| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1137
My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) rightly asked where the money was coming from to pay for the policies that some Opposition Members espouse. Where is the beef in that policy? We heard again from the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), that there is no extra money. She was unable to tell us of a single extra penny over and above the current Department of Trade and Industry budget. We know that the shadow Cabinet will not allow any extra money for industry. The basis of Labour party policy is nonsense. It cannot deliver, and it knows that its policy would not work.The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) ran down British design and research. Why did he not tell us of the successes of the pharmaceutical industry? Why did he not tell us that motor industry manufacturers are coming to this country to recruit engineers and designers to plan and make their new models? The car industry is flourishing despite the problems with domestic demand because it is exporting, exporting and exporting again. It is now making models in this country that people want to buy on the world market. They are produced at the right price in the right quantity. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the industry spokesman for the Liberal party, seemed totally unaware of that party's policy on motor cars. It wants to tax them and tax them again to drive them off the road. Some support that would provide to the industry.
Mr. Leadbitter rose --
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) rose --
Mr. Redwood : I shall take one intervention.
Mr. Leadbitter : Does the Minister consider that a51 per cent. increase in unemployment during the years of the Conservative Administration is a successful hallmark of industrial policy?
Mr. Redwood : Every Labour Administration has raised unemployment. Since 1979, under the policies of the Conservative Government, hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created and many new companies have been established. The hon. Gentleman knows that, but he cannot bear the truth. In many constituencies held by the Opposition, unemployment is lower today than it was at the previous election. They know that, and we know that, and they should be pleased about the way in which industry has developed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) rightly pointed out that many aspects of Labour policy could be a violation of the treaty of Rome. The Labour party, in its new European clothes, should take that matter far more seriously than it seems to be doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) enriched our debate with his account of the history of Trafford Park under a Labour Administration. He reminded us just how difficult it was in those days for industries to grow and develop because they did not get a fair deal from Government. They get justice and fairness from the Conservative Government in decisions that are made which affect the lives of those industries. I can reassure my hon. Friend about training. There is a
Column 1138
guarantee of a training place for all 16 and 17-year-olds not in employment or education. We are rightly proud of that pledge, and we intend to honour it.The Opposition should also note that the Department of Employment's expenditure on training, enterprise and vocational training is two and a half times more in real terms than the amount that the Labour Government spent in their last full year of office. There is the policy on training, there is the commitment and there is the money to pay for it. The money is there because we have presided over a successful economy in the past decade, and we have generated the wealth and the tax revenues to provide that money.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell : Will the Minister tell the House where on earth is the economic miracle of the Tory party?
Mr. Redwood : If the hon. Gentleman waits a little, he will hear about the successes we have had in rebuilding the country's economy and developing it in a way in which his party was unable to do.
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : In my constituency there are 1,000 more jobs than there were in 1979. Unemployment was 14 per cent., but it is now 5 per cent. That is the economic miracle.
Mr. Redwood : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention, which speaks for itself.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) about the importance of entrepreneurs, deregulation and a competitive market. That is the proper industrial strategy that gives entrepreneurs the ability to compete and do well. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise of the technical and vocational education initiative, TVEI, which has been a successful programme. My hon. Friend is also right to stress the need for interchange between business and the civil service. We have already established the Bridge programme. We have been recruiting experts from the private sector into the Department's insurance division because we believe that such interchange is most useful and that there are things to learn both ways.
I was sorry to hear of the job losses in Crewe, Paisley North, Wolverhampton and Blyth Valley and of the pain that the downturn in demand has caused-- [Interruption.] Of course I am, as are all of my hon. Friends, and it is humbug to suggest otherwise. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) put it in context and made it clear that the interventionist policies recommended by Opposition Members would make the position worse rather than better. The policy of trying to back winners would back losers and waste money. The policy of intervening in British industry would mean industry performing less well than it does when left to its own decision-making powers.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) won the prize for the worst joke of the debate with his bad joke about the Governor of the Bank of England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley said, Labour Members are always running down industry. He rightly pointed out that we have many fine companies, and he enlivened the debate with some good examples and positive information to show how industry is doing well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) spelled out the great dangers of Labour levels of inflation
Column 1139
Mr. Morgan rose--Mr. Redwood : I have been given little time in which to reply to a long debate. I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so.
I will make sure that the Treasury is aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about taxation. He is right about inflation. It must be curbed for the benefit of industry and commerce.
I did not recognise the one-sided picture of Tyneside described by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). He made insufficient mention of the massive new foreign investment that has come into the area. He neglected to talk about the recovery in spending and activity seen on Tyneside in recent years and welcomed by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) made an important case about interest rates and banks. I will ensure that the Chancellor's attention is drawn to it before the conduct of his review on the important matter of interest to British industry. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is right to take an interest in the switch from military to civil work. She should also take an interest in her party's defence policies, which would mean a massive reduction in demand for defence supplies, far worse than anything envisaged in the review of "Options for Change" that we have carried out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was right in what he said about Labour and Europe. The Opposition are certainly split on Europe. He was also right about the true origins of prosperity and the need for structural change.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, at the end of an extraordinary bad speech, made six very modest policy recommendations as an afterthought. The six points would, he said, transform British industry. He said that Labour would modernise regional grants, but he did not say that they had any new money with which to modernise them. We are still waiting to hear what a modern regional grant looks like compared with our targeted sensible regional grants, about which we heard earlier in a statement on Barrow and Furness.
The hon. Gentleman said that the important point was that the Opposition would tell British Steel what to do. In other words, they would replace the successes generated by the management and employees over the past 10 years with the disasters of the 1970s and interventionist policies. [Interruption.] These recommendations were given by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, and I am responding to the pathetic list of things that he said would represent Labour's policy.
He said that Labour would try to block a takeover bid that has not yet been mounted. He said that we should legislate on cartels. We have been getting on with the work of busting them. We busted eight cartels last year, and we shall bust any others where the evidence becomes available.
The hon. Gentleman said that Labour would set up regional development agencies. That would be another adventure in quangoland for the Labour party, and most of the money would go on the quangos and not on the people who should benefit from it. He also promised to boost research and development expenditure, at industry's cost, without saying how he would encourage it and without offering a penny of Labour's public money that it
Column 1140
does not have. At the same time, industry's profitability would be demolished by all of Labour's other policies of high inflation, high taxation and hostility to profits.Every statement coming from the Labour Front Bench these days exudes hatred of profitability. The Opposition still do not understand that profitability is necessary for investment and that, if we want to invest in water, telephones and new utility systems, we need profits to do so.
Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South) : The motion refers to small firms. I declare an interest as the chairman of a small firm. I would like to take back an answer from the Minister to the young men out of whose efforts, I guarantee, I get nothing. We are not paid by big firms. They are using us as a bank. What does the Department of Trade and Industry intend to do about that?
Mr. Redwood : I am well aware of the problem of late payment and will deal with it later, if time permits.
The most heartening aspect of today's debate is that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East should have chosen to discuss the recession. Whenever he has highlighted an issue in the past and said that no solution was in sight under this Government, there have been improvements in the following year. On 24 October 1989, the hon. Gentleman told us that the trade deficit was worsening. He accused the then Chancellor of denying that there was a problem and said that he had no solution to it. In September 1989, the deficit was £1,994 million. Just one year later it had fallen to £88 million. Where is the apology for that howler?
On 22 November 1989, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East told the House that no problem that Britain and British industry faced was greater than the trade deficit. He again implied that the Government had no answer. A year later, in November 1990, the deficit was £1,349 million lower than when he spoke. Again, the hon. Gentleman did not even say sorry.
On 6 March 1990, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East criticised me for saying in a speech that his timing on the trade deficit was all wrong. I had said that it would fall, and he had said that it would not. He became quite dogmatic when challenged on the issue. In March 1990, when I made my speech, the trade deficit was more than £2,000 million. It fell to about £750 million just one year later. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that now? Why should we believe any of his other predictions when he has such a bad forecasting record?
On 22 March 1990, the deceptive misuse of statistics and forecasts by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East took a decisive turn for the worse. That was just possible, despite the previous record. He said that we had a deficit in invisibles, but in 1990 we recorded a surplus of more than £4,000 million in invisibles-- [Hon. Members :-- "And now?"] We are still recording a surplus. The hon. Gentleman said that in aviation, shipping, services and consultancies we were running a trade deficit, yet last year all the services yielded a huge suplus of more than £5,000 million. The hon. Gentleman has made blunder after blunder.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is obviously hoping for an opportunity in a leadership election, because the defects of the current Leader of the Opposition are becoming all too clear. That was evident in his most recent
Column 1141
statement on European monetary union. I wonder whether, when Opposition Members are given time in another debate, they will be able to explain what the Leader of the Opposition meant by his extraordinary 228 words on the subject of monetary union. No newspaper or independent commentator could understand it, and leading experts gave it marks of 0 out of 10 or 3 out of 10. They all marked it as a failure, and so do we.I understand why the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is keen to move on from trade and industry and why he thinks he may soon have a chance, with a possible challenge to the leadership. The Leader of the Opposition is said to have purged his party of Militant and to have put behind him the spectre of division. He will certainly need to do so if the Labour party is ever to be credible to British business. However, that claim appears absurd today because, in Wirral, the hard left faction suffered a reversal through the electorate. In Liverpool's council, a large Militant faction opposes a Labour faction, and in Liverpool, Walton, the new unity of the Labour party is displayed by the fact that two socialist candidates are on offer in the next by-election there.
The Leader of the Opposition is also said to have united his party on Europe. He has united it behind a seventh change in policy. In 1983, he said that he wanted the country out of the Common Market, but he now poses as a good European. In 1988, he said that Britain's membership of the Common Market had brought few of the benefits anticipated by its advocates. But he now sings vague love songs about a more European policy to benefit the British economy. Are Opposition Members happy with the policy that their leadership is putting forward on that subject? I am sure that they are not. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not happy about transferring more economic powers to Europe.
I wish that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were in his place. I am sure that he does not want to lobby European Commissioners instead of raising issues on the Floor of the House. Nor do the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and many trade unionists wish to see social policy and trade union matters taken out of their hands, if the Labour party were ever in a position to do that. No wonder that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East senses that his time might be coming.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :--
The House divided : Ayes 183, Noes 277.
Division No. 174] [10.00 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bermingham, Gerald
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Column 1142
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Cartwright, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clelland, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eastham, Ken
Edwards, Huw
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Fearn, Ronald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Flynn, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hain, Peter
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Haynes, Frank
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ingram, Adam
Janner, Greville
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Lambie, David
Lamond, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Leighton, Ron
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Litherland, Robert
Livingstone, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John
Macdonald, Calum A.
McFall, John
McKelvey, William
McLeish, Henry
McMaster, Gordon
McNamara, Kevin
McWilliam, John
Madden, Max
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Martlew, Eric
Meacher, Michael
Meale, Alan
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Morgan, Rhodri
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mowlam, Marjorie
Mullin, Chris
| Next Section
| Home Page |