| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Grylls : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about any chastisement. I should be the first to leap to the defence of my hon. Friend the Minister. He gave an intelligent and broad-ranging speech. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the entire morning so perhaps he has not yet picked up the flavour of the debate. He should think again about chastising my hon. Friend and I hope that he will not chastise me.
As I said, 1,400 new firms are created each week. There is a vast pool of businesses which should be able to export. In all seriousness I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should encourage our export departments, overseas posts and commercial offices to pay greater attention to those businesses. They should encourage the pool of non-exporters to put their toe in the water and take advantage of the huge opportunities.
One of the greatest myths or popular misconceptions put about is that a firm can export only if it is a global business. It is a silly, facile phrase written in articles and so
Column 1288
on, but no one understands what it means. There may be a need for global businesses in some areas but it is mainly the smaller firms which will get up and go.I participated in a trade delegation to Tokyo about 18 months ago. It included delegates from about 16 small to medium-sized firms. None of them have ever been to Japan before, and many had done virtually no exporting. The firms employed on average 50 or 60 people. When we arrived in Tokyo I asked if I could help in any way. The business men looked at me as though I was crazy because as soon as they arrived they simply got stuck in. To them Tokyo was like any other market. They had done their research. Appointments had been made for them extremely efficiently by the commercial department of the British embassy in Tokyo. Although Tokyo was a strange city different from anywhere else that they had been, they got cracking. By the end of the visit many of them said that they believed that they would do business.
Some months later I invited those business men to the House for a drink to find out how they had done. Without exception they were doing business as a result of the trade delegation. That impresses me because they were not moaning and groaning about trade barriers and problems in Japan--which is a difficult and demanding export market because the country is very rich. They started exporting. Firms in the delegation that I mentioned had their fares subsidised and, to that extent, were given a leg-up. Therefore, we can help, not necessarily by subsidies, but by encouraging people and giving them information. In this age of information technology surely we should be able to persuade even quite small firms to have a VDU so that information on potential contracts could be flashed round the country simultaneously. It would take ages to do that by letter and that would be nonsense today. I hope that we can get information to the hundreds of thousands of British firms which could be exporting if they were given more encouragement.
Also it would be useful to encourage small firms to set up subsidiaries overseas. Sometimes it is assumed that only large firms can afford overseas subsidiaries, and that has generally been the case in the past. However, I can offer an example in France where an organisation was set up a few years ago called APIME--an association of small and medium-sized businesses--to help establish overseas subsidiaries, among other things. When Renault was setting up a plant in Morocco, its management asked APIME to help it get suppliers of nuts and bolts in France to set up subsidiaries in Morocco. The company thought that Moroccan businesses should supply it, so that all the parts did not have to come from France, but Morocco had no indigenous suppliers of motor car parts. A number of smaller firms which supplied Renault in France set up subsidiaries to supply its plant in Morocco, and those companies started to do very well. That is a lesson from which we can learn. We must encourage small and medium-sized firms to set up subsidiaries overseas. Assistance need not necessarily come from the Government. Large British firms which are successful overseas could help, as did Renault.
If a small or medium-sized firm has half a dozen subsidiaries round the world, it will become a stronger firm generally, and will be more able to compete effectively in the international market.
The Minister has given a good account of what the Government have done to encourage firms to sell overseas.
Column 1289
In future, can we concentrate that much more on small and medium-sized firms, which have an increasing part to play in the expansion of Britain's export trade?1.43 pm
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : In the past the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and I have agreed on a few issues, but we have disagreed on many more. However, I agree when he says that in general we welcome investment overseas, but we must bear it in mind that that is not necessarily always beneficial. Investment overseas is beneficial only if profits are repatriated. Investment overseas requires a capital outflow and a loss of exports, which will be produced in the local market abroad rather than being exported from Britain. Unless profits are repatriated there will be a net capital outflow, and a diminution of the balance of payments figures.
During his brief and welcome appearance at the Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) mentioned the Minister's comments. However, he missed the real gem--the Minister's reference to the new business rate. He had, he said, discovered that businesses throughout the country welcomed it, because it had put an end to the drip of blood that they had endured under the old rating system. The Government have come to the rescue : they have slashed all the arteries. The Minister seems to believe that killing off businesses quickly is an act of kindness.
Earlier, the Minister referred to the need for meaningful and accurate statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield would have enjoyed that, too. How, the Minister inquired of one of his colleagues, can policy be meaningful if those who developed that policy do not know the basis on which they are working? That, of course, is quite true ; but, if it is true when applied to an analysis of trade and industry, it must also be true when applied to an analysis of unemployment and poverty. While working to improve the accuracy of statistics in the commercial sector, the Government have indulged in practices that have rendered those other, social statistics virtually meaningless.
The time of the debate is propitious, as yet another set of trade figures has been published today. The Minister seemed to find them encouraging. Certainly they are not as bad as the last lot, but the deficit is still running at more than £15 billion a year : that should not please any Minister.
The key to the balance of payments problem lies in manufacturing. According to the Minister's predecessor--now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office--the trouble was that the Opposition were dewy-eyed about manufacturing, and did not understand the potential of invisibles. Given the factors to which the Minister attributed the poor trade in visibles, he will surely understand why we regard manufacturing as crucial to the country's long-term survival.
Whatever the Minister may say, the evidence of one simple set of figures cannot be ignored. When the Government came to office, the manufacturing trade surplus was £3 billion ; now the deficit is £16 billion. That enormous transformation accounts for most of our present difficulties. But the problem is not just the reversal from surplus to deficit ; it is the fact that it has happened
Column 1290
in the high-technology sector. We have a £1.5 billion deficit in office and data processing equipment, telecommunications and sound equipment and electrical machinery, and a £7 billion deficit in road vehicles.Not only did the Government destroy 20 per cent. of our manufacturing when they came to office ; they completely failed to recognise the need to exploit the high-technology and
high-value-added sectors.
Mr. Redwood : Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that, in volume terms, manufacturing exports increased by more than half over the 1980s? Does not he understand that, in a fast-growing economy with a large amount of demand, good export performance can co-exist with deficits in some sectors? The fact that people are buying even more than we are producing in this country is a sign of the strength of the economy.
Mr. Williams : With respect, when we are exporting anvils and importing Porsches, we are not getting a very good deal. That is why a manufacturing surplus of £3 billion has become a deficit of £16 billion. Does the Minister not understand the figures? They are quite simple and straightforward, and I have specified the sectors in which the deficits are occuring.
Mr. Stevens : Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the electronic and computer sectors, which involve fairly advanced technology, were already in deficit in 1979, although competition has been broadly maintained since then and the deficit has roughly kept pace with the expansion in the industry?
Mr. Williams : Inevitably, some tend to be in deficit and others tend to be in surplus, but if one looks across the spectrum, high- technology industries tend to be in deficit, and I shall explain the reasons for that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the screwdriver industry and that is relevant to my argument. We are into assembly and low- technology industries, but we are not into high-technology industries.
Just a fortnight ago I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what manufacturing investment would have been in Britain over the past decade had we sustained the average rate of growth that occurred in 1974-79--a period that he and his party condemn as a time of failure. The Chancellor's answer, which can be checked in Hansard, was that we would have invested £30 billion more in British industry had we maintained the growth rate of the 1970s. Those figures are almost meaningless, but if we put it another way, that is the equivalent of 50 Sunderland Nissans. That success was cast aside because, as soon as the Government took office, far from recognising the importance of manufacturing, they cut manufacturing investment by 30 per cent. and spent the next 10 years getting back to where they started. I put it to the Chancellor that perhaps it is unfair to expect the Government to maintain the high standards of manufacturing investment that were reached under a Labour Government ; what would have occurred had they managed to match the growth rate of the French in the 1980s? The Chancellor told me that over a period of eight years we would have had £16 billion more in manufacturing investment had we matched the performance of the French. I asked him what would have happened had we matched the performance of the Germans and he replied that again there would have been
Column 1291
£16 billion more in manufacturing investment had we matched the rate of increase in manufacturing investment attained by the Germans. So when we compare the Government's performance with that of the Germans, the French or the previous Labour Government, it is clear that the black hole to which the Minister should be referring is the black hole into which our manufacturing investment has disappeared. It is no coincidence that we have a £1 billion deficit with France and a £10 billion deficit with Germany, in manufactures. It reflects the decade of neglect of manufacturing investment.If we take not the £30 billion difference between the Government's growth rate in manufacturing and that of the previous Labour Government, but the £16 billion figure, we should consider what that could have meant in terms of investment, had we been pumping that money into putting new equipment and the latest technology into our manufacturing industry.
Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : Is not it true that the great problem in the early 1980s was the resistance of the trade unions to change? Any proposed change was met with arguments about demarcation. Only when the power of the trade unions was broken were people prepared to invest in Britain.
Mr. Williams : That is not true either. As I said earlier, people were investing in Britain on a massive scale. In 1979, the year we left office, we had the highest level of manufacturing investment ever achieved in the United Kingdom. It increased by 14 per cent. in the previous year and a similar figure in the year before that. There were many inward investment projects, to which I referred in an intervention. I was fortunate enough to be involved in some of them. Hoffman-la Roche made an investment of about £140 million at the time. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall not give him a longer reply. I aim to sit down and enable him to speak so I shall move on to my next point.
The complete turn-round on the manufacturing account reflects the Government's failure to invest in industry to enable it to compete internationally. Superimposed on that, because of the deficit, we are locked in a financial trap, which works against the interests of industry and makes us keep the hot money here to finance it. Therefore, interest rates and sterling must be high, which makes it more difficult for exporters but easier for importers. That helps to explain the figures for the past two months.
The reality, whether the Government recognise it or not, is that we are back on the edge of a new stop-go and the pre-oil position, Sadly, the only hope that the Minister offered was the possibility that in his long-range telescope he may have found a black hole in the statistics.
1.55 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : The debate has turned largely on exports. Much criticism has been made of export statistics, but for us to understand what is happening in Europe--the global village that we now inhabit--we must have comparative performance statistics. We must tackle Britain's relationship with the rest of Europe, because 60 per cent. of our trade deficit in 1989 was with the European Community. We must carefully consider that important figure. Almost one third of our
Column 1292
trade deficit was with West Germany and one fifth was with Japan. The lesson from that is that we cannot allow the European Community to develop simply on the basis of a system dominated by one country's powerful economy. That is not in the interests of the United Kingdom, it certainly is not in the interests of France, which explains much about French policy on the European Community since 1957 and, in particular, it is not in the interests of the European Community as a whole or West Germany. Given the movements in eastern and central Europe, the problem will grow when West Germany merges with the German Democratic Republic.Last week, I attended a conference in Hungary at which many people were considering the opportunities for investment in eastern Europe. It emerged- -I found this extremely disheartening--that the eastern European countries export only 4 per cent. of their gross national product instead of the 60 per cent. necessary to provide an effective framework for trading relationships.
German trade has a tremendous influence on eastern European countries. Austria makes 30 per cent. of the foreign investment in Hungary, and the bulk of the balance is German investment. The political implications go far beyond statistics and to the heart of the future Europe. If the eastern European countries become economic dependencies of the German and French centre of gravity, and if the management, shareholders and profits of those German companies are attracted back to that centre of gravity by the use of cheap labour and subsidies in eastern Europe, there will be a difficult political problem.
What will happen if there is a hard-core federal system--my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have made it abundantly clear that we will not allow this to happen--within which the single market operates and which is dominated by one or two countries or a cluster of alliances round the economic power base of Germany and/or France? The political power of other countries in eastern and central Europe will be subordinated to the increasing centre of gravity in Germany. The resulting dependency will create division, jealousy and differences of a kind that the European Community is designed to avoid. For that reason, we must ensure that we keep to the central theme of a wider Europe, rather than a hard-core federal system. The economic and political consequences of that are far too dangerous.
The Uruguay GATT round has been going on for some time, but in fits and starts. Now that the European Community cannot be seen as a system that will enable free trade to operate exclusively within its boundaries--there is a global problem as well--it is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure that GATT works. I hope that we can encourage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to ensure that every effort is made to free up trade throughout the world and, in particular, to use the GATT mechanisms to achieve that objective. In the G7 countries, two general criteria have been developed to improve the world economic environment. World savings are the first. Goods of the necessary quality cannot be created without investing in machinery and technology. World savings must be generated and money must be made available for research and development to underpin efforts to improve export performance. We must have monetary and tax policies designed to achieve that.
Column 1293
It is interesting that, for all the criticism from the Opposition about the economy, they forget that we have a substantial trade deficit, partly because--as I said in an intervention--we cannot easily get into other markets. Their regulations, policies, company law structures and organisation of industrial and banking systems are designed to prevent us from operating on the level playing field that is necessary for the single market to work effectively. It is absurd for people to talk about the necessity of having a single market if we do not have a genuine competitive framework within which to operate. That in turn must dovetail with GATT at the international level, so savings are needed for investment underpinning. Monetary and tax policies are needed to free the economy and to allow individual enterprises to operate effectively. It is also necessary to ensure that we do not have improper restrictive regulations in other countries. That is what the single market is all about. The developing countries are also important. I was glad that the Minister referred to the developing countries in this context. I have recently returned from Uganda. The resources of a continent such as Africa are phenomenal. We must make the most use of mutual and reciprocal trade not only in the Community, but in the wider Europe to which I referred, so that we do not create the political difficulties that will occur if we fail to create the wider Europe that is needed, including EFTA. We must also operate globally. In this context we must have regard to other countries, for example in Africa and in South America, which is seldom mentioned.We are living in a single world. It is true that we need to localise democracy and to ensure that it works effectively on the ground. However, we must operate with the kind of vision on trade that Adam Smith and the East India Company considered as a matter of course in the 18th, 17th and 16th centuries when Raleigh, Drake and other well-known figures lived.
The world is our oyster, but we must produce the goods to enable us to sell in it, and we must have the commitment to working together with our European partners to make it a success.
2.7 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for the opportunity to raise this important matter which is fundamental to the future of the British economy. Britain depends on the export of manufactured goods. We have always had either to export or to die. That must be our watchword for the future.
At the risk of being parochial, I will address my remarks to the regional perspective of export trade from the north-west of England. Recently Peat, Marwick, McLintock carried out a survey of 100 chief executives of major companies in the north-west of England. It established a reassuring picture, but one that raises several matters about which there should be concern. The survey showed that the economic prospects for the region were still seen as very good, despite high interest rates and the balance of trade. The feeling that the economic prospects are good is based on a mixture of real success--because we have been highly successful--and somewhat less tangible optimism.
Column 1294
The north-west of England has embraced the opportunity that has been offered by increased inward investment. Many new industries have grown up and they, too, have exported. Over the past three years, we have seen a massive reduction in our unemployment problems. Very few people now talk about the north-south divide because the truth is that many parts of the north-west compare admirably with Godalming and other parts of Surrey and with other more prosperous parts of the south-east.Interestingly, the survey suggests that 90 per cent. of business decision- makers in the region perceive good prospects for their companies. But they say--and this is a cause of anxiety--that key opportunities are seen for increasing sales probably in the United Kingdom market. I take this opportunity to say to businesses in the north-west that they must be much more outgoing in their approach to Europewide and worldwide trade than is suggested in the survey. One worrying revelation is that 40 per cent.--an increase on last year--see the single European market having little or no effect on their businesses. Our competitors in Europe will not just stay at home and service their home markets. They will be looking to penetrate our markets and compete against British industry in the sectors that it dominates at present. British industries must worry not just about securing their market share against their British competitors ; they must be concerned about those overseas who will come in and try to take their markets. Industry must realise that it is essential to consider exports.
The 100 chief executives identified two matters, both of which have been mentioned in the debate, as essential if exports are to improve. The first is the need to enhance customer service and attain total quality standards. The executives regard that as a key issue and it is something that we must develop and encourage industry to achieve. I believe that the failure of British exporters in the past has been attributable to lack of quality control and of adequate after-care services. That has resulted in our losing export trade.
The second factor, which is also vital, embraces the question of languages referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is no longer with us. The training of key staff--whether in production or in the knowledge of the countries where a company wishes to sell a product or have an export drive--is most important and can be achieved if companies tackle their training needs on an in-house basis. British industry is beginning to take that point on board. I was interested to note the other day figures which show that British industry is now spending £18 billion annually on training its staff. That figure excludes the £3 billion that the Government are spending, through the various training programmes, to train the unemployed and make them available for work. If we in the north-west are to be fit to help our export drive, we must bear those matters in mind.
Let me do a bit of special pleading about the things that are vital if the north-west is to develop further. I welcome British Rail's announcement yesterday--we must have improved rail links--that it will spend £350 million on upgrading the north-west lines to London. That means that we shall have faster freight rail links, which we will inevitably need when the tunnel is opened. I shall not bore the House by saying too much about that but, in the long term, the logic of building a fast link from London to the tunnel, to be connected to the various high-speed links
Column 1295
from London to the provinces, is inescapable. I hope that the private sector and British Rail will get together to build that essential infrastructure link.For the north-west, the King's Cross terminal is part of that and will help our export trade. We need fast freight links from the north-west to the channel tunnel, which will be one of our major export outlets to the Community. People in Merseyside and Greater Manchester want to be able to put their freight for their customers in Europe on to trains in marshalling yards in the north-west and have that freight taken on to Amsterdam, Berlin, Paris and Milan--the markets that are necessary to our businesses.
If such a link does not exist for freight, the north-west will be peripheral. I accept that industry and commerce in the north-west must acknowledge the advantages offered by 1992 and the single market. As a consequence of the survey to which I have referred, I hope that much of north-west industry will say to itself, "Perhaps we are being a little too relaxed about 1992. We need to look positively at exports and take advantage of the opportunities in future." I want briefly to consider several matters that have concerned me and companies in the north-west. I declare an interest because I have economic ties with one of the companies to which I will refer. The Soviet Union offers a major opportunity to expand overseas trade. Over the past few years the old communist regimes in the eastern bloc have been broken up. The advent of enterprise economies in those countries has opened a fantastic opportunity for British industry, and British companies have an opportunity to export there. Although the Soviet Union is not one of the world's great economic powers, when we consider its mineral resources, population and geographical size, within the next 30 years it must become one of the world's major industrial powers. Britain has an opportunity to take advantage of that market.
I urge the Government to think carefully about upgrading the Export Credits Guarantee Department facilities for the Soviet Union. A company in Manchester--Doctus plc--has negotiated a £2.6 billion deal with the Soviet Union. Timber will be imported into Europe and sold worldwide and in return the Soviet Union, through a joint venture fund, will buy technological equipment, computers and necessary manufacturing hardward from the west. Those goods can predominantly be British provided that we set up the appropriate arrangements. The present provision of £240 million of ECGD funds is admirable, but it will not be enough in the long term. The Department of Trade and Industry has an opportunity to help British companies, perhaps through the kind of arrangement that was made-- dare I say it?--with Iraq through the ECGD. Under that arrangement a consortium of British banks set up a sum of money which was guaranteed for three months by ECGD. If the national economic bank of the Soviet Union were to be involved in the long term in a similar arrangement, British trade would go to the Soviet Union which might not otherwise have gone there.
I hope that we will see a greater awareness of the need for Britain to export. That is vital, and I commend once more my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject.
Column 1296
2.20 pmMr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on choosing this subject. It was a stroke of genius.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, during the 1980s there was a remarkable transformation in this country. During the 1980s, at long last, this country realised that the world did not owe it a living and that, to make progress, it simply had to roll up its sleeves and get on with the job. That was due to the inspiration of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. When firms were closing down and people were losing their jobs, she said, "No amount of protection sill save you or us from the decision that has to be made. We must sell the right goods at the right price, at the right quality, and at the right time. It is as simple as that." That message is now accepted throughout this country. People did not want to hear it at the time. One of my right hon. Friend's greatest achievements was to get that message over to the people.
Our growth in GDP is the highest of any European country, apart from Spain, which is more or less on a par with us. During the 1980s, total investment in this country was higher than in any other European country. The profitability of our manufacturing and industrial companies has gone up four times. During the latter part of the 1970s, when the Labour Government were in power, profit was a dirty word. Profiteering was a bad thing. People were condemned for making profits. But profits bring investment into the country, encouraging our people to invest here rather than abroad, and produce good things for the people who work in our companies.
Rewards have been spread. The take-home pay of the average man with two children went up by one third during the 1980s--a remarkable achievement. The main complaint in my constituency and in the north of England is that the roads are chock-a-block--they are full of cars. My constituency is on a flight path to Manchester airport. Many of the aeroplanes bring people home from Majorca, Greece, the Canary Islands or further afield, and a very good thing, too.
Ms. Quin : The hon. Gentleman has waxed lyrical about the progress that has been achieved over the past 10 years. Will he explain why there is such a huge trade deficit and the fact that our annual average rate from 1979-80 was lower than in any other EEC country?
Mr. Favell : There is a trade gap. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on many occasions, the reason for the trade gap is simply that demand has outstripped supply. That is admitted by the Government. We are spending more as a nation than we ever dreamed would be available to us. People are a lot better off. The working man has one third more to spend than he did 10 years ago. Unfortunately, our supply side has not grown as fast as the availability of money to buy goods. It is as simple as that. We must look at the trend--it is good news. During the three months to April exports were 11 per cent. higher than they were in the same three months last year--that is, in volume terms--whereas imports were only 3 per cent. higher. During 1989 exports increased by 11.5 per cent.--the highest annual growth for 16 years. When the Opposition were saying that the country was on its knees, we were exporting more and at a faster rate than at any time for 16 years. That is very good news.
Column 1297
Of course, it is taking time to turn the country round. When the Government came to power in 1979, we were a joke. We were the sick man of Europe. Whenever one went abroad, people said, "What has happened to your once great country? What are you going to do about it?" The country did something about it--it elected a Conservative Government. We have had a Conservative Government throughout the 1980s and there has been the most extraordinary transformation. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency of Stockport in the north-west. Simon Engineering has a small head office in my constituency, but it employs 16,000 people worldwide, carrying British technological expertise and engineering into every country, including China, Russia, Africa and America.British Aerospace is another large employer in Stockport. For the very first time a civil airliner--the brand new advanced turbo prop aircraft--is being produced there and is selling all over the world. The Opposition say that we are not technologically advanced, but what about our aerospace industry? We are selling aeroplanes all over the world. British Aerospace is acknowledged as one of the finest aircraft manufacturers anywhere.
About 90 per cent. of the bowler hats throughout the world are made by Christy in Stockport. It is said that we in Stockport can tell when the Japanese Government are about to change because we get an order for top hats.
None of that has come about because of grants or subsidies--there are no grants in Stockport. It has happened simply because people have rolled up their sleeves and worked together as a team. The chamber of commerce has worked with the schools, the college and the work force. We have encouraged new businesses through the Stockport Business Venture. We are a northern industrial town--like Liverpool, we are on the Mersey and we often hear about the problems of Liverpool--but we have 4 per cent. unemployment. The problem now is to find more skilled people for Stockport. It is a wonderful town--and it is wonderful because it listened to the Prime Minister's message in 1979 when she said, "The world does not owe you a living. Roll up your sleeves, get on with the
Column 1298
job and prosperity will come to you." Prosperity has come to us and, if that message is understood, it will spread throughout the country.2.27 pm
Mr. Stevens : With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving his time today to answer my debate. In addition to thanking all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been present, I thank Opposition Members for their attendance, especially the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) who has been present throughout the debate and who made some interesting points.
The hon. Lady referred to Russia and to our export performance there. One article in a newspaper only this week was headed : "Slow payers spoil fun of Kiev fair".
That is a problem in Russia at the moment, which we hope is temporary. However, there was also the good news that John Brown, the engineering division of Trafalgar House, has decided to take on a large project in Russia. There was also news about ICI and Rank Xerox, which showed that although there may be reservations, some major British companies are keen to move into Russia.
Inward investment has made a great difference in the past few years. Last year 304 companies came to this country and I am pleased that 86 of them came to the west midlands. They join companies such as Peugeot, which is located just beyond my constituency, and which has made a considerable difference to the engineering industry in the Coventry area. The success of Jaguar has almost renewed it as a car manufacturing area.
Hon. Members have spoken of our trade balances. For example, we have a bad trade balance with Japan, with a deficit of £1.4 billion last year. However, encouragingly, that was 9 per cent., less than the previous year. Even in that, there is improvement. Every hon. Member who has spoken has stressed the importance of exports for our economy and our people. Success in exports depends on our ability right across the board to train people and develop our economy. It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Column 1299
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Bills
SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question--[11 May]--That the Bill be now read the Third time .
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.
MARRIAGE(REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS) BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered .
Motion made and Question , That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to .
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .
HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERSCLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July .
PLANNING BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Madam Deputy Speaker : Bill not printed. Second Reading what day? No day named.
TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday next .
RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read .
Madam Deputy Speaker : Consideration what day?
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next .
Mr. Hughes : May I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker : In a moment.
Column 1300
ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
| Next Section
| Home Page |