| Home Page |
Column 929
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Unsafe Products
1. Mr. McAllion: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has had from the organisations representing consumers about improving recall procedures for unsafe products. [32115]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I have received no recent representations on this matter, but the Government have in place powers which allow enforcement authorities to remove unsafe consumer products from the market. Those powers are complemented by powers to require public warning notices if necessary.
Obligations to comply with consumer safety legislation, as well as the adverse impact of product liability claims, also provide business with clear incentives to act quickly when issues of safety may arise, including undertaking recalls when appropriate.
Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that as many as 3,700 Citroen ZXs are being driven with potentially lethal footbrakes due to a manufacturing fault? Will he speak to Vauxhall about the 330,000 cars on the road with wrongly fitted airbag sensors, or to Renault about the 1,000 Espaces which can burst into flames at any moment? Consumer groups are telling us that the recall procedures are shambolic and ineffective. What is the Minister going to do about that? Is it not time that he put the interests of consumers before, not after, the interests of the big companies that dominate our car industry?
Mr. Evans: For goods in the business supply chain, there are already in place quite stern measures of enforcement of the sort the hon. Gentleman desires. The point that he is making goes beyond the business supply chain to when the goods are in the hands of consumers. As I indicated in my main answer, when any difficulty arises in relation to product safety, there is a very clear incentive for manufacturers to deal with such matters by means of proper recall procedures.
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Department has been involved with the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances and the Consumers Association in creating very clear guidance to cover the sort of points to which he referred.
Privatised Utilities (Directors' Pay)
2. Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department intends to compile information on directors' pay and share options in the privatised utilities, with particular reference to the regional electricity companies. [32117]
10. Mr. Pike: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the need for measures relating to excessive pay and share option increases by the executives of privatised utilities. [32126]
Column 930
11. Ms Eagle: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to compile information on directors' pay and share options in the privatised utilities. [32127]
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Remuneration in the private sector is a matter for the companies concerned and for their shareholders.
Mr. Jones: Will the Minister explain why the Government chose not to use their golden share to prevent the directors of the regional electricity companies paying themselves huge salaries and topping them up with gross share options, to the disgust of consumers and the general public alike?
Mr. Eggar: Under the terms of the golden share, it could not be used for that purpose. That was very clear when the companies were floated. The hon. Gentleman ought to do more research. He appears not to be aware that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who led for the Opposition on the Electricity Bill, never once, throughout the entire passage of that Bill, raised on the Floor of the House or in Committee the issue of share options. The hon. Gentleman ought to be asking his right hon. Friend the question.
Mr. Pike: If the Greenbury committee does not ultimately yield proposals which act in the best interests of consumers and the public, and stop the excesses, what will the Government do to protect the interests of the public and consumers?
Mr. Eggar: In terms of the monopoly utilities, which will, of course, shortly be exposed to the competitive market, consumers do not suffer from excessive payments to directors because, under the way in which the regulation works, any increase in pay comes off the return to shareholders. It is not added to the costs to consumers. The hon. Gentleman should understand that.
Ms Eagle: Is not the Minister being terribly complacent when he says that that huge issue of public concern is not a matter for the Government? Has not the Prime Minister himself said that he finds the increases distasteful? Is not the real problem the fact that the Government do not want to do anything about them, yet the public out there are disgusted by the huge, excessive increases that executives are paying themselves and want action? When will the Government take action?
Mr. Eggar: Nobody condones excessive pay increases or remuneration packages, but the hon. Lady fails to recognise the considerable contribution that the privatised utilities have made to reducing bills. For example, if the announcement that Professor Littlechild made last week is implemented, it will result in a £9 reduction in the average electricity bill for the average consumer. Moreover, there has been a 40 per cent. real decrease in industrial gas prices as a result of the introduction of competition. That is good for consumers, both domestic and industrial.
Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concerns expressed by the Opposition about executive pay must be set against the real benefits that privatisation has brought to consumers? Is he aware that the customers of Seeboard have already benefited from a 20 per cent. reduction in the standing charge, and will benefit from a further 25 per cent. reduction later this year? Does that
Column 931
not show that privatisation has worked to the benefit of consumers, who would not have benefited if we had listened to the siren voices of the Opposition?Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. If the industries had still been nationalised, we should be seeing rising rather than falling prices, massive overmanning and inefficiency. My hon. Friend might be aware that, as a result of the recent announcements on electricity prices, the average electricity consumer may spend about £75 less on his electricity bill in the coming year than he did last year. That represents a considerable benefit to the individual consumer.
Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister have a personal view about the actions of Richard Giordano at the British Gas annual general meeting, where he exercised the block vote to defend the pay and perks of his fellow executive directors? Does not that sort of behaviour make nonsense of Government claims that it is up to shareholders to restrain excesses? What changes, if any, in company law does the Minister think could be introduced to make a reality of shareholder democracy?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Opposition do not seem to recognise that such issues are the responsibility of the private sector directors and the chairmen and boards of the companies. What Mr. Giordano has said is a matter for him. Of course the Government will take account of any recommendations by the Greenbury committee when we receive them, and if appropriate we shall not hesitate to legislate.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at private sector annual general meetings, it is not only the final vote but the atmosphere in which the meeting is conducted that matters? If a meeting believes that members of the board have been given more than they are entitled to, perhaps people should reflect on the fact that for every pound that those individuals receive, 40p goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Eggar: Of course the taxpayer benefits from the contribution made by individuals who receive high wages. At the end of the day what matters to consumers is the fact that their bills come down in real terms. That has been achieved for both gas and electricity as a direct result of Government policies that the Opposition have consistently opposed.
Mr. Wilson: I congratulate the Minister on his effrontery, if on nothing else. I am sure that he is aware of the Library's independently researched finding that the price of electricity has increased since privatisation. If he wants to argue about that let him argue with the Library, but will he cease to restate the misleading information that he has repeated over and over again today?
Is he aware that, in the few days since an American company acquired a stake in South Western Electricity, the share options held by the four directors of the company have increased in value by £322, 000? Is that what passes for enterprise in Tory Britain today? Are not share options in the privatised utilities a disreputable and discredited scam, organised by the beneficiaries in their own interests under licence from the Government? It seems as if the new President of the Board of Trade intends to do as much as the previous one to end the abuses--absolutely nothing.
Mr. Eggar: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been a real decrease in electricity
Column 932
prices of 8 per cent. in the past two years, and we can look forward to further considerable decreases in electricity prices in real and perhaps nominal terms in the coming months.With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, why do the Opposition constantly peddle the politics of envy? Why do they never take into account the positive benefits that flow directly to the consumers that have resulted from the policies followed by the Conservative party?
Small Businesses
3. Mr. Hendry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support is given by the Department to encourage small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [32118]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): The Government recognise thcrucial role played by small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative, administration and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate. This includes finance, specialist advice and support in a variety of areas including innovation and technology, exporting and design. The new business link network is revolutionising the delivery of business support services. From April 1996 it will be the normal delivery route for all DTI services.
Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important ways in which the Department can help small firms is by helping them to finance their growth and development? Does he further agree that the loan guarantee scheme has played an important part in that process? As a number of firms cannot take advantage of the scheme, will my hon. Friend undertake to keep it under review, so that it may benefit as many firms as possible?
Mr. Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the loan guarantee scheme. As he has been so generous, I shall reveal that, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I was responsible for pushing for the introduction of such a scheme at the beginning of the 1980s. Applications for the scheme are at a record level, which is indicative of the confidence that is building throughout the UK economy. A review of the scheme is taking place so that we can focus our efforts to try to help British small businesses even more.
Mr. Harvey: The Minister will recall that, in the Budget two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was the Government's intention to bring forward measures to address the problem of the late payment of commercial debt. Given that the previous President of the Board of Trade--he has now gone to greater offices, both literally and metaphorically--always seemed to be implacably opposed to any such measures, can we anticipate that the Government will now bring forward measures to give effect to the promise made two years ago?
Mr. Page: If statutory instruments were the magic bullet to solve the problem of late payment, I would sign up along with everyone else. I am afraid that life is more
Column 933
complex than that. Surveys have suggested that the majority of late payments are due to disputes about the terms of a contract and about whether goods have been supplied. Surveys by Grant Thornton have shown that payment periods in the United Kingdom are coming down, that we are improving against the rest of the European Union and that we are doing better than most countries which have a statutory right to late payment.We are encouraging support for the Confederation of British Industry's code of conduct regarding practices of payment. As the Minister for Small Business--from, I believe, 11.30 this morning--I can say that the Department is working towards a British standard regarding prompt payment. I can also recommend the Department of Trade and Industry's free leaflet on making cash flow to help late payment.
Mr. Wilkinson: In his list of measures to encourage small business, my hon. Friend rightly included the reduction of taxation. Between now and the Budget, will his Department make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that small incorporated companies be exempt from corporation tax below a certain threshold, just as individuals are below a certain threshold for income tax, as small businesses are usually under- capitalised and must expand on the basis of the profits that they can retain?
Mr. Page: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will understand if I do not give a direct answer, but I understand the reasoning behind his question. Since 1979, the Government have reduced corporation tax for smaller businesses from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. in order to help small businesses.
British Coal Enterprise
4. Mr. Bayley: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many new jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise. [32119]
Mr. Page: British Coal Enterprise estimates that it has helped with the creation of 51,300 jobs through its business funding activity and 15,000 jobs through its workspace activities. Through its job and career change scheme, BCE has also provided help to some 57,000 ex-employees of British Coal seeking work. Of those, BCE estimates that some 50,000 found jobs, either directly or following a period of retraining.
Mr. Bayley: Many hon. Members from mining areas might dispute those figures. Nevertheless, British Coal Enterprise has invested considerable sums of money in former coalfield communities. If that is good for the coalfields, why is it not good for the railways? What plans do the Government have to set up a British Rail Enterprise to replace the tens of thousands of railway jobs that have been lost as a result of privatisation?
Mr. Page: I am the first to pay tribute to the work done by British Coal Enterprise in providing jobs for people in former mining communities. Providing jobs for ex-railway workers is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. I look the hon. Gentleman straight in the eye and say that I fully accept that difficulties have arisen in his constituency as a result of the unemployment caused by the closure of a railway manufacturing company. However, in his travel-to-work area,
Column 934
unemployment is only 5.7 per cent., which is way below the national average. There should, therefore, be a good chance of people finding work in his constituency.Crown Post Offices
5. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of Crown post offices. [32120]
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): The location and ownership of post office outlets is a matter for the board.
Mr. Michie: I am sure that the House and people outside are interested to know how much support the Government have from consumer organisations for the possibility of privatising and franchising Post Office Counters. People outside are saying that Crown post offices should be given freedom of access to funds so that they can once again create a service that is appreciated by the vast majority of the nation. Why are the Government prejudiced against a public enterprise that works and is appreciated?
Mr. Lang: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that 95 per cent. of all post offices are already in the private sector. What we are talking about with regard to the Crown offices is not privatisation but providing better services in a more responsive way in the interests of the public. It is clear from the success that has been established with those offices that have been transferred to agency status that the services have improved and customer satisfaction has risen.
Mr. Gallie: First, may I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on giving up the great office of Secretary of State for Scotland? That shows great sacrifice in the interests of the Union, because I am sure that he will do remarkably well in his current national post. May I also remind him that, in recent times, there has been great concern about post offices in rural areas? May I point out that the lottery, gas companies that now offer a bill payment service through post offices, and a range of other matters linked to privatisation offer a great future for post offices in rural areas? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he deals with the matter in future?
Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As one of my colleagues said to me, I have moved from the position of viceroy to that of president. I can live with that happily, and I hope that my hon. Friend will support me as I seek to ensure that the rest of the United Kingdom achieves the lower unemployment that we have in Scotland, the higher productivity and the greater exports per head of the population that Scotland has already achieved. On the post offices, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. They operate in a competitive market, and it is important that they react to the shifting pattern of retail trade. That is part of our objective.
Brent Spar
6. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the most recent communications he has had concerning the disposal of Brent Spar. [32121]
Column 935
Mr. Eggar: I have had meetings and communications as appropriate with Shell on that matter.Mr. Banks: Is it true that the Government did not consult the Natural Environment Research Council regarding the disposal of Brent Spar, and that they took advice mainly from the Scottish Office? As we now know that, according to the Government's own figures, 32 oil rigs will reach the end of their useful life during the remainder of the century and that 13 of them might end up being dumped at sea, can the Minister really assure the House that environmental considerations are uppermost in his mind and that dumping something at sea is more environmentally advantageous than bringing it ashore? The rigs were made onshore; surely they should be dismantled onshore.
Shell is worried only about its budgets, its income and its money. It is not at all concerned about the environment. It is about time that the Government shared the feeling of the great majority of people in the country that dumping at sea is unacceptable.
Mr. Eggar: There were, of course, three years of extensive studies carried out by Shell. The major document is now in the public domain, and has been since 16 February.
The Brent Spar is now moored in a Norwegian fjord. Shell is inviting an independent inspection entity, DNV, to inspect and analyse the allegations that have been made by Greenpeace and to report on them fully and independently.
As for the environmental damage that the hon. Gentleman claims will be done to the deep sea and the Atlantic, I shall quote Dr. Tony Rice, an independent scientist and probably the leading independent deep sea biologist in the country, who said that the most likely impact of deep sea disposal of Brent Spar was
"the death of a number of worms on the sea bed".
Mr Banks indicated dissent .
Mr. Eggar: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The leading independent deep sea biologist said that, and that it was equivalent to the number of worms that would die on the ground during construction of a quarter of a mile of motorway. In his career in the House, the hon. Gentleman has taken up many lost causes, but taking up the cause of the Atlantic deep sea worm seems beyond even him. Mr. Dover: Can my right hon. Friend confirm two things--first, that whatever method of disposal is decided on will be less
environmentally pleasant than the one that has been irresponsibly thrown away by Shell and, secondly, that the cost to the taxpayer will not be greater than it would otherwise have been?
Mr. Eggar: I can confirm that Shell has informed me that the additional amount--in excess of the cost of deep sea dumping--will not fall on the taxpayer but be absorbed by the company. That is as it should be.
Future methods of disposal will now be studied. Shell came to us with the best environmental practical option. I expect it, in any proposal that it makes to us in future, to reach the same high standards of proof on the best environmental way to proceed as it did in reaching the decision that deep sea dumping was the best way to proceed. I would not rule out the option of deep sea dumping for the Brent Spar in future.
Column 936
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In view of the fact that, of the 14 reports passed by Shell to the Department of Trade and Industry, only two actually referred to onshore disposal options and, of those two, only one was referred to by Shell in its own best practical environmental option, does the Minister accept that, instead of simply leaving the matter to Shell, what we need to allay public anxiety is a properly set up independent commission to consider onshore disposal options?Mr. Eggar: I have already made it clear that Shell has agreed to commission a completely independent audit of the Brent Spar situation and I am sure that it will ensure that the results of that independent investigation are made public. I am also intending, subject to the necessary commercial confidentialities--[ Hon. Members: -- "Ah."] That is the way it has to be. I also intend to publish the studies that have been carried out by Shell. It is clear that more studies will have to be commissioned in future months, even years, and I shall do my best to ensure that they also are placed in the public domain. I think that that is what the House would want. We have a common interest in ensuring that the Brent Spar is disposed of in the best manner possible from an environmental point of view. The hysteria that has flowed from the Greenpeace campaign is not the best basis for taking serious decisions.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that, when Shell in Germany failed to endorse the disposal of the Brent Spar in the Atlantic, it left a massive gap in the Minister's credibility? He was the only one who continued to champion the environmentally damaging option, and he is now commissioning reports that he should have received a long time ago.
Mr. Eggar: That is absolutely typical of the hon. Gentleman. First, he misrepresents the position of Shell (Germany) and, secondly, he clearly prefers the opinion of Shell (Germany) to that of Shell (UK).
Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly unlikely that Shell will produce a compulsive case in favour of dismantling the rig onshore on environmental or economic grounds? If, perchance, there is an acceptable case for disposing of the rig onshore--either vertically or horizontally--will my right hon. Friend ensure that the work is done in our country so that our people get the jobs?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right: there are very difficult technical issues concerning the way in which a platform storage buoy, which is designed to be vertical, can be moved to a horizontal position and then towed inshore to shallow water for disposal. That is a major environmental issue on its own.
As to where any work would be carried out if onshore disposal proved acceptable, that is clearly a matter that Shell would have to put to the United Kingdom Government. Shell has made it clear that it will discuss any disposal option with the United Kingdom Government rather than any other Government, and we will examine the type of issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
Manufacturing Competitiveness
7. Mr. Caborn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken to improve manufacturing
competitiveness. [32123]
Column 937
Mr. Lang: The Government's policies since 1979 have contributed to a transformation of the competitiveness of manufacturing industry. We have reformed the labour market and our education system, cut taxes and pursued a vigorous programme of privatisation and liberalisation. The results are clear. Since 1979, manufacturing productivity has grown faster in the UK than in any other major industrialised country--after two decades in which the UK was the slowest.
Mr. Caborn: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for that answer. I do not know whether I am addressing my question to the right person in view of the Government's reorganisation, particularly in the area of competition, but I expect that the President will resolve the matter when he responds to my question.
Has the President seen the 3is report, which was released last week, about investment in small and medium-sized businesses? It underlined the points made by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in its report about the competitiveness of United Kingdom manufacturing and in its second report about investment in small and medium-sized businesses, which showed clearly that we are yet again falling behind Europe in terms of investment. The 3is report confirms much of that serious evidence.
Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that he should put pressure on the Treasury to provide some fiscal incentives in the next Budget to ensure that there is medium to long-term investment in small and medium- sized businesses rather than to opt for the short-termism that seems to be inherent in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lang: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point that investment is important in all businesses, large and small. It is important for the Government to encourage a stable economic environment with low inflation in which businesses can undertake such investment. I am encouraged by the fact that investment in manufacturing industry has risen by 8.3 per cent. in the past year. That is a substantial rise, which I am keen to encourage further.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one reason why competitiveness in manufacturing industry has risen is the 8.3 per cent. increase in investment in the past year, following a 6.75 per cent. increase in the previous year? Does he agree that one of the fiscal incentives that manufacturing industry would like and that was mentioned a moment ago is a reform of the capital gains tax regime to encourage longer- term rather than shorter-term investment?
Mr. Lang: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider such points, along with all the other issues that he will consider before his Budget. My hon. Friend, and indeed the whole House, will agree that one of the most important ways in which large and small businesses can remain competitive is to keep down non-wage labour costs and resist the minimum wage and the social chapter.
Mr. Miller: On the evening of 6 July, I placed on the board a letter to the President of the Board of Trade and faxed his office asking important questions about competitiveness in respect of the reorganisation of science in his Department. First, will the President of the Board
Column 938
of Trade assure the House that in future we will receive information directly and that the press will not get it the previous day? Secondly, will he give the House an assurance that research councils that are not in the near market area will not be treated as second division organisations within his new arrangements?Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken careful note of the points that he raised in his letter. I replied to his letter today, as soon as I had announced the disposition of portfolios within the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is taking on the role as Minister for Science and Technology. I hope that between us we will reassure the hon. Gentleman of the importance that we attach to science and technology--alongside the other activities of the Department of Trade and Industry--in its own right and as a way of improving the competitiveness to which we are all committed.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he will have the enthusiastic support of all British industry if he continues to resist vigorously--as the Government have done until
now--unnecessary social charges from the continent of Europe that have done so much to ensure that Europe created fewer jobs than either Britain or the United States in the past 20 years? That is crucial to competitiveness.
Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that in the past year employment in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom has risen by no fewer than 31,000 jobs. In the past two and a half years, unemployment across the economy as a whole has fallen by well over 600,000. That is in sharp contrast to many countries in the rest of Europe that are burdened with excessive social costs.
Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister tell us why the Government do not seem to practice a great deal of competition within the Department of Trade and Industry when it comes to handing out contracts, for example, for the refurbishment of No. 1 Victoria street? Can he tell us more about the internal inquiry that is taking place? I assume that he has been informed about the letter that I set him quite recently referring to the fact that top officials at the DTI were gallivanting around the world and being handed big raffle prizes, although they had not entered a raffle, and then some very uncompetitive tenders and bids were handed out to the favoured few. Is it not time that the scandal was sorted out?
Mr. Lang: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the new headquarters of the Department at Victoria street were built under the private finance initiative. As for his letter, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has sent the hon. Gentleman a full and detailed reply today.
Competitiveness
8. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responses he has received to his Department's second White Paper on competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [32124]
Mr. Lang: The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been widely welcomed by industry, including major representative bodies, such as the CBI,
Column 939
the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chemical Industries Association, as well as many of our major companies.Mr. Jenkin: Returning to a theme raised earlier, does my right hon. Friend agree that a suitable tax regime is vital to competitiveness and that Britain currently has the most punitive capital gains tax regime among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development southern countries? Is it not welcome therefore that noises emerging from parts of the Government suggest that that regime is under review? Will he use his good offices as President of the Board of Trade to push for a sensible reform to reduce the burden of capital gains tax?
Mr. Lang: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of my hon. Friend's concerns on that. My hon. Friend will, of course, agree that the reduction in corporation tax for both large and small companies has been one of the driving forces behind the successful growth and expansion of the economy in recent years.
Mr. Purchase: Given that the driving force for competitiveness is investment and the fact that investment in this country is at the same level as it was in 1989, does the President of the Board of Trade not recognise that to match the investment performance of Germany this country needs to invest another £42 billion per annum in order that we might become internationally competitive? What plans does he have to tackle that problem?
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer to an earlier question, when I pointed out that investment in manufacturing industry was up by 8.3 per cent. on a year ago. As for his comparison with earlier years, I can tell him that, since 1981, total manufacturing investment has risen by 18 per cent. What guides investment is confidence in the management of the economy. Confidence is there now that was lamentably absent when the Labour party was in power.
Mr. Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper builds on many of the changes in the competitive nature of the British economy, one of which has been the creation of a flexible work force? Does he also agree that that can be seen writ large in the Ford Motor Company, which, this month, sees the production of the new Fiesta and which two months ago announced the new diesel plant at Dagenham? Does he further agree that Dagenham, which was once the symbol of all that was wrong with the British economy, is now the symbol of all that is right with the British economy?
Mr. Lang: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The Ford Motor Company is going from success to success. It is good to see the United Kingdom sharing so fully in that.
Mr. Bell: May I on behalf of Opposition Front-Bench Members congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation to President of the Board of Trade? We shall miss the lion's roar from the Conservative Benches, but no doubt the steady purring will continue into the ear of the Prime Minister.
Is it not remarkable that we are dealing with a competitiveness White Paper and the consultation documents on the day when it has been announced, by
| Next Section
| Home Page |