schools, but the university sector as well. The university works hand in hand with RAF Cosford and the Defence College of Aeronautical Engineering.
In the context of what is happening around the world, it is likely that there will be more emphasis on aeronautics and, dare I say it, even missile technology. Should Britain become part of the ballistic missile defence shield—I am not saying that it should, but there must be a debate in the House at some point—Cosford will play a part in that. Therefore, we should not disrupt Cosford at this time.
I conclude on a wider point. This is a personal view, not a party view. I question whether this country’s defence privatisation has gone too far, and I say that as a Conservative. These are not party political matters. National security goes beyond that. It is the duty of all Governments first and foremost to protect their citizens, and that is also the duty of humble Back Benchers, which most of us are. I question whether the present Government, in their desire to be more machismo on privatisation than the Conservative Government, are privatising too much and undermining our national security in the process. Secondly, do they compare post-privatisation or possible privatisation outputs with public sector outputs?
Thirdly, the Government may be underplaying the importance of the military ethos within such organisations. Many civilians working at Cosford, for example, are ex-military. Not all of them are, and people do not have to be ex-military to be good at their job, but there is a clear link between the military ethos and the hard work, commitment and dedication of employees at Cosford and, indeed, the DLO.
I hope that the Government will put a brake on some of their privatisation plans. For example, there has not been an in-house bid in respect of RAF Cosford. I would like to see an in-house bid. How can we have an open consultation process without one? How can the Government consider economic factors, specific training factors and the wider socio-economic factors—the hard and soft measures—when they have not considered an in-house bid? I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The Government have denied that the review is about an estates package; they say that it is not about property and buildings but just about defence training. If that is the case, let us see an in-house bid and if that is not good enough, so be it. But we need to tread carefully before stepping forward to even more privatisation when there have been some pretty big disasters.
There is a certain so-called British company that seems to win virtually every defence order at the moment in this country, yet a lot of its defence manufacturing is undertaken abroad. How is that British? How is that protecting British jobs? I shall mention that company: it is BAE Systems. It may be said that they employ a lot of people in this country; they do, and I am grateful for that, but do we want to put all our eggs in one basket? BAE seems to be winning virtually every contract under the sun and I ask whether we should require the company to commit to undertaking a larger proportion of its defence manufacturing in this country rather letting it say, “We are listed on the stock market in the UK, therefore we are British and we are protected from any criticism about outsourcing manufacturing abroad.”
Shropshire has a proud history and heritage in the defence sector. It is committed to serving this country and Her Majesty’s armed forces. It wishes to retain and expand its 6,000 defence sector jobs; it wishes to see an extension of the lifeline to the Army-based repair organisation at Donnington in my constituency and a proper consultation process in respect of the DLO at Sapphire House in the Telford constituency. Many of my constituents travel across the parliamentary boundary to work at Sapphire House. It also wishes to see a commitment to provide the best defence training for the 21st century, which, in my humble view, can only be delivered view through the skills set provided and experienced at RAF Cosford. Overall, it wants a commitment from the Government to jobs in Shropshire and the west midlands.
11.22 am
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I will be brief, as I know that local Members will want to speak. I speak simply as the Chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group to make one plea in relation to the Defence Logistics Organisation, the defence training review and the supply-chain initiative. There has been a distinct lack of consultation with the PCS as the trade union representing the staff in all the organisations.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) referred to Sapphire House in Telford and the potential loss of 400 jobs. The Ministry of Defence admits that the DLO co-location will save less than £8 million. A survey of the staff at Sapphire House was undertaken and 96 per cent. made it clear that they will not move. Their main argument, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that the move to Bristol is unaffordable for them. Let us look at the salaries of staff working within the DLO: more than 60 per cent. of PCS members working at the DLO earn less than £16,000 a year. The average price of a two-bedroom property in Bath is about £285,000. It will be physically impossible for a number of the staff to take up any potential offer of a job under relocation. That will result in not only in discomfort for the individual families and a potential disturbance to their future well-being, but in a considerable loss of expertise to the service.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |