---

Defence Jobs

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. 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.