| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Shipbuilding
10. Mr. Hutton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future prospects for the shipbuilding industry. [18697]
Mr. Page: I am pleased that United Kingdom shipyards are continuing to improve their competitiveness and win orders in the face of very difficult international market conditions.
Mr. Hutton: What action will the Government be taking to ensure that British shipbuilders, such as VSEL in my constituency, will not be disadvantaged by hidden or indirect subsidies paid by foreign Governments to their shipbuilding industries? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating VSEL on recently winning two new orders to build merchant ships in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Page: As I said earlier, there is an OECD agreement to abolish direct support schemes. It will come into force on 15 July, assuming that Japan and the United States both ratify it. If the hon. Gentleman or any company has any evidence of unfair subsidies, the DTI would be only too eager to investigate those allegations. The order for two merchant vessels is a tribute to VSEL. It shows that, subsidy or not, that company has not been prevented from gaining orders.
Sir Donald Thompson: When considering shipbuilding, will my hon. Friend ensure that he does not forget the large boat and yacht building industry in the United Kingdom, the products of which employ many thousands of British men and women throughout the world?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. When UK yards concentrate on vessels for ownership and use in north-west Europe, where they do not face competition from Japanese and Korean yards, they do extremely well. The boat building industry is a valuable contributor to the UK economy.
Foundry Industry
11. Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange to meet representatives of the foundry industry to discuss prospects for the industry. [18698]
Mr. Page: The President has no plans to meet representatives of the foundry industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy met representatives from the foundry industry on 16 November 1995.
Mr. Canavan: Bearing it in mind that the British foundry industry employs 52,000 people, is the Minister aware of the concern about a crippling burden on the industry if the higher rate of landfill tax is imposed? In view of the recycling nature of the industry and the fact that most of its waste consists of inert sand and slag, may
we have an absolute assurance that the industry will be charged the lower rather than the higher rate of landfill tax?
Mr. Page: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman at this stage is that the matter is out for consultation. It is with Customs and Excise at present and I know that the foundry industry is heavily involved in those discussions.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the whole question of the foundry industry. I pay tribute to the DTI's Foundry 2000 initiative. For the first time in three decades the decline in the number of tonnes produced has been halted and production is on the way up again. It is forecast that by the year 2000 production will be 1.45 million tonnes, which is a considerable improvement in the right direction.
Scott Report
12. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to paragraph D4.42 of Lord Justice Scott's report, if a fear of strong public opposition was a factor in determining the nature of the answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow concerning al-Hillal deemed by Sir Richard Scott to be a deliberate failure to inform Parliament. [18700]
Mr. Dalyell: As a former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman will have as little stomach as I have for indulging in Question Time today, in the light of Dunblane.
With regard to al-Hillal, why was the House of Commons deceived? That is what Lord Justice Scott said. If the specific questions that I tabled on al-Hillal had been answered truthfully, would not the whole course of events in the arms-to-Iraq saga have been different? Should there not have been a truthful answer to a proper parliamentary question?
Mr. Lang:
It remains the Government's clear and very firm view that the House of Commons was not deceived. I recognise that Sir Richard Scott concluded that some of the information given to the House, whether in parliamentary answers or in correspondence, was inaccurate, but he also acknowledged the good faith and sincerity with which those views were advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is quite clear that they did not knowingly mislead the House. It remains my view, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the House was not knowingly misled.
13. Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his policies for the promotion of British manufacturing industry. [18701]
Mr. Oppenheim:
The Government attach high priority to manufacturing as an important and growing sector of our economy. There has been an enormous improvement in our manufacturing performance, which will be
Mr. Winterton:
Now that the Confederation of British Industry has sidelined yet again its support for manufacturing industry, thus justifying my establishing the all-party manufacturing and construction industries alliance, may I urge the Government to redouble their efforts, as they are doing in the textile industry, to encourage import substitution by identifying goods in which we have a trade deficit, and liaise with industry in bringing forward proposals to encourage British suppliers to compete for orders which otherwise--sadly--will go overseas?
Mr. Oppenheim:
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of manufacturing to the British economy. The best way to improve business prospects and manufacturing in Britain is to carry on running the economy sensibly with a sensible monetary and fiscal policy, to ensure that taxes are not too high and to try to improve the education system--often in the teeth of opposition from Labour local education authorities.
Many important high-tech sectors of British manufacturing have done very well over the past 16 years. In pharmaceuticals, for example, we have moved from being the third largest exporter to being the largest exporter, having overtaken Switzerland and the United States. Our aerospace industry has also done extremely well, especially in very high-tech aero engines, in which Rolls-Royce has increased its share of the civil air engine market from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. In many high-tech sectors, Britain has done very well and it is very important that we continue with that progress. I am not sure that an interventionist sector-by-sector approach is necessarily the best way to take that forward, but I agree with my hon. Friend's underlying point.
Mr. Sheerman:
Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to stop gloating when the German, French or Spanish economies get into any trouble and remember that they are our major customers for manufacturing products and that when they start getting into trouble, it is not long before we follow them into recession? Will he remember that the lead element needed to reactivate British manufacturing is top-quality managers? Are the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment encouraging that development by cutting university education, university postgraduate education and business schools? Is that the right way to tackle our manufacturing dilemmas?
Mr. Oppenheim:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of education to the overall competitiveness of the economy. However, I should point out that the number of people aged 16 and over in higher and further education has trebled under the Government. The hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to the progress that we have made. A recent survey showed that in the late 1970s the competitiveness and productivity gap between Britain and Germany widened. That gap has narrowed by 75 per cent. since 1979 and it is a tribute to
Mrs. Roche:
Let us keep talking about 1979, because since then investment in manufacturing has fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms. Does that not explain why some small businesses in that sector are so disillusioned with the Government, who have totally failed to make this country the enterprise centre of Europe, as claimed by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Oppenheim:
I am delighted to concentrate on 1979, because I remember that manufacturing output fell under the Labour Government, whereas it has grown sharply under the Conservative Government. Not only that, but business investment and manufacturing productivity have risen at twice the rate they did under the Labour Government.
14. Mr. Luff:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to extend competition in the supply of gas for domestic consumers to Worcestershire. [18702]
Mr. Eggar:
Domestic gas consumers in Worcestershire will be able to benefit from competition in the supply of gas from a date to be determined in 1998. Experience in the first phase of competition in the south-west suggests that consumers may be offered average savings of 15 to 20 per cent. on their gas bills--and more in some cases.
Mr. Luff:
Does my right hon. Friend understand that of all the policies that he pursued during the three years during which I had the privilege to be his parliamentary private secretary--[Hon. Members: "Give him a job."]--probably none will bring greater benefit to ordinary consumers than competition in the supply of domestic gas? For precisely the reason set out in my right hon. Friend's answer--the sharp reduction in prices that competition will bring consumers in the trial area--does he understand my enthusiasm to ensure that my constituents have that benefit at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Eggar:
I thank my hon.--and close--Friend for his opening comment. I assure him that I am doing my best to live up to the standards that he set. There is no doubt that domestic consumers will benefit immensely from the Gas Act 1995. The information that we have already received from the south-west trial area shows not only that consumers of average quantities of gas will benefit, but that low-quantity consumers will benefit, too. At least two of the competitors have offered consumers tariffs involving no standing charge, thereby exposing as a fraud the constant accusation from the Opposition Front Bench that gas competition will benefit only averagely-off consumers and not low-volume and therefore often lower-income consumers.
Madam Speaker:
The substantive question relates to Worcestershire only.
Mr. Foulkes:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister say whether gas consumers in Worcestershire, in the south-west of England--[Hon. Members: "Where?"]--in the west country--[Hon. Members: "No."]--in the west midlands, not far from your constituency, Madam Speaker, if they get competition in gas supply, will be any luckier than a constituent of mine in Coylton, who on 6 December ordered a--
Madam Speaker:
Order. That was a good try, but it is out of order. I call Ms Jean Corston, who I am sure will do a lot better.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |