With politics so tumultuous in recent times, it seems extraordinary to me that it was actually only two years ago that I was making my maiden speech as a brand new Member of Parliament. I concluded my very first words in the Commons by saying: “I am a one nation Conservative, and for me that means not going back to the dark and divisive days of high unemployment”. I meant what I said and am profoundly concerned at the news that one of Sudbury’s largest employers, Delphi, is consulting on a possible plant closure with the potential loss of 500 jobs.
The growth of insecure, ‘zero hours’ working can often be overstated. 75% of the 3 million jobs created since 2010 – over 1,000 per day – have been full time. Nevertheless, we have to be honest and accept that such a large number of highly skilled positions, with decent pay and conditions, will be hard to replace. There is no point beating around the bush: this is a potential body blow to our local economy. Above all, it could have a very real and difficult impact on the livelihoods of families in South Suffolk.
What is the risk that the plant will actually close? It’s not for me to speculate and the precise position confirmed to me by way of a conference call earlier this week, with Delphi’s UK and EU Heads of Operations, is that “no final decision on the future of the plant has been made”. It is also true that the current order book is buoyant, and that the excellent workforce in Sudbury has done everything asked of them to modernise and become more competitive.
Nevertheless, the concern is that the structural reason for the consultation may not be about to change any time soon. Delphi’s business is diesel and diesel faces an uncertain future, as it becomes less popular both with consumers but also public authorities across the key European market, seeking to reduce emissions. The move towards hybrid power in light vehicles is only going to gather momentum. Whilst I believe the Sudbury plant is focused on producing for the heavy goods vehicle market that is not likely to suffer as much, with a 25% forecast fall in demand for diesel product overall in the coming years it is not hard to see why the parent company is considering ways to rationalise.
We would all prefer if the part of the company’s ‘footprint’ to take the hit was elsewhere. Aside from the understandable anger of hard-working, long-serving employees, we would all no doubt feel instinctively uncomfortable about the prospect of production potentially being shifted elsewhere in the UK, or even abroad. But we do not live in a country that bans businesses from taking commercial decisions, and generally we are more prosperous because of that.
The question therefore is, whilst we hope for the best, if the outcome of the consultation later this summer is closure, what are we going to do? First, for staff who do not relocate or take early retirement, we need to give every possible assistance to find new opportunities. Second, we need to understand the local supply chain and how that will be affected. Most importantly, we must make clear that Sudbury remains an attractive town in which to invest. For example, in my view this strengthens the case for a bypass which would be of such assistance to Sudbury’s remaining – and strong - industrial base, which needs better transport access. It also underlines the need to press on with the economic regeneration of Sudbury, ideally supported by the whole town.
Published by Suffolk Free Press