Talbot (Linwood) (Hansard, 11 February 1981)

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the announcement by Talbot United Kingdom of its intention to close the motor car factory at Linwood. I know the problems that face the House, so I shall be brief. I am more than aware that a state of anger is not necessarily the best atmosphere in which to approach the intricate rules of Standing Order No. 9. I plead guilty to being angry.

The earlier statements of the Minister of State, Department of Industry, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are extremely relevant to this matter, particularly the fact that the Minister of State said that he learnt of the steel decision only this morning. Either he knew about it or he did not know about it. If he did not know, what must have happened is that on one day discussions took place with the company at the level of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole world was awaiting the outcome of those discussions. The following day, the Minister of State gave us a courtesy opportunity to report back on the discussions. He said that the board was to meet the parent company, that it would take on board what had been said by the Government, and that a decision would be made.

This morning I received from the company a letter which was posted yesterday, announcing the closure of Talbot. The timing is curious, because the company reached a decision before even reporting back to the board. It is a very curious set of events. Either the company was discussing the matter honestly with the Government or it was not. If the company was prepared to consider, how could it have reached the decision before it reported back to consider it? Or had the company already told the Government that it intended to ignore the representations? What a picture that gives of the British Government when a major company does not even listen to their views. That, surely, is what must have happened.

Three factors are involved in Standing Order No. 9. First, there is the matter of urgency. If my request is granted, it will presumably mean a debate tomorrow. Tomorrow's business is the Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill which, among other things, will allow the Government to assist private education in Scotland and provide money for assisted places in Scottish education. There is not a single person in Scotland today who would not say that Linwood should have priority over that.

The issue is important to the whole of Scotland, not only to my town of Linwood. It is not just one motor car factory. It is the motor car industry in Scotland and it is the new kind of industry which Governments have sought over the past two decades to develop in the areas of heavy industry which are now being run down. It is ominious when a decision is taken as rapidly, brutally and brusquely as this decision has been taken.

I shall not comment on the absence of the Secretary of State for Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The facts speak for themselves.

This town of mine was built for this factory. It was a small village 15 years ago. The village was developed into 880 the town of Linwood precisely to provide homes for workers who were brought there to maintain the factory. It is the death of a town that we are considering.

We must view the situation against a background of 17.5 per cent. make unemployment in Strathclyde and of 14 per cent. male unemployment in the small travel-to-work area of Paisley and Linwood. If we are to lose two-thirds of the factory, and we assume that the two-thirds come from the travel-to-work area, the unemployment figure will be increased at a single stroke from 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is untinkable. We have had other closures in Scotland about which we fought bitterly. I have fought for 16 years on behalf of this factory and I do not intend to stop fighting now, neither do the people of Linwood.

In the declaration of intent which was signed by the company, there was one significant paragraph. It says that the parent company—that is, the PSA— will also ensure that plans to introduce a four-door derivative of the Alpine at Ryton are implemented and that future model programmes take particular account of the need to replace as soon as PSA and Chrysler United Kingdom consider feasible, the Avenger and Sunbeam cars at Linwood with models which offer the clear prospect of using the capacity of this facility to the fullest possible extent. The pledge has been fulfilled to the extent of killing the factory.

We are discussing a major industry. It involved a specific factory of a new kind that we sought to bring to Scotland. It is a factory which was brought there by Government action and has been saved by Government action and Government investment. I now ask that the House makes a decision about it. If the Government will not accept the responsibility for the matter, we shall have to force the responsibility upon them.