| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The DLO has attempted to recruit elsewhere, within the Bristol area. It attempted to recruit 12 commercial officers in Bristol, but failed to do so because the pay offer was too low. The challenge of recruiting to fill 4,000 posts in the new area will become insuperable. The various consultations that have taken place have not included the staff. On a number of occasions, the union has sought representations with management but it has been rebuffed. I ask the Minister to pass the message back through the DLO management structure that the staff need to be fully engaged in the discussions. At present, the trade unions have not been kept informed about emerging proposals on co-location; in many instances, management have simply refused to talk.
On the defence training review, I share the concerns that have been expressed across the House about privatisations going too far. PCS members have organised a 24-hour vigil today outside the Ministry of Defence and I invite hon. Members to attend to meet the staff involved. They are dedicated, committed professionals who want to provide a service in the future but who are now threatened with privatisation. As hon. Members have said, people from Cosford and St. Athan are involved and face the potential of considerable disturbance to their lives and families as a result of forced moves. I repeat, we will lose their professionalism—a professional capital that will be difficult to build up elsewhere. The savings involved appear to be relatively minor. In addition, we risk of creating what is virtually a monopoly in awarding the contract.
Finally, I want to talk about Stafford. The in-house option “Do Different” has been determined, which I welcome on behalf of the PCS. However, no information has been provided on how or why Stafford was earmarked for closure; there has been inadequate consultation and discussion with staff, which has caused considerable concern. Many of those anxieties could be overcome not only by changing the decision-making processes within the Department but by ensuring that there is a free flow of information, adequate consultation and full involvement of what is, I repeat, a very dedicated team of staff in all these establishments, who have served this country well over the years.
11.26 am
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I start by congratulating my
neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard),
on securing
this important debate. I am pleased that there has already been a
measure of cross-party consensus on the issue of Cosford, to which I
shall come
later.
I congratulate the Minister on his new post, and I start by emphasising the long tradition of defence within Shropshire. It has an important role not only in terms of employment in Shropshire and the west midlands, but in the nation as a whole. The barracks at Copthorne are one of three regional divisional headquarters in the United Kingdom. The general there is responsible for 40,000 troops, and service personnel from Coventry in the east to the Irish sea, and from Cornwall to north Wales are commanded from Copthorne primarily because of its importance geographically. It is roughly in the centre of the country. I shall come shortly to why that is important for Cosford.
The people of Shropshire supply regiments in the armed forces; the Regular Army has the second battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment currently in Iraq; Territorial Army soldiers from Shropshire are serving in Iraq and in other commitments abroad at the moment. In these particularly difficult times, it is important for the Minister and incumbent on him to provide security for their families back home in terms of the job prospects that they have to look forward to. The more uncertainty there is because of the reorganisation of the defence establishment, the more difficult and challenging it is for our service personnel to perform their duties, and I hope the Minister will respond to that.
The RAF has an important role in Shropshire. Along with RAF Cosford, there is RAF Shawbury, which is an important base. It is not in my constituency but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will refer to it.
The subject of the debate is employment in the defence sector and it is important to recognise that we are going through a slightly more difficult time than we have done in recent years in relation to employment in the west midlands. In my constituency alone in the past 12 months, unemployment has increased by 35 per cent. admittedly from a very low base. In Ludlow, unemployment rose from 1.2 per cent. to 1.6 per cent. in the year to June, which is a matter of increasing concern. That is happening particularly in the manufacturing sector. Relatively few residents from the defence establishment live in my constituency; they may not have been affected thus far, but I anticipate that further job cuts will have an impact on my constituency and many others in Shropshire.
Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the astonishing increase in unemployment in his constituency that he has sketched out and given that four of the 15 constituencies with the highest rates of unemployment are in the city of Birmingham, the west midlands surely has the highest claim of any region, including Wales, to be looked on favourably by the Minister?
Mr. Dunne: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s welcome intervention. It reflects concern among representatives from across the west midlands about the threat of increased unemployment there. However, I would point out to him that there is a political connotation.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin was very restrained in not seeking to score party political points, but there are 10 Labour-held seats in the west midlands in which Members have majorities of less than 3,000—roughly equivalent to the number of jobs at stake at Cosford—and it is a shame that not one of the Members representing those seats is in the Chamber to argue their case.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) speaks with considerable authority about unemployment in Birmingham, and I have much sympathy with that. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who intervened earlier, for his work in drawing together cross-party consensus to try to secure jobs for those who were put out of work through the bankruptcy of British Leyland. [Interruption.] Excuse me. I meant the bankruptcy at Rover.
