| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Inward Investment
20. Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being pursued to attract inward investment into the United Kingdom. [13525]
Mr. Lang: My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau runs a comprehensive programme for promoting the United Kingdom overseas, including company visits, advertising, mail shots, seminars and missions. Within the United Kingdom, the IBB is introducing a nationally co-ordinated aftercare programme for major inward investors already in this country--the international investor development programme. It is also, in conjunction with Government offices and regional agencies, strengthening regional aftercare arrangements where necessary to complement established initiatives that are already in place.
Mr. Jenkin: Is it not a fact that this country is naturally a global trading nation and that we naturally offer a warm welcome to any international company that wants to invest here? Is it not one of the greatest achievements of this Government that we have restored our reputation and standing as a global trading nation rather than as a nation mired in regulation and high taxation?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is remarkable that, with only around 1 per cent. of the world's population, we are the fifth largest trading nation. The massive advance in productivity growth and competitiveness that we have achieved in recent years has led us to break into new export markets, increase our exports to record levels and succeed in attracting more than 40 per cent. of the inward investment in the European Union from the United States and Japan.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that when the Government publish their statistics on inward investment they will not include the £58.6 million spent by Campbell Soups on acquiring a plant in my constituency which the company announced 11 weeks later would close? Surely it would be an abuse of the statistics if that sum were to be included. Is not the lesson to be learned from the whole affair the fact that we must find a way to ensure that when foreign companies that do not have a shareholder base in the United Kingdom come here--Campbell Soups is 58 per cent. owned by one family in the United States--their actions can be checked? Otherwise, they will simply undermine the regional policies of successive Governments.
Mr. Lang: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that last year there were no fewer than 454 inward investment successes in the United Kingdom associated with more than 91,000 jobs. Although American companies in this country are some 4,000 in number and represent $100 billion-worth of investment, it should be borne in mind that the United Kingdom is one of the strongest outward investors in the world and, indeed, has higher investments in terms of value in the United States than the United States has here.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Ms Harriet Harman (Peckham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Health questions yesterday I accused the Secretary of State of misleading the House.I unreservedly withdraw the term "misled" as unparliamentary, and I apologise to him and to you.
Madam Speaker: I will take no further points of order on that matter. The hon. Lady has done the right thing, and I am obliged to her.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not being here when my question was called, but something important has occurred relating to Question 6, in which I declared an interest. Despite having checked the form and confirmed with the Table Office that it showed that an interest had been declared, the letter "R" has not appeared next to the question. As you will know, I have several times mentioned the fact that Opposition Members sponsored by trade unions are not declaring that interest, but perhaps they are doing so and the "R" is not being printed.
Madam Speaker: I do not think that that is the case. On this occasion, the printers regret that there was a lapse, but I take the view that it is always prudent forhon. Members to check the text of their questions when they first appear on the Order Paper. It is a courtesy thathon. Members should be here to ask their questions.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just noted that the Official Report covering the late-night Division on Monday on the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 records that two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen went through the No Lobby. I am concerned that it might be a mistake because, had they done so, they would be in breach of collective responsibility. They will have voted against the Maastricht treaty provisions and have no choice but to resign. Will you arrange for checks to be made to see whether the record is accurate?
Madam Speaker: It is none of the Speaker's business and, as far as I am concerned, the report is correct.
Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Newham general hospital last month issued a remarkable press release attacking the
cuts that it was being forced to make as a result of reductions in Government funding. In that context, is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to be claiming improvements in services at that hospital?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a question and the hon. Gentleman must find an opportunity to raise it in debate.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that during Question Time, an hon. Lady, whom I will not name, crossed in front of--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have informed the Whips on many occasions that Members should not enter the Chamber and cross the line of sight between a Minister and the Member whose question he is answering. Members who are sitting in the Chamber and know whose question the Minister is answering should be helpful to Members entering the Chamber by holding them back, as they could have on the occasion to which the hon. Member referred. I watched very carefully and, frankly, Members were not as helpful as they could have been.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Health questions yesterday, the Secretary of State said that hospitals had opened extra beds. On checking, we found that they had not. How can we get the Secretary of State to explain that from the Dispatch Box?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I explained to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), such questions are for political argument in debate. The hon. Lady may care to table questions on the matter or raise it at some stage on the Adjournment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) did not tell you the whole story when he raised his point of order. The House should be informed. The hour-and-a-half debate on convergence criteria was taken up for the most part by the Conservative Euro-sceptics; the ones who are always blathering about the Common Market, but do very little about it. It is true that when the House divided at the end of the debate, two Labour Front-Bench spokesmen went into the No Lobby faster than me. The Euro-rebels were nowhere near. That is no surprise because Tory Governments took us into the Common Market, got us into the Single European Act and took us through the Maastricht treaty that Labour voted against. We were consistent on Monday night.
Bull Bars (Prohibition)3.36 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prohibition of the use on roads of motor vehicles fitted with bull bars; and for other related purposes.
A year ago there was a terrible accident on the M4, in which a coach crashed and nine people died. The House was shocked and we sought solutions. The Bill is concerned with not nine deaths but--probably--70 deaths, according to figures calculated by the Royal Automobile Club. Those deaths were as a result of not accidents but avoidable tragedies. People are killed because of the special nature of bull bars--rigid objects on the front of cars at the level of a child's head or vital organs, which concentrate and multiply the force of accidents
I am reminded of the way in which the stiletto heel syndrome surprised us in the early 1950s, when holes suddenly appeared in dance halls that had withstood the rigours of dancing for many years. It was discovered that seven-stone ladies pirouetting on stiletto heels became the weight of a fully grown elephant.
The same thing happens when the tiny circumference of a bull bar hits a child's head. Researchers in Germany have proved that if a bull bar on a vehicle travelling as slowly as 12 miles an hour hits a child, the child will certainly die.
Practically every authority--the Automobile Association, the RAC, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Pedestrians Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Child Accident Prevention Trust--and anyone with an independent view has condemned bull bars. Some insurance organisations are refusing to insure vehicles with bull bars and others are loading the premiums. All the research scientists who have studied bull bars in Australia, New Zealand, Britain--the most prestigious of all--and Germany have all come out with the same cry of alarm, that bull bars and the solid fronts of vehicles have set the cause of safety back 20 years.
One of the main reasons why the accident rate has been reduced is that crumple zones that absorb the shock of an impact have been developed for cars. It is a myth to believe, as many seem to, that those sitting in cars fitted with bull bars are somehow better protected. They are not. They are, in fact, at greater risk because they themselves are subjected to the force of a collision. They are not cushioned from it by the crumple zone. The only research done on that was in Australia and it shows that if the bars deform in an accident, the driver and any pedestrian involved often suffer serious upper-body injuries.
Progress has been made in the past year. A lady whose name I cannot mention because it is forbidden under our Standing Orders has ordered the removal of bars from all the vehicles in the royal parks. Rather less prestigious but influential people such as Anneka Rice and Roger Cook, who set a bad example in their programmes, have vowed that they will never be filmed again with bull bars on their cars. Hon. Members have reacted splendidly. We can now say with pride that a year ago 20 vehicles in our car park were fitted with bull bars, but in the past six weeks we have become an entirely bull bar-free zone.
There are apologists for bull bars. The manufacturers we can understand. They are speaking on behalf of their products and on behalf of jobs. But they are in a market that is in an inevitable decline and they should diversify into products that increase rather than reduce safety.
Owners of vans often claim that they need such bars because the design of the front of the vehicle leaves them exposed. If that were so, such vehicles would be dangerous and should not be on the roads. However, van drivers have few accidents as a result of such design features. But even if they did, to destroy the crumple zone that absorbs the shock adds to their own dangers. It is not acceptable for drivers to reduce a perceived risk to themselves by increasing the risk to others.
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Transport, I met members of the European Commission yesterday. They were emphatic about their determination to provide a solution. Progress is being delayed because of objections from Finland and Sweden similar to those put forward in Australia. The reason is odd. Australia was worried about kangaroos and Finland and Sweden are worried about reindeer. They call them moose bars. Australia's solution was to have what is called, believe it or not, a shoo-roo--a sound device. The nordic areas need a shoo-moose. There are solutions. In country areas where bull bars are necessary, it is a simple matter to make them demountable.
Our job today is to propel the issue to the top of the agenda. We know how the country and the House react to avoidable tragedies. It is a matter of grief to us that a year ago when the House discussed the matter, all agreed--the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is on the Front Bench and every speaker--that bull bars are a fashion accessory, serve no practical purpose and are responsible for at least 70 deaths a year and many hundreds of casualties.
Tragically, nothing has happened since. We can see the issue better, not in terms of physics or statistics, but in terms of human tragedies. The worst tragedy that can affect any of us is the loss of a child. In Melksham, on the last day of term in July, Helen Bags was excited as she ran home from school, and she ran across a road and in front of a Land Rover. According to the doctors and the coroner who examined Helen, her death was attributable to the bull bar attached to the car. Her injuries were on her upper body and lungs. She lived for a number of days after the accident but, tragically, she died. The life of the 10-year-old was destroyed because someone chose to have a bull bar on his car.
Mrs. Ann Bags, Helen's mother--who has energetically campaigned against bull bars since her death--does not blame the driver of the car. However, she blames those of us in this place who have reacted rapidly to introduce legislation after other deaths, such as that of Leah Betts, and to incidents involving children who were attacked by dogs.
Hon. Members have had a great deal of time to consider this legislation. There are at least three ways in which the House can act and use existing legislation to institute a ban on bull bars. If we had acted last year, Helen Bags would still be alive. When one drives, one does not expect to be involved in a collision or to hit a child. However, it can happen to any of us at any time.
If a bull bar is fitted to a car, it is more likely that a trivial accident will become a serious accident, and that a serious accident will become a death. Bull bars change ordinary vehicles into child-killing machines. They serve no purpose--they are silly, macho, fashion accessories. People are being killed in the name of fashion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |