House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Feb 1992

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Anyone listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) today would think that everything was fine with British industry in the balmy days of the 1970s and that everything has gone wrong since. Let us inject a little fact.

In the past four years, exports of manufactured goods rose by a quarter. The aerospace industry throughout the world has experienced problems, but in the 1980s and early 1990s ours substantially increased its share of world markets and recently overtook France to become the second largest in the world. Our pharmaceutical companies--the high-tech industry that we want--are the leading exporters in the world. In the 1980s, our manufacturing output and productivity rose faster than any other major European economy.

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) : Absolutely untrue.

Mr. Oppenheim : That is true. I shall happily give way if the hon. Gentleman has figures.

Mr. Hood : Will the hon. Member tell the House how many manufacturing jobs we lost during the period to which he is referring?

Mr. Oppenheim : The hon. Gentleman questioned whether manufacturing output and productivity had risen faster in Britain than in any other European country. The answer is that they rose faster in the 1980s than in any other major country. Manufacturing jobs in Britain have been lost in every decade since the war ; 500,000

Column 537

manufacturing jobs were lost and unemployment doubled under the previous Labour Government. [Laughter.] Before Labour Members get too carried away with their own self-righteousness, they should remember the record of their party when it was in office. Let me give Labour Members some facts. In the 1970s, British Steel made a loss of £15 billion. Every year, we had a £1 billion deficit in steel products, and British Steel was the largest loss maker in the world. In the past few years, we have had a £1 billion surplus a year in steel products, and British Steel is the most efficient steel industry.

In the 1970s, all the multinational car makers were falling over themselves to move capacity from Britain to Europe. Ford and General Motors were moving component and engine plants from Britain and were importing many cars. General Motors, Ford and all the multinationals are now investing billions of pounds in new component and engine capacity and, for the first time in 20 years, are exporting significant numbers of cars. In addition, Japanese companies are making huge investment in this country.

Mr. Jimmy Wray (Glasgow, Provan) : Has not the hon. Gentleman got his figures wrong? Does he agree that it took the Government until 1988 to reach the manufacturing levels of 1979? What should I tell the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland when 2.5 million people are on the dole ; when 180,000 people are homeless, 34,000 of them in Scotland ; and when 10 million people are living in poverty, one in four of whom are children? How will we get out of the mess that the Government have got us into?

Mr. Oppenheim : The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Manufacturing output in Britain rose by 25 per cent. in the 1980s, but it fell under Labour. Those are not my figures or Government figures but are from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. If the hon. Gentleman denies them, he should have a word with the OECD.

People who have lived in Amber Valley for a long time tell me that, in the 1960s and 1970s, when unemployment was higher under Labour, the area was broadly dependent on coal and old industries. The area now has a diverse high-tech manufacturing economy. Of course there are problems in the area and it is suffering from the recession, but there are more better-quality high-tech manufacturing jobs on a more diverse industrial base than in the 1960s and 1970s.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had the cheek to mention miners who had been made redundant. Let me tell Labour Members what happened to redundant miners in my area when Labour was in power. More miners were made redundant in the 1960s and the 1970s under Labour than were ever made redundant under this Government, and they were given only a pittance in redundancy pay. At least, when men are made redundant from the mines now, it is done with dignity and they get a good amount of money, which never happened when Labour was in power. Labour disgracefully neglected miners who were made redundant. No amount of sanctimony, cant or moral indignation will let people in my area forget that important fact.

During 45 minutes of bile which passed for a speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr.

Column 538

Brown), there was not a single mention of the policies that any future Labour Government would pursue. The electorate is entitled to ask, where's the beef?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the success of the Japanese economy. Let me tell Opposition Members that the Japanese economy has hardly succeeded through socialist policies. There has been little nationalisation. What little there was in the state sector has now been privatised. Japan has had low Government spending, low taxes and minimal taxes on savings. In Japan, unlike Britain, there have been few of the anti-business and anti-profit attitudes which have been fostered by Opposition Members. Above all, the Japanese have had a rigorous and vocationally oriented education system.

Some Labour Members think that Government subsidies, through the Ministry for International Trade and Industry, have helped Japanese industry to success. That type of interventionist myth is popular among Opposition Members. They might be interested to know that Japanese industry has been subsidised less over the last 30 years than any other major industrial economy. Most of Japan's successful industries, like cars, robotics, electronics, photocopiers and information technology, have received virtually no help from MITI and the Japanese Government. Indeed, they generally spurn such help. Conversely, the least successful Japanese industries tend to be those which have had the most interference from Government.

There are two reasons why the Japanese economy has done so well over the past 30 years. First and above all, the Japanese have had a sound, rigorous, vocationally oriented education system. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. It is very distracting to have a second debate going on below the gangway.

Mr. Oppenheim : Many Opposition Members have wandered in from too good a dinner. It might do them good to listen to what is being said rather than to behave like drunken, post-dinner idiots.

The other main reason for Japan's success economically is that since the war, like Germany, it has consistently followed a sound monetary policy which has involved reasonable state spending, no budget deficits and the encouragement of savings. That is an important point at a time when the Opposition are proposing a policy of raising taxes on savers. It shows how little the Opposition have learnt over the past few years.

High levels of savings reduce consumption and bear down on inflation and interest rates. Above all, they provide a good pool of capital for industry to invest. If a country does not have high levels of savings, it will not have high levels of investment. It is wrong for the Opposition to think that they can boost investment at the same time as taxing savers to the hilt. Again, that shows how little they have learned since the dark days of 1970, when a Labour Government last imposed an investment income surcharge on savers. Yes, we have problems. To a large extent those problems were caused by interest rates being kept too low in the 1980s which led to too much laxity in monetary policy. Opposition Members should remember that at that time they were urging even lower interest rates on the Government. Many other countries made the same mistake, with the result that they had similar problems of

Column 539

excess inflation and excess monetary growth which they now have to wring out of their economies. It is worth reminding Opposition Members, who deny that other countries have economic problems, that the United States, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all had deep recessions ; many of those were formerly successful economies.

Entry into the ERM may have exacerbated the problem, but I believe that it has been a necessary discipline. It will lead to a fundamental shift away from over-consumption to a more productive savings and investment orientated economy.

In the 1980s, Britain underwent significant improvements in industrial productivity and efficiency due to policies which were opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. Our biggest remaining disadvantage is the poor quality of much of our education system. Education is crucial to a successful advanced economy. There may have been a time when countries could get away with low calibre work forces and a highly educated elite, but nowadays manufacturing industry needs flexible, decentralised and sophisticated work forces, which is why the changes that we are introducing in the education system are crucial to our future as an industrial and manufacturing nation.

Our policies are dealing with the weaknesses in our education system. Labour's control of many of the worst local education authorities shows that it has contributed to the problem and learnt nothing, because it is opposing all of our much-needed education reforms. Labour's pledges to increase spending show once again how little it has learnt. Increased public spending means crowding out the private sector and reduced private sector investment. Taxing savings means a reduction in the investment which could create manufacturing jobs. Those policies show how little it has learnt. Labour is not part of the cure. In fact, it is and always has been part of our industrial problems.

9.15 pm

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) : Like my city's position in the Government's priorities, I always seem to be at the fag end of debates. Nevertheless, I should be less than honest if I said that I was participating in this debate because of the Secretary of State's robust defence of his stewardship of his office.

The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) fell asleep and half the people in the Gallery walked out because they found the right hon. Gentleman's defence less than riveting. His speech was characterised by a series of obfuscations and evasions and by downright ignorance. He seemed to have a peculiar unwillingness to grasp the responsibilities of his office. We heard an absurd argument about additionality being somehow metaphysical. I can say only that his understanding of philosophical terminology is even less than his understanding of his office. In fact, his argument was tautological and he should go back to his philosophy textbook and find out what it means.

We have been painted as the party of doom and gloom. The Secretary of State struck me as a Tory Hamlet without the charm. To find doom and gloom I have to go no further than the TSB's United Kingdom economic outlook for January this year. Its first paragraph states :

Column 540

"December's economic data paint a gloomy picture particularly for the Government which had heralded a recovery in the second half of the year."

It goes on to state the bald fact that

"in the three months to November, output fell by 0.5 per cent., and was 1.5 per cent. lower than a year earlier."

The Secretary of State made great play of innovation and research and development. I was tempted to intervene and ask him what he thought about, for example, GPT. That company invested a lot of money from its Plessey days in research and development. It developed the system X form of telecommunications, but it is now closing huge sectors of that operation and jobs are being lost. More importantly for the telecommunications industry in this country, huge reservoirs of expertise are being broken up and thrown away. Once again, we shall lose a world lead in a particular branch of R and D. That company showed innovation, but where was the support from the Government ? I know that the Government met union representatives at the company, but only last week more redundancies were announced. Where does it end ? Where is the support for such firms ? My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I visited the factory of Precision Hydraulics, a company in my constituency. We heard the old shibboleth about the trade union movement and the damage it has done to industry. My hon. Friend and I visited a factory in a city which is much derided by the Government. That factory had 100 per cent. union membership, and there were good relations between management and unions. It was a high- tech factory, exporting hydraulic pumps to Japan, West Germany and America. It was a leader, and its staff worked sensibly together. The overwhelming impression with which I came away was that those people would do a damn sight better if we had a Government who would give them some support.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) tells us that he wants to deal in facts. I shall tell him some facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East described the Government's abdication from regional policies. I shall give examples drawn from the north-west, involving two major companies. In 1980, 62 per cent. of the work force of ICI was based in the United Kingdom. In 1991, that proportion was down to 38.5 per cent. That is a fact--jobs have been exported.

The proportion in Pilkington has gone down even more

dramatically--from 65 per cent. in 1980 to 27.6 per cent. last year. That is a fact. Pilkington's jobs and expertise have been exported. We have heard all the facts about unemployment. We know that 306, 900 people are unemployed in the north-west, even according to the fiddled figures. We know that the north-west has lost 322,000 jobs. Even taking into account the increase in self-employment, we have lost 181,000 jobs. That is a fact.

The North-West Business Leaders Forum consists of 30 major companies which have come together. It is a fact that those companies are keen on a regional development agency. They certainly identify more closely with our plans for the future Labour Government than they do with those of the present Government.

I am conscious of the time limit, so I shall finish with one more important fact--the distribution of the unemployed in the north-west. At the general election we shall be watching the Bury seats, the Bolton seats, and

Column 541

Hyndburn, Pendle and Wallasey seats. The results that Labour achieves in those areas will show in electoral terms people's recognition of the damage that the Government have done to the infrastructure and the economy of the north-west. The electorate will be in no doubt. I shall make one safe prediction : when we have a Labour Government, the largest number of Labour Members of Parliament will represent not Scotland but the north-west.

9.22 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that no one will be happier about the fulfilment of his prediction than Scottish Labour Members.

There has been a certain predictability about the line of argument in the debate. There is no doubt that Conservative Members know what they are supposed to say. They take the line from those who are their seniors--if not their betters. We have heard a remarkable number of excuses and explanations.

The Secretary of State, whose remarks were echoed by many of his hon. Friends, told us that all the problems that we mentioned were the problems of other countries in the world and of the recessions that they had manufactured. One Conservative Member even told us that what was happening in Britain was all America's fault.

I was fascinated by the most prevalent line of argument--that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was acting improperly in some way, because he spoke about the situation as he saw it. We were led to believe that there was a patriotic duty not to tell the truth about the Government. I am used to the theory that one should not be disloyal when abroad, but it is new to me that even in the House of Commons we must watch what we say, in case we frighten the workers. That is an extraordinary proposition. In the months ahead, when Conservative Members populate the Opposition Benches, I shall greatly look forward to watching them practise the restraint that they now preach. I shall be surprised if I am impressed by their performance in that respect.

The Secretary of State said that the Labour party was intellectually paralysed and near brain-dead. Some of my hon. Friends suggested to me that that was a state about which the right hon. Gentleman could talk with some authority. But, to be fair to him--[ Hon. Members :-- "Why?"] I shall be fair to him, because few other people manage to do so. There were moments when realism broke through. His remarks about the state of the Japanese economy were interesting. He clearly found the metaphysical distinction between slow growth and recession rather hard to pin down. For a minute, I thought that his words on that amounted to a disagreement with the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State also told us that it was always very difficult to know when we were coming out of recession and that it sometimes takes months to be sure what is happening. That was some sort of explanation for why he and most of his Front-Bench colleagues have been consistently wrong in their economic projections over the past 18 months. If I am not mistaken, it amounted to as near an apology as we shall get from the right hon. Gentleman.

In a few minutes, we shall hear a closing speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. I find that a rather surprising appearance in the

Column 542

debate. I would have expected someone from the Scottish Office to speak. I might even have expected someone from the Scottish Office to put in an appearance at some time in the debate, even if only for two or three minutes. The Scottish Office has a big team, yet there has been not one sign or trace of the Scottish Office. The

Under-Secretary's possession of a membership card for the No Turning Back group is not a substitute, although he may have been told by one of his hon. Friends that that is a welcome characteristic at the Scottish Office. However, it is not a substitute for a Scottish Office Minister. I realise that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is ill, but surely one of his colleagues could have had the courage to turn up.

I can deduce, as many others can, only that the Scottish Office is running away from the problem. Are we really to accept that the Scottish Office no longer has any interest in industry? Are we really to believe that the recession does not hit Scotland hard? If Scottish Office Ministers think that, they should think again.

I will talk about Scotland, and I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will represent the Scottish Office case as fairly as he can. I do not envy him the task. In his new year's message, the Secretary of State for Scotland--I do not expect that the Under-Secretary has read the document, and I do not recommend that he does--put a remarkable gloss on the situation. I thought that it was a message marked only by total unreality. I will give the House a brief quote. The Secretary of State said :

"The evidence is mounting that Scotland is on the road to economic recovery. Business confidence is rising across most of Scotland. Growth in the Scottish economy should become apparent soon"-- a note of caution there --

"and our economy should grow steadily through 1992 and beyond." The Secretary of State talked generally not quite in terms of an economic miracle, but at least of the Scottish Office equivalent thereof.

The kindest explanation is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has reached the point at which he finds it impossible to face reality. He does not want to know--a feeling that often comes with the conviction that nothing can be done. Our essential case is that something can and should be done.

On 29 January 1992, the Secretary of State for Scotland answered a planted question from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). I notice that the hon. Gentleman, having made a speech in which he overran his time, has now departed the House. He is the kind of gentleman who gives a public school education a bad name in Scotland. His planted question gave the Secretary of State a chance to set out his industrial policy--and a sad fist he made of it. However, he made one straightforward claim for which I am grateful. He referred to his policies--[ Hon. Members :-- "The hon. Gentleman is here."] I do not apologise to the hon. Member for Amber Valley. He has been in and out of the Chamber like a ghost and I think that he has no more substance than that legendary figure has.

The Secretary of State made a proud claim. He said :

"The success of my policies and the work of my Department can be shown through the progress Scotland has seen over the past 10 years."--[ Official Report 30 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 1191.]

Column 543

That is the test that he wants us to apply-- the progress that Scotland has made over the past 10 years. I will spend a couple of minutes looking at the 10 years that have passed and at the progress that has been made.

Taking the Government's first 10 years, employment in manufacturing industry declined in Glasgow by 52 per cent., in Motherwell by 45 per cent. and in Dundee by 43 per cent. Scotland lost more than one third of its manufacturing base--the equivalent of more than 200,000 jobs. In the past two years the situation has deteriorated even further, so I do not believe that there is any evidence of the recovery of which the new year's message spoke.

Ministers show endless ingenuity when it comes to discussing unemployment-- it is one of their favourite Rorke's Drift defensive positions. Unemployment has risen harshly from a similar comparison base of 140,000, when the Government came to power, to almost 230, 000. However Ministers reply by saying, "Ah, there may be more people unemployed, but there are also more in work."

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has done a great deal of work on this issue. If one compares the situation in September 1979 with that of September 1991, one sees that the number in work has come down sharply by 150,000--or by more than 7 per cent. That is the number in employment. However, the total work force is down by 26,000. That does not take into account the sharp increase in the number of women part-time employees. It does not challenge the fact that the Government are now counting those in Government training schemes as being in employment-- they were not included in 1979. Nor does it take account of the fact that the Government count those with a second part-time job as two employees. If one makes allowances for that, it is clear not only that unemployment has risen but that the numbers in work have dropped greatly.

During those 10 years, Scotland's share of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product has fallen from 8.8 per cent. to 8.3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1990, Scotland's share of GNP in manufacturing fell from 8.5 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. Scotland's GNP per head in 1991, expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom figure, stood at 92.6 per cent. That is the lowest it has been since records were first kept on a comparable basis in 1971.

The Secretary of State has the darned cheek to put out new year messages and to tell us at the Dispatch Box that he is the possessor of a fine record and a success story. The index of production and construction currently shows that production is falling more quickly in Scotland than it is in the United Kingdom as a whole. The economic blizzard is blowing in a way that totally obliterates the claim, which was made with some plausibility at the beginning of the recession, that Scotland is suffering a little less drastically than other parts of the country.

The casualty list lengthens. Dun and Bradstreet records that there were 7,950 business failures in Scotland in 1991--an increase of more than 76 per cent. and well above the United Kingdom figure. The list of job losses is endless. I am able to give only a small selection from the past couple of weeks' which includes companies such as Armitage Shanks, Clydesdale bank, Rosyth, Gates Rubber in

Column 544

Dumfries, Hughes Electronics in Glenrothes and Ravenscraig itself. However one looks at it, that is not a list that gives confidence for the immediate future. The range, variety, and scale of those losses is daunting.

The Secretary of State has been deserted even by his own traditional allies. There has been much talk today about the advantage of looking at the economic scene as a man of business. A number of people have put on a touching act of "where there's muck, there's brass" and to show that they know how many beans make five. I should say that it was rather unlikely character acting in some cases.

It is worth noting what those in business and industry are saying, because a different picture begins to emerge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East pointed out. Let us take the Scottish CBI survey-- [Interrupion.] I hear someone snorting in a way that the CBI would not find particularly attractive.

Mr. Whitney : I was snorting because the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend--the denigrator from Dunfermline--has misquoted the CBI time and time again. As I said earlier, the CBI has pointed out that, since 1980, this country's industry has grown much more strongly than that of Germany or France. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has totally disregarded any quotations from the CBI about that. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, 12 minutes ago, that something must be done, and, 12 minutes on, I would like to know what must be done.

Mr. Dewar : If the hon. Gentleman manages to produce a few more phrases such as "the denigrator from Dunfermline" he may get a job with Saatchi and Saatchi, but unfortunately that company will not be able to take him on, as it is not hiring because of the recession. In any event, at a time when German production has grown by more than 20 per cent., the British figure is only 6 per cent. If that is a sign of strength, the hon. Gentleman has a strange sense of proportion. The CBI in Scotland said in its January report :

"General business confidence and export optimism have deteriorated markedly over the last four months. Profit margins have been squeezed, investment intentions in plant and machinery have worsened since October."

The Scottish chambers of commerce business survey said that demand is

"stagnant or continues to contract across all major sectors." So even in the business sector--or perhaps particularly and understandably in business and industry--there is total disbelief about claims that are being made by a Government who are rapidly being stripped of all credibility. I find it very irritating indeed--wounding, indeed, to my constituents--when I look at the problems and prospects that they face, when I consider the deprivation that is growing in our communities and when I listen to the complacency that is peddled daily by Ministers.

The Conservatives are not the only people making a claim, so a comment about the nationalists--[H on. Members :-- "Where are they?"] I should perhaps apologise. I had hoped to be making these comments in the presence of the nationalists because, after all, the debate deals with a recession that is striking hard in Scotland. Unfortunately, they have not put in an appearance during the debate, so I must speak in their absence.

Column 545

I make it clear at the outset that I accept that Scotland is capable of sustaining independence. Some of the poorest areas in the world are independent states and some of the richest, such as California, choose to be part of a wider political and economic union. The question is not can we but whether it would be wise to take that road.

The dishonesty that must be challenged is the assertion that Scotland needs only a political operation to break the ties with the rest of Britain and every problem will be solved. The myth that a separate Scotland would, by some mysterious chemistry, become a land of milk and honey is a case that makes no sense, based on arithmetic that does not add up.

The nationalists would have us believe that oil revenues would meet every emergency and plug every fiscal gap. Oil is an asset in relative decline and is inevitably time-limited. This year, the Treasury estimates a yield to the Government of between £1.2 billion and £1.4 billion. It may increase for a short period, but the take will always be affected by international prices and the concessions necessary to encourage the development of marginal fields. It cannot be right to advocate a major constitutional upheaval on the optimistic assumptions that the nationalists have made about the yield from the North sea. It is calculated that about £4 billion would have to be found per year to maintain present levels of public expenditure in a separate Scotland. On present projections, that would still leave a huge funding gap. What would be the answer--lower public expenditure or increased taxation?

The most important question I wish to address is whether separatism would encourage or even allow the growth of a modern, competitive manufacturing economy. The SNP advocates a fully-fledged Scottish currency, Perhaps that will raise a cheer at the SNP conference, but it would have serious consequences for Scotland's manufacturing industry.

The nationalists ignore the dramatic impact of reducing the home market from 50 million to 5 million at a stroke. If the nationalists really believe that there would be a differential interest rate between Scotland and England, what would there be to stop capital moving south? Investors based in what was Britain may well come to Scotland, but for cheap loans, while the differential, and nothing else, would survive.

Scottish industry must sell to live. It cannot survive on its domestic market. Do the nationalists seriously suggest that every time a Scottish company sold goods south of the border--and there would be an international border if the nationalists had their way--the deal would have to take account of a fluctuating exchange rate and a foreign currency transaction?

Professor David Bell of Stirling university argued that case forcefully in an article in The Scotsman earlier this week. In doing so, he underlined the futility of the whole exercise. Why pay such a heavy penalty in terms of dislocation and disruption? What price Scottish influence in major monetary decisions once Eurofed is in place? Only the first division players in the Community will have the leverage to influence central bank policy if EMU is introduced. Professor Bell stresses the inescapable problems that would come with a separate currency. He argues that

"the disadvantages of introducing a Scots pound are

obvious--dislocation of the financial Community, an obstruction of normal trade flows."

Column 546

He concedes that it will be a potential political advantage if the experience allowed the Government to determine effectively the best rate at which the Scottish pound could join the monetary union. His conclusion, however, is uncompromising. He says that the short-term introduction of a separate currency would be "an extraordinarily difficult exercise". Scottish industry, too, would regard it as an extraordinarily damaging process.

Labour's case for a Scottish Parliament is firmly based on democracy and good government. It is a scheme tailormade for Scotland--

Mr. Whitney : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition chose as the title for the debate

"Government policies and the recession in British industries". How is the debate between the Labour party and the Scottish National party about devolution relevant to that subject?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is making his case. I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. Dewar : The plans proposed in certain quarters of Scotland would have a damaging effect on industry. I should have thought that that was of interest to all hon. Members.

There is a strong industrial case for the powers of a Scottish Parliament, as outlined by the Labour party. As European integration proceeds and competition policy develops, the emphasis is bound to be on the supply side. Governments, whether in an independent Scotland or the United Kingdom, will concentrate, as a Labour Government will, on research and development, encouragement and investment, and training and skills. A great deal will depend, especially in Scotland, on the development of essential infrastructure. Scotland will want to invest in the energy and capacity of the people, which will be the task of the new Parliament, shaking off the dreary record of the last decade, which has left current investment in manufacturing below 1979 levels in real terms.

What is happening in Scotland--the depressing, hurtful statistics to which I referred earlier--is typical of what is happening in many parts of Britain. I listened to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). They mentioned the problems of firms such as Pilkingtons which link their constituencies with mine. We all recognise that their problems are pressing. We must attack the problems of training and skills and get away from the insults referred to at the beginning of the debate. Employment action, so hyped by the Government, has created only 263 jobs in Scotland. We must raise that investment from below its 1979 level, where it has been disastrously stuck for so long, and do something about infrastructure links if we are not to end up at the wrong end of Britain and the outside edge of Europe.

There has been much talk about experience. Conservative Members said that it was the key to the Government's success, but they have translated experience into prejudice and into doing nothing. They deny all responsibility and blame everyone else. The experience of the electorate will make them decide that it is time for a change.

Column 547

9.43 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh) : That was an interesting speech on devolution. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) seems to protest too much. Perhaps he is worried about being crushed between the anvil of Scottish nationalism and the hammer of Tory Scottish unionism--as he will be at the general election.

As for the hon. Gentleman's criticism that a Scottish Minister is not replying to the debate, he knows that that is a low blow, because the Scottish Minister responsible for industry is ill and the Secretary of State for Scotland is in Scotland. I could ask the hon. Gentleman the following question : as there are two English Ministers, why have the Opposition not managed to field an English spokesman, when there are two Scottish spokesmen? There are seven industrial virgins as spokesmen--not one Englishman.

Mr. Dewar : The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Secretary of State for Scotland is my opposite number, and he has had knowledge of this debate for well over a week. I think that he should have been here--and I think that Scotland will agree.

Mr. Leigh : The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has an appointment in Scotland that he cannot break.

We have heard another dreary list of statistics from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)--as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, as boringly predictable as Pavlova's dog-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. The debate has been orderly so far, and I ask the House to give the Minister a reasonable chance.

Mr. Leigh : As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) showed from his own experience--which the Opposition do not have--the CBI "Industrial Trends" in his district shows that confidence is increasing.

Claims have been made about inadequate investment--particularly by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There are bound to be fluctuations in investment over the economic cycle. Investment responds primarily to expectations of future demand, not tax incentives. What has depressed investment of late is a cylical downturn in demand and activity. It would be totally

counter-productive to attempt to offest that effect by creating artificial stimulae-- [Interruption.]

Next Section

Home Page