| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Land Mines
3. Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to ban the (a) manufacture and (b) export of land mines in (i) part and (ii) complete form. [23918]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): We already have in place a wide-ranging national moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines. I have no plans to ban the manufacture of such land mines, although they have not been manufactured in this country or exported for a number of years.
Mr. Smith: Will the Minister follow the lead of General Schwarzkopf, 14 other high-ranking United States generals and the Australian Government in banning the use of anti-personnel land mines? Will the Government press for such a ban at the convention on inhumane weapons in Geneva next week?
Mr. Nelson: We keep those matters under constant review and we take careful notice of what our allies--particularly those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation--do in that regard. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the proper place to discuss such matters is at the United Nations weaponry convention, which holds its concluding session towards the end of the month and I hope that it may lead to the implementation of a tighter regime. For the time being, however, the British Army and the British Government believe that land mines are necessary for our use and that casualties would be incurred if we did not have them. We do not export or manufacture them and we have imposed a moratorium and a ban on their export in a wide range of categories to a large number of countries.
Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take the matter very seriously, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the proliferation of land mines which are disturbing even the aid going to Bosnia, including the recent very successful trip to that country organised by Welsh Rotary and supported by the international company Hasbro? Will my hon. Friend combine with officers in the Ministry of Defence and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that our voice is the loudest to speak out on the international scene against land mines?
Mr. Nelson: I of course take very seriously the points that my hon. Friend raises. We play an active role in international discussions about this issue and we abhor any loss of civilian life involved with the use of so-called dumb land mines. However, we must recognise that many land mines are used in internal conflicts in developing countries. When introducing any regimes or bans, it is important to ensure that the world acts in concert rather than unilaterally.
Many Opposition Members--67 of whom have signed an early-day motion on the subject--continually hark back to unilateralism. That would be absolutely pointless in this and in other areas. International agreement is important and Her Majesty's Government are intent upon achieving it.
Engineering
4. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on engineering (a) investment, (b) exports and (c) profitability. [23919]
Mr. Lang: Information on the profitability of the engineering industry is not collected centrally, but engineering industry exports were £75 billion in 1995--an increase of 18 per cent over 1994. As for investment, the business trends survey of the Engineering Employers Federation shows that it continues to be buoyant.
Mr. Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend, who was at school with me, accept the views expressed by the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance--and shared by the Engineering Employers Federation--that quality of training is vital to the manufacturing industry and contributes directly to investment, exports and profitability? Does he agree that a skilled and a motivated work force is one of the United Kingdom's greatest assets? Will he and his Department help to drive forward the recommendations in Sir Ronald Dearing's review of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds in order to ensure that quality of training is a priority?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend and I were indeed at school together, although he looks far too young, and I agree absolutely that training is important. I warmly welcome Sir Ronald Dearing's proposals, which are not very different from those that I introduced in Scotland some years ago. I recognise the importance of improved training, and the improvements in the engineering industry are reflected by the fact that productivity in that industry rose by 21 per cent. between 1990 and 1995.
Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear that the Government have shamefully neglected the importance of the manufacturing industry? Thankfully, that has now changed, but the Government still do not appreciate the importance of manufacturing investment. Capital allowances are only 25 per cent., which is less than depreciation in the first year. That is equivalent to a tax on investment in the first year. Should not the President of the Board of Trade be doing something about that?
Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be a little out of touch with the manufacturing industry investment figures, which for plant and machinery rose by almost 10 per cent. last year and by some 15 per cent. in the past two years. He may be interested to know that unemployment in the manufacturing sector fell by 3,000 last month. Clearly, the success of the United Kingdom manufacturing industry is a reflection of the Government's successful management of the economy.
Mr. Dunn: Given the increase in manufacturing exports of some 90 per cent. since 1979, does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the minimum wage and the social chapter would create an absolute nightmare for British success overseas?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Looking at the social chapter alone, non-wage labour costs in the
United Kingdom are some 18 per cent. while in Germany they are 32 per cent. and in Italy and France they are more than 40 per cent. It is because we have become more competitive and avoided such additional costs that United Kingdom manufacturing industry is now so successful.
Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the decision by GEC to close its electrical engineering subsidiary, Long and Crawford at Gorton road, Manchester, with the destruction of 135 jobs, many of them held by men with a lifetime of skilled and dedicated service? The company is offering meagre redundancy payments and 100 workers who are being transferred to another site are having their pay reduced by £60 per week. Exports to the middle east, the Gulf and south America are being thrown away and the site is being asset stripped at a profit to GEC. Is that not a disgraceful way to approach manufacturing industry?
Mr. Lang: I regret the loss of any job in any factory in any constituency, but I simply do not recognise the picture that the right hon. Gentleman paints of GEC, which is one of our most efficient, competitive, aggressive and successful companies in export and domestic markets all over the world. GEC has made a substantial contribution to the rise in British manufacturing exports of 90 per cent. since 1979 because the Government have allowed it to manage its own affairs in the way it thinks best.
Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the motley crew opposite, who are made up of ex-journalists, ex-trade union officials and ex-failed polytechnic lecturers, I worked in the engineering industry? Does he realise that the social chapter would not only produce the additional on-costs to which he has already referred, but that if we were to sign up to that terrible document, we would be signing a blank cheque with heaven knows what result for British industry, particularly engineering?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As British industry, particularly our engineering industry, has become so efficient, it has been able to achieve the figures that I have given the House. That is why the prospect of growth for next year also looks most promising.
Mr. Ingram: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm the shocking figures that his ministerial colleague gave the House on 20 March when he said:
- "In the United Kingdom . . . only 12 per cent. of science and engineering graduates are in engineering. In Germany, the figure is 18 per cent.; in France it is 21 per cent. Germany produces a third more engineering and technology PhDs per head of population than we do and five times as many people are qualified to MSc standard."--[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 326.]
Who is to blame for that shocking state of affairs? Is it our competitors, because they are so much better than us, or is it the Government, who systematically destroyed our manufacturing and engineering base during the 1980s?
Mr. Lang:
There has been a substantial increase in the number of engineering graduates in recent years. Next year, the Government will be sponsoring the Year of Engineering Success, which I am sure will be as successful as the recent Science, Engineering and
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |