---

Peugeot (Coventry)

I echo the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham)—whom we all congratulate—to you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness in granting us this debate. The presence of a good-sized group of distinguished hon. Friends from the region shows that, although the issue has been around for a long time, it is still of intense and topical interest to us all. We look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister shortly. We are also pleased to see our hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), the Solicitor-General, who—apart from his ministerial responsibilities in the Cabinet—shares our local interest. As a Minister and as a Member of Parliament, he has always taken a particular interest in employment matters in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South dealt with the issue very fully. He described the company’s behaviour as brutal, callous and insensitive, and I have to say that, unfortunately, that is how it is viewed by most employees at the plant—or, at least, those who are still there. It is particularly apposite that the Minister is replying tonight, as she knows from her recent visits to Coventry some of the problems that we face, as well as some of the great opportunities that we are seeking to seize. In other words, we are not being negative about the matter, though there are important points about Peugeot to be made. As a city, an area and a region, we are seeking to forge ahead and it is appropriate to tell the Minister how well she has done in bringing a new impetus to the development of the Ansty site in Coventry. I wish to raise two specific points that arise from my what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South said. First, there is the matter of the £5 million that the company alleges that it has put into the relief of hardship cause after its decision—a decision that came out of the blue and contradicted many previous undertakings. The availability of the £5 million became one of the great hopes of people involved. I am not sure that the Minister can answer this evening—what she says will be transmitted to the company in any event—but people need to know whether it is real money or whether it is amounts just to the 20,000 man-hours claimed today to be at the disposal of employees by way of advice. If the latter, it is a scam and it is silly of the company to pretend in this way. It devalues its undertakings and, frankly, shows the company to be precisely what it is: insincere and unreal. It would have been far better not to have made the remark and not to have given the undertaking in the first place. We seek clarification on that point. It is not too late: the company could still make some contribution of real money, which would be appropriate in many deserving cases that could be identified. My second point relates to the sudden announcement that the closure date is being brought forward from July next year to December this year. The unfortunate incidence of the timing has already been highlighted. It seems to me to reflect once again the insensitivity of the company. Many trade unions and employees have told me that they made plans to stay until July next year on the very clear understanding that they had a firm, legally binding commitment from the company to continue their employment up to that date. I do not know the details, have not seen any paperwork and do not know what undertakings—verbal or otherwise—were given. The unfortunate employees, however, now feel that they have been treated unjustifiably, unfairly and contrary to every undertaking that the company had given. I cannot comment further, but I put those two specific points to the Minister and look forward to her transmitting them. If she cannot answer tonight, I hope that in due course the company will hear and reply. My last point is a more general one for the Minister to consider. In this age of global competition, a company can sometimes buy land or other assets in advantageous circumstances at a knock-down price—Longbridge is a good example in many ways—or it can be given grants or inducements to take on a particular set of circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South mentioned. Well meaning though a company may be, those circumstances represent a concession in kind of a very considerable magnitude. There must be a system of clawback and I believe that there is such a system in respect of regional grants. I do not think that they have ever been employed, but the Government must toughen their whole stance. In an increasingly mobile world, in terms of employment and capital, the Government must be prepared to face up to these companies, tell them what the terms are and insist that they be respected. It must not be a one-way street.