That brings me to the main topic, which is to argue that RAF Cosford should secure a position as a national centre of excellence in the defence training review—a decision that I understand is due to be made in October. I shall be accompanying my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin tomorrow to argue the case with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I thank my hon. Friend for securing that meeting, although the decision rests primarily with the Ministry of Defence. From separate conversations, I am aware that the Ministry is under considerable financial pressure; any help that the Treasury can give to relieve that pressure will, I am sure, be welcomed by the Minister. We will try to argue the Minister’s case for funding, particularly for Cosford.
The “Let’s Fly” campaign, spearheaded by Advantage West Midlands, to champion Cosford’s case, has presented a compelling case for Cosford to be selected under the defence training review. I am sure that the Minister will have received many submissions, not least from me, to argue Cosford’s case, but I shall focus on three aspects.
First, the skills inherent in the area are considerable. They include not only the aerospace and motor vehicle engineering skill base of the west midlands—with the possible exception of parts of the south-west, it is the centre of excellence in the UK—and there is no question but that it could provide an additional work force for recruitment that does not exist in the competitive market. We have heard that it is unlikely that many of those employed at Cosford would relocate in the event of the wrong decision being made—if Cosford does not secure its future.
I am told that there are 1,386 technical and manufacturing companies in the area immediately surrounding Cosford that employ 22,000 people in the aerospace industry, and there are another 300 related companies in the region. In addition, a strong and growing university capability can be built upon to provide for the training requirements of Cosford. Unfortunately, we do not have a university in Shropshire, although we have various tertiary education establishments that cover other sectors and there is the move to develop one that I suggest would merely increase the skills base.
The second
aspect is the transport infrastructure, to which my hon. Friend the
Member for The Wrekin referred. The county is not as well served as
others in terms of the county town’s access to London. As it
happens, Cosford is well served because of its proximity to the motorway
network. One cannot get any closer than Cosford is to the M54; the M54
is within a few miles of the M6, the north-south trunk road that leads
to the south, to the M42, to the M1 and to London. The railway passes
within a few hundred yards of the entrance to Cosford; although the
station is not served by a large number of passing trains, it is
capable of coping with more regular trains. As has been said,
discussions are ongoing with a couple of train companies to provide a
more regular service.
The infrastructure is there; we need to encourage the operating companies to use it more. My hon. Friend has already touched upon the airport infrastructure. I endorse his comments about Birmingham being more suitable for any increase in air transport facilities than Wolverhampton business airport in my constituency. The latter is little more than a general aviation field, and is not suitable for significant expansion.
Mark Pritchard: Although I support the expansion of Birmingham airport rather than of Wolverhampton business airport, any increase in air traffic and in air routes should not result in planes flying low over the Shropshire hills, causing noise pollution and disrupting the Shropshire way, birdsong or animal welfare in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Mr. Dunne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the fact that approximately 88 per cent. of the South Shropshire district council, which is entirely within my constituency, is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is considerable concern about the recent rerouting of the flight path into Manchester airport and the consequent increase in air traffic that has resulted from the lower flight path ceiling. It is primarily civilian traffic, but some noise irritation also results from the helicopter training from RAF Shawbury. One reason for that is that the area in which they have chosen to do their training descents happens to be on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty that is also in my constituency. However, that is somewhat of a side issue in relation to the future development of RAF Cosford for training, as I understand that no flights will emanate from that site.
Thirdly, aside from the central transport infrastructure of the location, the general location of Cosford is important in relation to the nation as a whole. The nationwide review is there to provide a national centre of excellence. To site such a centre in the middle of the country means that it will be accessible to an immediate catchment of the 4 million people living within one hour of Cosford. The comparative figure at the competing site of St. Athan is approximately 1 million, so Cosford seems relevant, not least because of its accessibility to all parts of the country for military use and for recruitment and training. That should be welcomed by the Minister.
Finally, I
should also add that Cosford lies just outside my constituency, but
within Bridgnorth district council, which is predominantly within my
constituency. I have had discussions, as has my hon. Friend, with the
chief executive of the council and council leaders. I understand that
the planning situation for RAF Cosford is that if it ceases to be used
for military purposes, it will revert to its original use for
agriculture. If the Department imagines that there is a honey pot to
exploit from the redevelopment
of the site, it should be under no doubt that that will be fiercely
resisted by the local authorities in whose domain the planning decision
would
lie.
Daniel Kawczynski: Will my hon. Friend say in front of the Minister that he shares my view about the strength of feeling among local people in Shropshire? They feel passionately that they wish to stay in our county and do not wish to move down to Bristol. All of us who represent Shropshire are Salopians: people of Shropshire who feel proud of our county and want to stay rather than be forced to Bristol.
Mr. Dunne: I am grateful for a somewhat typical intervention championing the cause of Shropshire from my hon. Friend and neighbour—he does so with considerable aplomb and style at every opportunity.
There is no doubt that people who work and live in the surroundings of Cosford will want to stay there, particularly the non-service personnel. The service personnel obviously are used to moving around the world and country at the behest of their superior officers, but the civilian personnel—who make up approximately half the people employed at Cosford—would find it difficult to move for the reasons explained by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and would have no inclination to move.
Many people who work at Cosford live in the Bridgnorth area of my constituency and I have met many of them who have explained that they are concerned that the results of the proposed review will come out the wrong way. I urge the Minister to accept the arguments that have been put to him in favour of RAF Cosford. We look forward to the right result from this training review.
11.43 am
David Wright (Telford) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this debate—he has done us a real service. From the range of Members present, we can see that this is an important issue across the west midlands and it is also nice to see a full set of Shropshire MPs here. I can speak in defence of jobs in the county as a Shropshire lad who was born and raised there.
I want to focus my brief remarks on three areas. First, I want to talk about ABRO, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who I was going to call my hon. Friend—indeed, I will do that. I also want to talk about Cosford and particularly Sapphire house and the Defence Logistics Organisation at Sapphire house. We have had a problematic time in Shropshire over the past 12 months. A number of announcements in relation to defence jobs have been very negative and, on Sapphire house, the Ministry of Defence is plain wrong.
The
organisation at Sapphire house has a large number of highly skilled
people who procure equipment for our armed forces. It is easy to think
that those people sit around, press buttons on computer screens and
make default decisions assisted by a computer in relation to equipment
provided for the armed forces. That view is completely wrong as those
people are in regular contact with the front line and take telephone
calls about the provision of equipment for the armed forces from people
who are war fighting on the front line. If we proceed with the proposal
to move jobs out of my constituency to the Bath and Bristol area, we
will lose that experience. There are generations of families who have
worked at Sapphire house and the culture of supporting defence
procurement has existed for more than 60 years in the wider Telford and
Shropshire area. The loss of those jobs would be extremely negative for
the Ministry of Defence and for the local economy.
Yesterday, I took a number of trade union colleagues and Councillor Keith Austin, the chair of the local defence support group, to see the Minister. The Minister suggested he would look at making the consultation period for the decision in relation to Sapphire house more flexible. I hope that there will be flexibility and that the Minister will seriously consider the representations made to him by the trade unions yesterday—PCS members put together a strong and coherent case. We need to preserve the skills and capacity at Sapphire house. There is a community and generational aspect to the support given to Sapphire house and there will be recruitment and selection problems if the facility moves to the Bath and Bristol area. Hon. Members have already discussed the difficulties in recruiting staff in that area.
There will be a significant problem given that, when the trade unions consulted their members—more than 400 at Sapphire house—97 per cent. said that they did not want to move to Bath or Bristol. There are a number reasons for that and they include family ties and connections, house prices and income. The Ministry of Defence actually gets a very good deal out of Shropshire people. I do not want to talk down salaries, but the Government get a very cheap deal and good value for money in terms of the people who work at Sapphire house, who are committed to the organisation and to the Ministry of Defence and go the extra mile. Those people deserve to be listened to and the Minister needs to take the message to the Government that they need to think again about Sapphire house.
A number of the integrated project teams on that site are saying that they do not want to move. The drive for efficiency will not secure the savings that the Ministry of Defence require. We will see a fall in the quality of the service and that is particularly damaging at a time when our armed forces are heavily committed around the world.
