UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

PROPOSALS FOR BACKBENCH DEBATES

MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2011

MR DAVID DAVIS and ALAN JOHNSON

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 15

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of representations taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral representations they may in due course give to the Committee.

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Monday 14 November 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mr David Davis and Alan Johnson made representations.

Q1 Chair: I think, Alan Johnson, that this is your first time at the Committee.

Alan Johnson: Yes.

Chair: David Davis is a regular; we welcome you back.

Mr Davis: Alan is a Back-Bench virgin in all sorts of ways.

Q2 Chair: We’re very gentle. You have written to us about a debate on BAE and redundancies. Do you want to let us know specifically what you are after? Before you start, I should point out that the only slots we have free at the moment are 24 November, which is a full day in the Chamber, and 8 December, which is a three-hour slot in Westminster Hall.

Alan Johnson: Thank you, Chair. As we have said, we are looking for a debate in the Chamber. BAE has announced 3,000 job losses-these are highly skilled engineers-right across the country, affecting communities from Scotland down to Essex. The situation is particularly difficult in east Yorkshire, because the company is closing the manufacturing plant down altogether, ending 100 years of aerospace manufacturing on the Humber. It went into a 90-day process. That process is coming to its conclusion. David and I have been closely involved, but there has been nothing from BAE to suggest that it will change its mind, which means all those redundancy notices landing on Boxing day. That is the end of the 90-day period, which is why it is important to do this before the recess. The terminology that BAE is using is, "We are engineers who choose to manufacture. We may not choose to manufacture in the future." There is every sign that the Hawk, an iconic British product, will go the same way as the Harrier jump jet went, as David has been saying for many years, and it will become a US product. All the money that British taxpayers have put in to research and develop these planes will go abroad.

Q3 Chair: You have asked for time in the Chamber. We look to see what the debate is about, so is this debate about manufacturing or is it about jobs? Do you have an idea of what the motion would be?

Alan Johnson: We were just working on the motion outside. The form that you sent me, Natascha, talked about a topic, not a motion, but the motion would be something like, "That this House urges BAE Systems to maintain its highly skilled manufacturing base in the UK, and the taxpayer funding that it has received, in the British taxpayers’ interest." This is more than a conspiracy theory; all the suspicions of everyone involved centre on the same thing. That includes the unions, which are very loth to criticise BAE, because they have a very close relationship-they are skilled engineers. I am thinking of the people we deal with-people such as Ian Waddell from Unite. They have a history of never attacking the company. They are convinced that this is about moving work abroad; it is about BAE pulling out of manufacturing and building the Hawk, for instance, and other aircraft in America or in Bangalore. Given the importance of manufacturing and the Government’s commitment to manufacturing, this is about BAE; it will be an attack on BAE, not an attack on the Government. The B used to stand for British. None of the other partners in the joint strike fighter, who have all been affected by a slow-down in orders, because of the fiscal deficit, is laying off highly skilled engineers. All of them are trying to find ways of using civil aerospace and so on to keep those skills in their relevant countries. We are doing none of that.

Mr Davis: This is both individual and emblematic. In a way, this is like Bombardier 2. Remember all the fuss over Bombardier? Alan is right: it is pretty clear that this company, which has made its fortune off the taxpayer over the course of the past half century or more, is now using the intellectual property that arose from that effectively to move abroad, to create a presence abroad. It is not unique in that. There are many companies now choosing to manufacture in lower-cost parts of the world. Fair enough, but nevertheless that is an important political issue generically.

These job losses will take place in 20-plus constituencies up and down the country. There will be at least a dozen MPs who will have no choice but to speak in the debate. The point is partly to have a debate in Parliament but also to create public pressure and a public presence for this issue. It is an issue that is going to be more and more important the further we go into this recession. That is the basic thrust.

Q4 Philip Davies: I know your motion is focused, understandably, on British Aerospace. Our issue is that we have a limited amount of time, and we try to cram in as many people as possible. We have had other requests for debates on manufacturing. How do you feel about your debate tying in with a bigger debate on manufacturing? How important is it that the debate is simply about British Aerospace?

Mr Davis: The words British Aerospace have to be in the motion for us, because it is so emblematic and emotional. That is not to say that we could not widen the debate. We were debating outside just now whether to make it wider in terms of manufacturing. It is perfectly possible to make the second half of the motion say something about manufacturing. The reason I think this has purchase-we would not be with you if we did not think that-is because of the general concern about manufacturing. Bombardier created a certain concern across all the parties in the House. I think that concern will be heightened enormously by this particular issue.

Q5 Jane Ellison: To some extent, Philip has asked the question I was going to ask. There is an obvious link to another bid we have had recently. Am I right in thinking that the autumn statement is on the 29th? If you were successful in getting the 24th, would you see this as an opportunity, not just to highlight the BAE issue, but also to talk about some of the things that Government policy should be focusing on in this sector? To what extent do you think some speakers will focus just on BAE, but others will identify the kind of things they want to happen, such as policy changes?

Alan Johnson: A lot of speakers will want to talk about BAE, because of the nature and history of the company and what is happening. Bombardier is a Canadian company and Siemens is a German company, so the argument in Derby was slightly different. The reason we say this is Bombardier 2 is because of the ramifications for UK manufacturing, for those skills. If they are lost-lost abroad and lost in the communities they serve at the moment-it has a devastating effect. If that is the only day available, we understand; but there is a lot of time-there is not much going on on the Floor of the House of Commons at the moment. David had a chat with the Chief Whip about whether we could get this closer to Christmas, because that is when the redundancy notices are going to arrive on people’s doorsteps-on Boxing day, which is quite symbolic. But if that is the only day available, we would do it. It is before the autumn statement and we could widen it to manufacturing, which would be quite useful.

Mr Davis: To put the later date in context-as you say, we have the redundancies-the period comes to an end on Boxing day. Because of that, there will be demonstrations, people coming to No. 10, and probably people cycling from Hull. It will be that sort of thing, as happened at the party conferences-the Labour and Conservative party conferences anyway-earlier in the year. It would fit into that, but if that’s the day you’ve got, it’s the day you’ve got and we will make it work, although I will probably go to the Chief Whip and see if we can get an extra day. That is by the bye, it is secondary.

Q6 Mr Hollobone: We have no authority to tell the Government which Minister should reply to your debate, but we could put in a request. Would you prefer a Defence Minister to reply or a Minister from the Business Department?

Mr Davis: Business.

Alan Johnson: Definitely.

Q7 Chair: What are you actually calling on the Government to do, or are you entirely calling on BAE to do something?

Alan Johnson: We are meeting Vince Cable, and we are calling on the Government to do all kinds of things. We still have a seat at the table of Airbus, for instance-BAE sold off its 20% stake in Airbus, but the British Government still hold a seat on the Airbus board-so we are asking whether they can bring in civil engineering work to get through a fallow period in military engineering, to keep the jobs there and to keep skilled workers in manufacturing.

This is very much a hit at BAE, because, contrary to all the ways in which it dealt with such things previously, this has been a disgrace-the way it was announced and the way that people found out about it-and it has really offended a work force who are almost evangelical in their support of the company. They believe in the company, so BAE, rightly I think, is the focus of people’s ire.

Q8 Chair: I am struggling to see where there is a debate. I cannot see anybody coming to speak in support of BAE Systems. Am I wrong? Would anybody oppose the motion?

Mr Davis: I was about to say something slightly different from Alan. There is a twin track because there is quite a feeling around that there is a lot more that can be done by Government, not about BAE per se, because it is a single example, but in terms of encouraging manufacturing to stay, encouraging employment in manufacturing, developing skills and so on. It is true to say that, as it stands, Vince Cable has been incredibly helpful within the narrow limits of the Government’s current policy, but I would expect this to widen out. If I spoke on this, two thirds of the speech would be on BAE, but one third would be on what could be done next.

Alan Johnson: I am trying to be kind to the Government.

Mr Davis: And I am not, alas. We are in our normal positions, irrespective of who the Government are. There are things to be done on tax, regulation, training and enterprise zones. There is a whole series of things that are not being done yet but which the French, the Germans and other countries would not think twice about doing.

Q9 Chair: Are you looking to have a vote, or are you asking for a general debate?

Mr Davis: Or a motion. If it is challenged, it will go to a vote, but we will see.

Alan Johnson: BAE look at these things.

Mr Davis: We know they are in terror of their current PR-

Alan Johnson: Parliamentary votes.

Mr Davis: Bluntly, in part, that is why Westminster Hall will not do it, because it will not make any impact; this will make an impact, especially when you hear what we say.

Alan Johnson: In the sense that the Government are BAE’s biggest customer, they are very keen to ensure that they have good relations with Government. That gives Government a lever as well.

Q10 Mr Bone: I think the Committee is slightly struggling. Normally, if it was a Chamber motion and there was a clear action for the Government to take, we would understand. Although the BAE issue is primarily what you want to talk about, Philip’s point is that you should widen it out to manufacturing, unless there is a very specific thing you want the Government to do in relation to BAE. I do not think there is, is there?

Alan Johnson: Encouraging civil aviation to take up some of the slack in military manufacturing is something that the Government could do.

Mr Davis: There is actually quite a shopping list in terms of the so-called skill taskforce.

Q11 Mr Bone: But that would be encouraging, wouldn’t it, rather than saying, "I want an Act of Parliament to put the directors of BAE in prison" or something similar?

Mr Davis: In terms of the Government aspect, this is rather similar to the debate on broadband that Rory Stewart held. It is about encouraging more of what they have done already. It is not a straight conflict. It is not prisoner votes; this is not that sort of debate. In some respects, it will be about things that the Government do not necessarily want to do, because they involves money, tax breaks and so on, but as I have said, that is half the debate, not the whole debate.

Q12 Jane Ellison: This point is more for information purposes. At least one of the people who have proposed a wider debate about manufacturing was making reference to the same industry sector as you are. I think Gordon Birtwistle was particularly referring to work and jobs in the north-west in the aeronautical and defence-related industries, so there is quite a strong overlap. That may be helpful as background.

Mr Davis: Did they put in a motion? Frankly, we could look at absorbing it if that was helpful to you.

Q13 Jane Ellison: I think that they just wanted a general debate about the challenges for the British manufacturing sector.

Mr Davis: I do not know what other constituencies are like, but if you went round my constituency and, I suspect, Alan’s, and asked people to list their top five issues, there is no doubt that manufacturing would be one of them. The same would be true in a number of other constituencies in the north. In the north of England, it is undoubtedly an issue of some relevance.

Q14 Chair: The reason why we are spending so much time on this is to get to the detail, but we are now clear about what you want. When we go into private session, we will have a discussion about where we go from here. I do not think that this is the final product.

Mr Davis: If it is helpful to make it a broader debate on manufacturing, we are willing to go there, because at the end of the day, this will be one of the big issues in the next year or two.

Q15 Chair: How many hours do you think you will need?

Mr Davis: I suspect that if we make it a broad debate, it will take the whole day. If we make it narrow, it will take a half-day.

Chair: That makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for coming. We will let you know as soon as we can.