| Home Page |
Column 1715
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Crown Post Offices
1. Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many letters his Department has had, including those forwarded by hon. Members, in favour of transferring Crown post offices to agency status, and how many opposing this change; and if he will make a statement. [16434]
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Since Post Office Counters Ltd. started its Crown post office conversion programme in 1989, my Department has received a wide range of correspondence commenting on the programme, most commonly on proposals for individual offices. However, summary records of the numbers of letters received and the views expressed in them are not maintained.
Mrs. Roche: I am interested to hear the Minister's reply. I hope that he will listen to the more than 3,000 people in my constituency who have written to me protesting about the change in Muswell Hill post office from a Crown post office to an agency one. I hope that he will take into account that people in my constituency do not want their post office, which they very much value, located in a butcher's shop or a greengrocer's, which are currently among the proposals. I hope that he will take that into account and instruct the Post Office accordingly. If the Post Office proceeds with that proposal, in the words of one of my constituents who formerly voted for the Conservatives, it will lose the support of all those who voted Tory at the last election.
Mr. Eggar: I know that the hon. Lady has had a chance to discuss the matter with the Post Office as part of the consultation. It is, of course, a matter for the Post Office. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Post Office is aware of her strong views. I understand that it has been in correspondence with her in addition to the meeting and that it is looking at possible sites for an agency office.
Mr. Fabricant: Are not many of the people who are concerned that some of the best post offices may become non-Crown post offices in fact referring to sub-post offices which are not Crown post offices, and does not some of the best service come from the sub-post offices, which are already in the private sector?
Mr. Eggar: The sub-post offices are extremely efficient and highly regarded by almost all their customers and are an absolutely critical part of the post office network. When surveys have been done after conversions to the private sector, a very high level of customer satisfaction has been revealed.
Privatisation
2. Mr. Barry Field: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what countries have sought his Department's advice on the privatisation of nationalised industries. [16435]
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My Department has had discussions on the
Column 1716
privatisation of nationalised industries with a wide range of countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia the middle east and the far east.Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When he gives advice to those countries, does he point out that the privatised nationalised industries have increased productivity and share ownership on the shop floor as well as throughout our nation and have made a substantial contribution to the Exchequer with millions of pounds of corporation tax as well as to the balance of payments with the export of technology and expertise? With the abolition of clause IV, are not the Opposition yet again following where we have led for many years?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world is interested in the programme that Britain has pioneered in privatising the nationalised industries. The nationalised industries were costing the taxpayer £50 million per week. They are now contributing £50 million a week in positive cash flow to the Exchequer from taxes on their profits. That is a remarkable achievement. It is therefore no surprise that so many countries around the world are looking at those examples and copying exactly what we have done.
Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people from abroad who are making inquiries about the privatised industries in Britain that when he privatised British Coal he sacked 31,000 miners, closed 31 pits and then sold off the English part of the industry to Mr. R. J. Budge, whose financial base is very shaky? Mr. Budge put in a bid of £900 million; then somehow or other the right hon. Gentleman's Department reduced the tender by £100 million. If that was not a fiddle, I do not know what is.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell those people from abroad that in respect of all the other industries that have been privatised, the only beneficiaries have been the water board chiefs and the other utility chairmen who have made a small fortune while thousands of people have been chucked on the scrap heap?
Mr. Heseltine: You might wonder, Madam Speaker, whether repealing clause IV has made any difference.
Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for many countries throughout the world the important thing is cash flow? Does not the sale of nationalised industries, together with the fact that there will be no further outgoings of taxpayers' money--plus the income referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)--show that the cash flow of those countries will greatly benefit from the sale of nationalised bodies to the private sector?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why so many Governments are looking to the process of privatisation to strengthen their economic base. The fact is that industries and companies which 15 years ago were soggy, producer-dominated, trade-union-dominated monopolies are now world-class companies winning for Britain in the four corners of the world.
Dr. John Cunningham: Has the right hon. Gentleman warned those inquirers about how many billions of pounds consumers of water and electricity have been charged as a result of privatisation? Has he warned them, for example, that if North West Water shared its profits
Column 1717
50-50 between consumers and shareholders, it could reduce every consumer's bill by £50 a year? Has he warned them about the rip-offs on share options and salary increases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly drew attention? Has the right hon. Gentleman, as a golden shareholder in the National Grid Company, given any warning to National Grid about its tax avoidance schemes in Dublin and the Channel islands which are ripping off the taxpayer? Consumers and taxpayers are being ripped off by privatisation. How much has the taxpayer lost as a result of offshore tax dodges by National Grid, and does the right hon. Gentleman defend that?Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has shown us exactly the sort of support that British privatised companies would get from a Labour Government. While my ministerial colleagues and I spend our time travelling the world helping to sell British expertise and products produced by the British privatised industries, all that the Opposition can do is find nit- picking complaints in the hope of discrediting one of the most successful changes in industrial ownership in this country's history.
Takeover Bids
3. Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's policy concerning possible takeover bids for the privatised utilities. [16436]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Takeover bids for the privatised utilities arsubject to normal merger control procedures. However, special arrangements apply to mergers between water companies.
Mr. Williams: Now that the Government's golden shares have been lifted, the privatised utilities will become very juicy targets for a plethora of takeover bids. Why is the Government's regulatory framework so hopelessly weak as to allow massive profits and a host of boardroom excesses? What hope is there for effective regulation if a privatised utility is taken over by a large conglomerate?
Mr. Evans: As I have said previously when dealing with questions about the Trafalgar House and Northern Electric issue, the powers of the regulator remain, whether or not there is a takeover. I note that there is some argument in the press to the effect that the whole business of the bid for Northern Electric was a factor which led the regulator to reopen the question of prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government the price of electricity went up by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under the present Government, the price of electricity has fallen. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that our water companies' average price is the lowest in Europe and that their investment is the highest in Europe? Surely what is important is the service to the customer, not who owns the individual company.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. The water companies' record not only in the matters to which he has drawn attention, but in terms of investment, has been spectacular and contrasts markedly with investment when they were in the public sector under the Labour
Column 1718
Government. Some £12 billion has been invested in the water infrastructure. It would be helpful if Labour Members paid due credit to that.Mr. Wigley: What powers will the Government use to prevent a takeover in the event of an offer being made for a company such as Welsh Water? That company has a large retained profits level, which only this week has come under criticism from Ofwat in Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will intervene to ensure that no such takeover took place?
Mr. Evans: I should point out two factors to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has significant investment taken place in the water industry in Wales, but, as the hon. Gentleman in particular should be aware, Welsh Water is slightly distinct from other water companies in that the 15 per cent. share which applies in relation to the special shares of other water companies is retained by Welsh Water and can be changed only by a 75 per cent. vote of shareholders. In the circumstances, that should be of some solace to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister confirm the rumours that are circulating about a change of ownership Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear? Has the Government's policy on that matter changed? If so, will he ensure that, before any sales are made, an announcement is made to the House?
Mr. Evans: I am not sure how that question fits in with the general line of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). As so many stories from so many different directions have been produced so often by Opposition Members, I do not propose to engage in rumour-mongering with Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
Manufacturing Base
4. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to regenerate Britain's manufacturing base. [16437]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The latest figures show manufacturing output up4.3 per cent., productivity up 4.6 per cent. and exports up 14 per cent. on a year earlier. The Government's policies to help manufacturing and other businesses to win are set out in last year's "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" White Paper. We will publish a second White Paper containing further initiatives soon.
Mr. Mackinlay: We have all those "ups", but what are they up on? Is it not a fact that the country's manufacturing has not increased substantially for 20 years? How can the Government claim to take pride in the nation when they have presided over a haemorrhaging of our manufacturing base? Why are their friends--employer and industry representatives and the banks--pointing to the country's great skills shortage? Are not the Government selling the country short in all sectors, especially manufacturing?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman shows all the dangers of coming to the House with a rigidly prepared supplementary question. Three years ago, in the middle of the recession, his comments might have had some validity, but I remind him of my answer--manufacturing
Column 1719
up, exports up on last year, productivity up, investment up. The only thing that is down is unemployment. It is all good news.Mr. Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export-led recovery is becoming apparent even to a few of the more thoughtful Opposition Members? Will not that awareness be assisted by the recent £1 billion export order won by Lucas Industries in my constituency?
Mr. Page: I can but agree with my hon. Friend. The growth that we are seeing in the United Kingdom can only be regarded as miraculous. For the first time, we have stability in world trade and we have arrested a decline which has been going on for decades. The sort of order to which my hon. Friend referred is good news.
Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that, in terms of gross domestic product, our manufacturing base is well below that of France and Germany and is still not recovering at the right speed? Should not there be more co -ordination between the Exchequer and the Department of Employment? Is it not strange that, while the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to do one thing, the Department of Employment is cutting the enterprise allowance scheme and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to believe that 35 per cent. of people in this country work for small and medium-sized firms which need finance and help?
Mr. Page: There is a philosophical divide between our two parties. We do not believe in such centralised plans. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the success of the National Enterprise Board set up by Labour to try to help British industry: it cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. I must also point out that the White Paper entitled "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" is the most positive way to help British industry take forward a wide range of best practice benchmarks and develop its export potential.
Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British silverware industry is rightly renowned throughout the world for the quality of its work and that that quality is synonymous with the British hallmark? May I congratulate him and his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on their robust and successful defence of the British hallmark last week in Brussels against determined attempts by the Germans and Italians to consign it to the dustbin of history?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend's position has always been very clear and I thank him on behalf of the Department for his robust support in producing such a successful result.
Balance of Trade
5. Mr. Grocott: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current deficit in the balance of trade for manufactured goods. [16438]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): In 1994, United Kingdom exports rose to all-time highs, reducing the trade deficit in manufactures by £500 million to £7.5 billion.
Mr. Grocott: I am not sure whether the Minister is proud of that answer, but will he take this opportunity to remind the House of some salutary economic statistics? In the second quarter of 1979, under Labour, there was a
Column 1720
surplus in manufacturing trade of £1 billion, whereas in the fourth quarter of 1994, under the Conservatives, there was a deficit of £2 billion. Are not those figures a reflection of the vandalism perpetrated on our manufacturing base, especially in my region, the west midlands? Will the Minister in a spirit of humility initiate urgent talks with those who were Ministers in the Labour Government to discover how Labour succeeded with manufacturing trade where the Tories have failed?Mr. Needham: May I, in all humility, spell out to the hon. Gentleman the record of his party? I refer not to the second quarter of 1979 but to the fact that between 1974 and 1979 manufacturing output went down by 3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1994, manufacturing output went up by 9.5 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing exports went up by 11 per cent., and between 1979 and 1994 they went up by 80 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, manufacturing productivity went up by 5.5 per cent. whereas between 1979 and 1994 it went up by 73.5 per cent. I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking such a helpful planted question.
Mr. Brooke: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the shift from the third world to the first world in the direction of exports between 1979 and today? Does not that expansion into high-tech exports bode extremely well for the future?
Mr. Needham: In 1979, it appeared that British industry was in long- term, irreversible decline, helped by the Labour party. Since 1985, the share of Britain's trade has stabilised and is now, if anything, going up. That is an enormous credit to our private sector, which has been set free by the Conservative Government and is now competing throughout the length and breadth of the world at the most competitive edges of technology.
Mr. Hardy: After 15 years of failure, we need not merely a temporary miracle, but a sustained one. Is there any prospect of that being maintained by a Government who, in the case of the steel industry, have deliberately allowed unfair competition to go unchallenged and have created a situation in which unfair competitors in Europe will take much more advantage of their protection when the going gets a bit more difficult, as it is bound to do if this Government stay in office much longer?
Mr. Needham: We need no lectures from the Opposition about looking after our industries in Europe. We need no lectures from a party which knows little about industry and would succumb to the first blow that it received from Europe. The hon. Gentleman referred to British Steel. In 1979, nationalised industries cost the taxpayer £50 million per week. Those now privatised industries currently contribute £50 million per week to the Exchequer. That is a miracle which even the Opposition could not reverse.
European Navigation Satellite System
6. Mrs. Gillan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about ensuring United Kingdom industrial involvement in any future European global navigation satellite system; and if he will make a statement. [16439]
Column 1721
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): My noble Friend Viscount Goschen, Minister for Aviation and Shipping, and I have agreed a common approach to the European global navigation satellite system programme. Our Departments are together contributing some £5.2 million which, added to contributions from UK industry, will provide an effective basis for UK involvement in the programme.
Mrs. Gillan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome announcement of that £5.2 million funding, which will support our UK industry in the new area of navigation by satellite? I do not want to sound ungrateful when the new funding has just been announced and I know that the plans from the European Space Agency have only just been forthcoming, but could my hon. Friend give me and the UK industry an assurance that there will be funding in the medium term to build on this excellent up-front funding?
Mr. Taylor: It is always a pleasure to be chivvied by my hon. Friend, especially in space-- [Hon. Members:-- "Which space?"] We seem to be getting into holiday mood, for which I blame myself. The importance of the global navigation system and the ARTES 9 programme is that they are likely to lead in the long term to controlling the movements of all civil aircraft, the movement of ships and, ultimately, the monitoring of road transport. It is therefore essential that British industry should play a full part. We have put up money which British industry is more than matching. I am in negotiations with the European Space Agency to ensure that we can accept the whole of the amount that British industry is putting up. It is difficult for me at the moment to forecast future public expenditure survey rounds, but my noble Friend Viscount Goschen and I are looking closely to see what more we might do in this programme.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that with this navigation system and all other areas of space involvement, if we do not actively involve ourselves European-wide, give the encouragement that is necessary to the industry and assist in restructuring the industry so that it can face the challenges from the United States, we shall be pushed out of this area altogether? Does the Minister raise these issues when he is talking about trade with people from the United States who are constantly telling us about their record on free trade when indirect subsidies from the American Government are being poured into their space and aerospace industries, to our detriment?
Mr. Taylor: I am well aware of the pricing policy which can occur in some American companies and I have alerted my European colleagues to it. We are busily restructuring the industry. One of our largest companies in the space sector, Matra Marconi Space, is now a 50-50 joint venture with the French. There is a new arrangement between Matra Marconi Space and Alcatel for a new series of the Eutel satellite programmes. We are well placed to win competitive bids. My big problem at the moment is to persuade the European Space Agency to let contracts competitively rather than on the basis of Buggin's turn or juste retour. I will raise that point at the ESA ministerial conference later this year.
Column 1722
Cable Communications
7. Mr. Butler: To ask the President of the Boardof Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Cable Communications Association to discuss projects in schools, hospitals or other community-based institutions. [16440]
Mr. Ian Taylor: I often meet and correspond with the Cable Communications Association. I have also had positive discussions with individual cable companies about connections to community-based institutions within their franchises.
Mr. Butler: Is my hon. Friend aware that ever since the first modern computer, the Colossus, was constructed at Bletchley Park, which is now part of Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes has led the way in information technology of all sorts? Is he also aware that the excellent schools and colleges and both universities make great use of the present facilities? Can my hon. Friend confirm that schools--not just those in Milton Keynes, but those elsewhere so that they can catch up with us--will be able to connect into the cable systems and take full advantage of them so that our children are well equipped for the future?
Mr. Taylor: I had the great pleasure of being in my hon. Friend's constituency in Milton Keynes not long ago during Science, Engineering and Technology Week. I pay tribute to all that is being done within that hive of activity, particularly in high technology. The Cable Communications Association has undertaken to ensure that all schools in the areas for which it has franchises will be connected. It is going much further by developing a series of classrooms without walls programmes to ensure that multimedia techniques are available for children in this country. British Telecom is also doing an enormous amount for schools with its campus series. We are making rapid progress. Last week, the Department and industry announced the schools on-line project.
Shipbuilding Industry
8. Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about future prospects for the shipbuilding industry. [16441]
Mr. Eggar: I welcome the steps that the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry has been taking to improve its competitiveness in the face of very challenging market conditions.
Mr. Hutton: Is not the arrival into the United Kingdom this week of the new P and O cruise liner Oriana yet another example of the decline of Britain's historic shipbuilding industry? Is the Minister aware that that will be felt particularly strongly in my constituency, where the previous Oriana vessel was constructed in the late 1950s? Why have the British Government not shown the same level of patriotism and support for our shipbuilding industry as other foreign Governments in the European Union have shown for theirs? Is that not a further example of the decline in the British industrial base caused by the Government's negligence?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman seems unaware that P and O asked all three British yards to bid for the building of the vessel and all three declined to do so for their own
Column 1723
commercial reasons. A significant number of firms supplied equipment for the Oriana and much of the outfitting work was done by United Kingdom firms.Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister endorse the efforts being made by Harland and Wolff to diversify its product range and to develop further its international competitive position by seeking to establish co-operative agreements with overseas yards such as Kawasaki and Daewoo? Does he agree that that is one of the ways in which all British yards can help to secure their future?
Mr. Eggar: As I believe the hon. Gentleman is aware, I paid a visit to Harland and Wolff and I shall shortly meet again its chief executive, Mr. Per Nielson. The yard is making strenuous efforts to diversify. I have set up a group among the oil companies to look at the possibility of producing floating production vessels at the Harland and Wolff yard and other yards in the United Kingdom. The initial results of that study are encouraging. Ultimately, Harland and Wolff must be able to compete effectively with other yards, both in Europe and elsewhere.
Export Promotion
9. Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export promoters have been seconded to his Department from the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [16442]
Mr. Needham: Last July, the Department achieved its aim of recruiting 100 export promoters--high-calibre senior managers with export expertise, on secondment from the private sector, who have become a major success in helping Britain to win business overseas.
Mr. Spring: I salute the Department of Trade and Industry's initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent marriage between the public and private sectors is contributing greatly to the staggering success of British exports, notably to Latin America, the Indian sub-continent and the Pacific Rim, with all the job creation opportunities which flow from that to Britain?
Mr. Needham: In agreeing with my hon. Friend, and without wanting to be invidious with regard to naming names, because all the export promoters have done a remarkable job, may I say that one promoter, Linda Boize, is working on an order for Thailand worth £360 million. The Thai Government have told us that that project could not be carried out anywhere but in Britain. It is being carried out as a result of the work of Linda Boize and her colleagues.
Mr. Harvey: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that there have been no exports or arrangements for the sale of electro- shock equipment involving any British companies since 1984?
Mr. Needham: The answer is no. That has nothing whatsoever to do with export promoters. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how export promoters can help companies in his constituency, he might like to ask questions about the subject in hand.
Mr. Enright: Despite the admitted success of the people we have sent out, will the Minister explain why, in the 12 years after 1979, this country lagged behind all the G7 countries and all the European Union countries,
Column 1724
apart from Denmark, our beloved Greece and even Spain, with regard to the rise in exports? That was the case despite North sea oil and the gift that it provided.Mr. Needham: I have bandied statistics with the hon. Gentleman and I was grateful for his recent work in Austria. However, we are lagging behind no one. Since 1981, our exports have increased faster than those in Germany, Japan and the United States. That is not a bad record. As I told the hon. Gentleman--he clearly did not hear this last time--our share of world trade has stabilised since the mid-1980s and, if anything, it is increasing. Under the Labour Government and previous Governments, it had suffered 100 years of inexorable decline. The change has come because of the policies followed by this Government.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the very considerable increase in our exports to Latin America which coincided with the appointment of the new export promoters, notably covering Colombia and Brazil? Can we hope for a further increase in the number of those excellent people, combining private sector skills with those of the outstanding diplomats in our embassies and commercial missions over there to increase British exports yet further?
Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend has a great knowledge of that part of the world and he has helped us as a result of that knowledge. He is perfectly right to say that we have eight export promoters for Latin America who are working as a team and doing an enormous amount through the links to Latin America campaign, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will make use of in their constituencies, to show the opportunities that exist in Latin America for British business. I am convinced that the export promoter initiative will be a crucial ingredient in restoring the level of trade which this country used to enjoy in Latin America and which, since the 1920s, unfortunately has been declining, although it now seems to be on the way up again.
Manufacturing Investment
10. Mr. Berry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change between 1979 and 1993 in the proportion of gross domestic product invested in manufacturing industry in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) Japan. [16444]
Mr. Needham: The latest figures show that the United Kingdom invested 2.2 per cent. of gross domestic product in manufacturing industry in 1992 and 3.1 per cent. in 1979. Comparable figures, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, for Japan and Germany are not available, not least because Germany did not exist in 1979.
Mr. Berry: Does the Minister consider that the decline in the share of GDP invested in manufacturing industry over that period might explain why, under this Conservative Government, Britain has had the worst growth record and the highest levels of unemployment since the war? Does the Minister consider that it might also explain why Britain has had the worst economic performance of any of our major industrial competitors? Does he not also consider that it suggests that quoting statistics on economic performance over the past 12 months might be seriously misleading?
Column 1725
Mr. Needham: It is always a privilege to have another lecture from a lecturer among Opposition Members, who, as usual, know nothing about industry. As the hon. Gentleman asked about Germany, I can respond only about western Germany. Since 1979, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom has risen nearly two and a half times as much as in western Germany. Since 1979, our exports have risen faster than in Germany.It is nonsense to claim that this country's economy is not competing effectively with the rest of the world. When the hon. Gentleman is not lecturing, why does he think that we have managed to attract 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe while Germany has managed to attract only 17 per cent? Why does he think that the same applies to investment from the United States, in respect of which Germany has attracted investment of only 9 per cent? The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Gentleman should be proud of the fact that, in Bristol, he represents a city which, under this Government, is increasing its share of world trade faster and faster.
Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that often it is not so much the quantity as the quality of manufacturing investment that is important? Is it not also important to remember that manufacturing investment statistics do not include items such as research and development in pharmaceuticals? Do not British pharmaceutical companies, whether owned by overseas companies or by United Kingdom companies, lead those of Japan and Germany?
Mr. Needham: Of course my hon. Friend is right, and he is also right to stress the importance of the quality of manufacturing investment. In the last days of the Labour Government, when billions of pounds were used to subsidise nationalised industries, much of that money appeared in the figures as if it were manufacturing investment, although it did nothing for exports, for productivity or for competitiveness. Most of what it was subsidising had to be closed down, because it had been invested in the wrong products.
Mr. Bell: Everyone, both in the House and in the country, knows that last year when the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), now Secretary of State for National Heritage, talked about high dividends and low investment, he was promptly denounced by Lord Hanson, who contributed £120,000 to the Conservative party and then sent a letter to the Prime Minister denouncing the right hon. Gentleman. When it comes to high dividends and low investment, we know full well where the heart of the Tory party is. [Hon. Members:-- "Question?"] The question is: in heaven's name, who runs the Department of Trade and Industry when it comes to investment? Is it the President of the Board of Trade or is it Lord Hanson?
Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman talks about investment regardless of the quality of that investment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred--
Mr. Bell: I asked about Lord Hanson.
Mr. Needham: I am talking not about Lord Hanson but about the question, which concerned investment. The hon. Gentleman, who is more sensible than most
Column 1726
Opposition Members about such matters, will know that if manufacturing productivity has increased two and a half times faster in the United Kingdom than in Germany, that has to reflect the quality and importance of British investment over that period. [Hon. Members:-- "Answer the question."] That is the answer.Mr. Sykes: As everybody who works in the private sector relies on the competitiveness of his company not only in Europe but elsewhere abroad, will my hon. Friend tell Opposition Members and the rest of the world what effect the social chapter and the minimum wage would have on manufacturing investment in this country?
Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about that subject and has been involved in business all his life, so he knows perfectly well that the social chapter would impose a massive additional burden on industry, because it would reduce support through arrangements such as family credit. The consequences for British competitiveness and profitability would be dire indeed. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows that perfectly well, but he does not know what to do about it.
Post Office
11. Ms Hoey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Post Office to discuss its future. [16445]
Mr. Heseltine: I most recently met the chairman and chief executive of the Post Office on 2 March.
Ms Hoey: As the Secretary of State has met the representatives of the Post Office, and does so regularly, when will he give the House and the country some idea of his vision for its future? Is he not aware that the Post Office desperately wants to be given commercial freedom within the public sector? There is almost united support for that idea in the country, and there would be support in the House, too, if legislation were introduced. Why will the right hon. Gentleman not make the simple decision to give the Post Office the opportunity to operate commercially within the public sector?
Mr. Heseltine: Because it is not possible to have commercial disciplines in the public sector.
Mr. Jenkin: May I inform my right hon. Friend that when I ironically congratulated the leader of one of the Post Office unions in my constituency on the success of the anti-privatisation campaign, he confessed to me that he rather regretted having won that victory? Can we cease to tie our hands behind our backs in expounding the virtues of a privatised Royal Mail, and may we have an assurance that when we win the general election, at the top of our agenda will be a plan to set the Royal Mail free so that it can expand its markets throughout the world?
| Next Section
| Home Page |