The Minister decided to change his view on ABRO, which is in constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin, largely due to the pressure brought to bear by the trade unions, the defence support group and by Members from across the political spectrum, particularly the Shropshire five as we could call ourselves. We need to go forward now and ensure ABRO has not just a medium-term future, but a long-term future based at Donnington. A number of Amicus trade union representatives from ABRO came to see me at my surgery a couple of weeks ago. They are keen to work constructively with the Ministry of Defence and with management to make sure ABRO at Donnington is extremely efficient and indispensable. The trade union representatives are developing new opportunities for on-site training and are flexible in their approach.
We would like to explore in
more detail the proposals that the Government are considering in
relation to a Govcom for ABRO and we need to go out and win more
private sector work, which I know the work force
are keen to do. When there is a surge in demand for armoured repairs
because troops are in action, the only real place that can deal with it
is ABRO. The people who work at ABRO, like those at Sapphire house, go
the extra mile—if there is a job to be done, they make sure it
is done. They do not watch the clock, they turn up outside their normal
hours and do the work for our front line troops. This means that when
there is a surge in demand because our troops are under threat and they
need armour to be repaired, they can rapidly go back out onto the front
line. There is great commitment both in Sapphire house and ABRO to our
front line, and we should thank all the civilian staff involved in that
work for ensuring that our armed forces are supported professionally
and will continue to be supported professionally as long as those jobs
are retained in Shropshire, in Telford and in
Wrekin.
I shall finish by speaking about Cosford, which is crucial for the long-term future of our manufacturing base in the west midlands. Cosford is ideally placed to be the defence training establishment for the UK. It is central geographically, as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) said, and the transport links to the site are superb. The M54 runs probably one mile away from the site, and the rail link is virtually on the site. There is also a great history and heritage about the RAF at Cosford. With the aerospace museum and the new museum on the cold war based on the site, there is a real connection between modern-day training and the history and heritage of the RAF. That is significant when it comes to getting people through the training environment and ensuring that they understand the history of the RAF and the future dynamic of the RAF and other services.
Given the knowledge, skills and training base across the west midlands, we have an unsurpassed level of expertise. As part of the proposal, Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, proposes to create a national manufacturing skills academy focused around the Cosford site. That is very important.
Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman support me in supporting the idea of an in-house bid for the defence training review? Would he like to put that on the record?
David Wright: I am happy to put it on the record that I have always supported the idea of an in-house bid. I met PCS colleagues before the hon. Gentleman was elected in order to talk about an in-house bid. I supported that idea right through the process and was very disappointed when the MOD did not allow an in-house bid to be made. However, we are where we are, and it is crucial now that we compete with St. Athan and win the proposal. That said, I supported hon. Members who wanted an in-house option. I hope that they will be reassured by the fact that there is unity across this Chamber today and that we arguing for jobs in Shropshire to be protected. That is the key thing that we want to deliver today.
On the
manufacturing sector, we have heard about the number of companies that
are connected to RAF Cosford and about the strategy of Advantage West
Midlands for that area—the western side of the conurbation, if I
can put it like that. The technology corridor along the M54 is
particularly significant. We
have university sites in both Telford and Wolverhampton. We also have
the excellent Telford college of arts and technology, which is the
leading college in the UK, as shown by its recent Ofsted marks. It is
keen to key in to training and skills in relation to Cosford and to
connect companies in Telford to the defence training activity that it
is hoped will take place at
Cosford.
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak and that those on the Front Benches need time to respond to and wind up the debate, but I have three messages to give. They are about a long-term future for ABRO, the defence of jobs at Sapphire house, the DLO site in my constituency, and the proposals for Cosford being supported by the Minister to deliver long-term manufacturing job growth in the west midlands.
11.53 am
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood—it takes us back to the good old days of the European Scrutiny Committee. It is a great pleasure also to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). Like him, I congratulate most heartily my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on landing this debate at a critical time. Time now is short and I shall be brief. I would like to mention three subjects.
The first is RAF Shawbury, which is the jewel in the crown as far as Shropshire’s defence activity is concerned. It supports at least 1,500 jobs locally and injects £20 million into the local economy. It is immensely important locally, but it is also hugely important nationally and, potentially, internationally, as it is the seat of the defence helicopter flying school.
My comments to the Minister are simple. Ten days ago, I went on a simulated flight in the Bell simulator round most of north Shropshire and then did exactly the same thing in a real helicopter to compare the difference. As I said, Shawbury is immensely important locally, but a small number of people living close to the airfield are aggravated by noise, and it was most interesting to learn that 30 per cent. of day flying can be done in a simulator and 70 per cent. has to be done for real but at night it is half and half. It was clear from that exercise that people had to do the real thing. When we came to land, for instance, in the simulator, I always thought that we were about 30 ft higher than we actually were according to the simulator, so it has to be done for real and I stress that Shawbury has enormous support locally. Many farmers are very co-operative and offer landing sites, but there are two other points to be made.
First, a small number of people are very badly affected—the Slater family, for instance. I saw a predecessor of the Minister, who is now Lord Moonie, about that. At the time, there were discussions about insulation materials and there were NATO trials. Can the Minister tell us what new technologies are coming along? We welcome the helicopter training at Shawbury, but for a small number of people there is aggravation, although I take my hat off to the RAF authorities for the way in which they have liaised with parish councils and done their bit to mitigate complaints. However, the local question is: what is the form on new technologies coming along for low-frequency noise?
The other question, which is of national consequence, given the demands particularly in Iraq and the extreme demands for helicopter pilots in Afghanistan, is: what steps are the Government taking to speed up the training of helicopter pilots? The Minister gave me a reply last week, saying that it took 87 weeks to train a Royal Navy pilot, 71 an Army pilot and 110 for a Royal Air Force pilot. When I went to Shawbury, I glibly said, “Well, we used to stick Spitfire pilots in the air after 10 hours,” but I was told, “Yes, and a lot of them crashed.” The people there insisted that it was extremely difficult to shorten the training. However, given the demands on our forces, particularly with the increasing role in Afghanistan, it seems that there will inevitably be a shortage of pilots, so can the Minister explain what steps the Government are taking to increase the number of pilots and what part Shawbury will play? Obviously, Shawbury will play a key role and will welcome that.
Sadly, two soldiers from Tern Hill barracks in my constituency were recently killed in Iraq. They were killed by an explosive device hitting a Land Rover. I have asked the Minister questions on this issue and I understand that he is being cagey for operational reasons, but I understand that there are vehicles that will repel those explosive devices. Lord Drayson, in the other House, has stated that a vehicle called the Mamba was trialled in Bosnia and sold off because it was unreliable. I have read reports in the press, which I would like the Minister to verify, that actually the Mambas were sold to a private security firm and are now running down the most dangerous road in the world—the one between Baghdad airport and Baghdad town centre—carrying personnel of pretty high importance. I have also read a report that a Mamba has sustained two direct hits and all those in it got out alive. Therefore, can the Minister explain the Government’s position on putting our troops in extreme danger in soft-skin Land Rovers?
To take another country, Canada yesterday cancelled a major element of its FRES—future rapid effects system—programme. We are planning to spend £14 billion on FRES. That is a very grandiose expensive scheme down the road. Canada has decided that its troops need help now—that for operational reasons they need improved equipment—and it is diverting some of its FRES money now into improved equipment for deployment in Afghanistan. We have Alvis in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. Could—
Mr. Jimmy Hood (in the Chair): Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to address the subject of this Adjournment debate, which is defence sector jobs in Shropshire and the west midlands?
Mr. Paterson: Absolutely, Mr. Hood. The vehicle that I am about to mention, called the Scarab, was made at Alvis in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin. My question to the Minister is: does he have plans to divert some FRES money into investment immediately to provide vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan or in Iraq that would be more resistant to explosive devices than the Land Rovers used currently and that could be made in the west midlands, where we have a long history of vehicle manufacture?
Finally, I will touch on the points that other hon. Members made on the importance of Cosford. I will not repeat them, but we must consider what has happened with Sapphire house, the British Sugar closure at Allscott and the recent comments by Professor Les Worrall. He said:
“If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would have a few quid on the Shropshire economy being in for a tough time over the next year”.
Given the experience of the benefits that Shawbury brings, we need a mixed economy. It is inevitable that there will be a reduction in the importance of agriculture and manufacturing. Therefore, the establishment of what is proposed at Cosford is of immense importance to the economy. I shall not repeat the comments that were made earlier—that would be invidious—but I stress that they have the support of all organisations across the county, and, I think, across the west midlands. I should like the Minister’s comments on what is going to happen at Cosford.
12 noon
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your wise guidance this afternoon, Mr. Hood. I shall try not to repeat the comments of other hon. Members, because I am sure that we all want to hear what the Minister has to say. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on bringing this important subject before the House for debate today—as well as the hon. Members who have spoken, and those who have not had the opportunity.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |