UK Automotive Industry
Debate between Richard Burden and Alan MealeWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), whom I have known for many years—I remember well that first debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate. He started off his remarks by talking about “Top Gear”, and I think I may be the only Member in this debate who has actually been on the programme. I appeared on a feature looking for the fastest political party, and the good news, at least for the Opposition, is that I soundly beat the Conservative candidate, but the rather bad news is that I was beaten by the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, so I do not necessarily talk about that too much.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. As a result of Members kindly keeping their contributions short, we have the opportunity to allow a little more time to subsequent speakers. The hon. Gentleman can now speak for reasonably longer than he was planning.
Richard Burden
Thank you, Sir Alan; it is much appreciated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, ask anyone in the automotive industry what they want from Government and two words will come up time and time again: continuity and predictability. It is not always exciting for politicians, because we all love to blame everything that goes wrong on the other side and to corner the market in everything that goes right for our side, but the automotive sector does not work that way. The reality is that all major political parties underestimated the importance of manufacturing for too long, but that has now turned around.
The automotive industry has been a trailblazer, with great partnerships within the industry, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) discussed, but also with the Government and with Parliament. The industry forum that thrived under the previous Government was a building block of that success, as was the creation of the Automotive Council, which creates road maps for future issues facing the industry, such as skills and the low-carbon agenda. Other hon. Members have referred to the figures that highlight the automotive industry’s success story. Despite your offer that I can speak for longer, Sir Alan, I will not repeat them, but suffice it to say that some of the figures are startling.
I want to discuss something that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire mentioned, namely the role of the motorsport and performance engineering industries in the automotive sector. Eight of the 11 Formula 1 teams are based in the UK. Lewis Hamilton won the Malaysian grand prix on Sunday, which was very good, and the results state that he was driving a Mercedes, which he was, but that Mercedes was built in Brackley. The factory in Brackley has been Honda, Brawn and Mercedes, but it has always been British. Motorsport companies are involved in so much more than what many people usually think of as motorsport, such as the fantastic work being done in a range of areas at the McLaren Technology Centre by McLaren Applied Technologies. How many people know that the skeleton sled on which Lizzy Yarnold did so well at the winter Olympics was designed by McLaren here in the UK? Williams Advanced Engineering’s centre is also doing much great work, and companies such as Prodrive and Cosworth are also involved in state-of-the-art work.
The UK, however, is the home of motorsport not only in Formula 1, but in so many other ways. The national and grassroots series are among the building blocks that make our motorsport and performance engineering industries as world-class as they are. The premier national racing series is the British Touring Car championship, the opening round of which was on Sunday. The main sponsor of the series is Dunlop Motorsport. Why therefore is Dunlop Motorsport, as part of that cluster, turning its back on the home of motorsport? When the Minister responds, will he update the House? I know that approaches have been made on the matter from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and I have worked hard on the issue, and it needs to be said to Dunlop that it has still not answered satisfactorily the questions that have been put to it, and that the reasons it has given for doing what it seems intent on doing have not been convincing. It will be bad for motorsport, for the cluster and for Dunlop if it goes ahead with what it is doing.
I mentioned the British Touring Car championship. Two of the races on Sunday were won by Hondas built in the UK. The road car, the Civic, is also built in the UK. Despite the success of the automotive industry, we sometimes find things that are not great, and it is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that just in the past week Honda has had to cut back on some shift working at Swindon, which is something to be mourned by all of us. If we ask the people at Honda why that is, they say that it is about the market for their cars, and crucially the European market. Europe is still the largest export market for UK vehicles.
In my constituency, Shanghai Automotive still produces MGs and has its European technical centre there as a base, a foothold and a bridge into Europe. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire was right that the automotive industry needs reassurance, but it needs reassurance that we will not play fast and loose with our membership of the European Union. That is important not only to the motor companies exporting into Europe. Jaguar Land Rover, for example, has fantastic export achievements in other parts of the world, but ask it and those who want to export to the United States about the European Union and they will also say that continued membership is vital to them, apart from anything else because of the free trade agreements and other ongoing negotiations. I accept that the Conservative party might have one or two problems, looking at its flank with the UK Independence party, but frankly the interests of Britain are more important. Continued membership of the EU and reducing the uncertainty about our membership are very important.
On the supply chain, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire was right that one way in which we can and should do more is by ensuring that its component sections—the original equipment manufacturers—in the UK are firmed up and developed. About two years ago, KPMG produced an important report for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders which showed that about £3 billion-worth of opportunities are being missed in the supply chain. That is why it is important for us to do more.
Some good things are going on: the Automotive Investment Organisation, headed by Joe Greenwell, formerly of Ford of Britain, has been set up to attract vital foreign investment, which is good news; the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative has been established, which is good news; and the advanced propulsion centre is being established, which is important to ensure that there are opportunities for small and medium—and not so small and not so medium—companies in the development of ultra-low-emission vehicles and so on.
We need a sustainable framework, however, which is why the hon. Member for South Staffordshire was right to stress the importance of predictability and speed of action by things such as the regional growth fund. I believe that it was a mistake to get rid of the regional development agencies. We may disagree about that, but they at least provided a framework for making decisions and ensuring that those decisions were carried through. All too often, things are too hand-to-mouth at the moment. I hope that the Minister will address that issue, because the automotive industry is very much the jewel in our industrial crown.
Many other sectors in the UK and beyond are asking, “How did you do it in automotive?” They want to copy things such as the Automotive Council or the partnership. That is good news, but we must not rest on our laurels. There is a huge skills agenda to be developed and so much more yet to be done with the supply chain to ensure that we achieve our potential.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will say a few words about Dunlop, because that is still not a done deal and we still need to apply pressure. I hope that he will join me in applauding the work of the Automotive Council. I also hope that he will say a little more about the advanced propulsion centre; about how the UK will accelerate on the ultra-low-emission vehicle agenda, because we are lagging behind other countries in the take-up of such vehicles; and about what we can do to better address the concerns expressed by the industry about skills and the supply chain.