On November 24th a debate was held in parliament on the redundancies at BAE SYSTEMS primarily at the Warton and Samlesbury plants in Lancashire and the closure of the Brough site in Yorkshire. The prime mover was David Davis, the MP for the Yorkshire seat containing the Brough site. Also Alan Johnson, the MP for Hull West. The debate was poorly attended with only those from threatened sites turning up. These included North West MP’s: Ben Wallace, Mark Menzies, Jack Straw, Mark Hendrick, Lorraine Fullbrook Graham Jones. With Nigel Evans sitting in as Speaker. The government was represented by Peter Luff, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence Equipment.
The main speaker was David Davis who raised points about the betrayal of a long history successful work at the Brough plant. That the Hawk still has prospects for sales and that much of it is being offered to overseas companies in ‘offset’ deals to gain more sales. Also the point was raised that BAE had made the error of selling off its commercial aircraft interests which had often taken up the slack when defence orders are slow. A plea to slow the rate of redundancies at Brough was raised.
There was also talk about the terms in the ‘yellow book’ which represents the trading agreements between government and industry. This relates to guaranteeing jobs to maintain capability and covers who pays for redundancy costs. It seems the government pays in this case. Some MP’s think BAE is exploiting this.
Others mentioned large overspends that need to be reduced and ensuring the ability to satisfy future projects.
Each MP spoke. It seemed reading the debate that very little was said that hasn’t been said a dozen times. It is perhaps unusual for redundancies at one company to secure so much time for discussion and it left me wondering what was achieved. At the end there was a resolution which might mean more in politics than it does when reading it. This says;
That this House urges BAE Systems to act to preserve the UK’s defence production skills base and, as a recipient of enormous resources over many years from the UK taxpayer, to deploy those resources in such a way as to protect the nation’s manufacturing capability.
Or it seemed; Carry on as planned, if what you make costs more and what you can offer is limited by inflexibility then you reduce the chance to sell it, and so could lose more jobs.
It could be argued that to preserve jobs the government should place contracts that pull work forward or create new research. In the current climate this seems unlikely.
An overview of defence as a whole could read as follows. Over the years the UK aircraft industry has consolidated to a few plants and BAE has changed from an aircraft company to one that delivers systems with a large part in the US. Also the number of projects has declined and it appears that the UK is likely to become an aircraft ‘part’ manufacturer. With UAV’s potentially creating work but it isn’t clear how that will evolve. The alternatives come with large bill. Perhaps a measure of the UK’s decline over the years coupled with increased complexity and the range of military options from tanks to submarines, UCAV’s and very expensive electronics, counter-measures, surveillance and cyber-warfare. Where to focus? Which elements to play a major part in? Off the shelf, licence build, direct purchase? A lot to consider. Let’s hope we can maintain a viable aircraft industry producing whole aircraft rather than a bit player. Today we might not be optimistic. Only the French put national glory and maintenance of capability on an equal pedestal to financials e.g. Renault, Airbus, TGV, Nuclear Power, Ships.
The aircraft industry has been recognised as one that generates large export earnings through products and services over long periods of time. Aircraft also contain a wide range of sophisticated equipment that provides high technology business and employment all over the country and these items are also exported. The business fosters close relationships and partnerships with other countries of all sizes that often leads onto other business, particularly infrastructure, as well as demonstrating a capability to participate in future high technology international ventures. Investment in aircraft projects provides the likes of BAE, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, Marconi with the foundation for their products. There is a lot to lose without care.
Read the full debate on the website ‘they work for you’.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-11-24a.472.1&s=speaker%3A11668#g475.0
