| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Government Policy (North-West England)
6. Mr. Thurnham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the impact of Government policies on businesses in the north-west; and if he will make a statement. [10594]
Mr. John M. Taylor: Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry regularly receive representations about the impact of Government policies on businesses, including those in the north-west. I look forward to hearing more views from north-west business people when I visit Bolton early next month.
Mr. Thurnham: When the Minister visits Bolton town hall in 12 days' time, I hope that he will enjoy a good helping of Bolton's excellent black pudding with his breakfast. Will he welcome the proposal to set up a national museum of food in Bolton, which is famous not only for its black puddings but for its excellent bakeries?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that, only this morning, I had the menu for that breakfast altered to ensure that it will include black pudding. To set up a museum of food in Bolton is a splendid idea and I wish it well.
Mr. Dover: Is the Minister aware that the effect of Government policies on the north-west and on Lancashire in particular has been to bring about an enormous increase in the number of small businesses there? In my own patch, there are 6,000 and that number is rising every month. Over the past 14 years, that has helped to bring down unemployment from 11 per cent. to only 4.5 per cent.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The north-west has experienced a net increase of 35,000 jobs in two years and regional selective assistance of £31 million has, by itself, created 6,500 jobs. The north-west has excellent communications, high value-added, high investment and tremendous tourist potential.
Mr. O'Hara: The Minister will be aware that the Ford Motor Company has announced plans to shed 1,300 jobs at the factory at Halewood in my constituency in order to concentrate production of the new Ford Escort in Spain and Germany. Can he explain how it makes sense to export 1,300 jobs from my constituency to Germany and Spain in order to produce for import into this country the car that is the second-best seller in this country, that sells more here than in any other market and that costs £500 to £1,000 less to produce here than on the continent? Will he meet a deputation comprising my colleagues and me to talk about this serious matter?
Mr. Taylor: Those decisions are made by the Ford Motor Company and they are based on its commercial judgment. Ford is taking those measures to improve the plant's competitiveness with the aim of securing its long-term future. The Government are committed to assisting Halewood to meet Ford's competitiveness agenda.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Government policies have greatly increased
prosperity in my constituency, not least in Garstang? Unfortunately, in contrast, Labour-controlled Wyre borough council's vicious policy of imposing parking charges in Garstang, where hitherto parking was free, will ruin the economy.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is probably best placed to put pressure on that local authority, but she may like to let me have more details on the matter. In the meantime, I know that she will give it a hard time.
Mrs. Roche: How can the Minister be so complacent, given that small businesses in the north-west will be faced with the catastrophic effects of the closure of Ford in Halewood? According to the Department's figures, there are one in 20 fewer VAT-registered small businesses in the Wirral than there were in 1992. Does not that show why businesses in the north-west and elsewhere are saying that enough is enough with this failing Government?
Mr. Taylor: That is as absurd a question as one is likely to hear. Small businesses thrive in the north-west because of its competitiveness. The hon. Lady mentions Halewood, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said he would receive a delegation. Ford is not closing the plant, but is making adjustments in the light of its judgment. We shall assist in securing Halewood's long-term future.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party ignores all the good news in the north-west? He mentioned the 35,000 jobs that have been created over the past two years, but, as a result of inward investment since 1985, 17,334 jobs have been either created or safeguarded. One important industry is the aerospace industry--not just British Aerospace but the Consortium for Lancashire Aerospace, which comprises more than 130 smaller companies with a turnover of more than £4 billion. It would damage those industries and jobs in the north-west greatly if the Labour party were elected and slashed defence expenditure, bearing in mind the fact that it would have to get the money from somewhere.
Mr. Taylor: Like my hon. Friend, whose remarks I endorse, I do not understand why the Labour party always wants to sell the north-west down the river. I presume that Labour Members would take the same attitude if they were in government. I want them to know that the north-west has high morale. Lancashire, Cumbria, Cheshire and Merseyside are wonderful counties and they are all in good heart--much better heart than I see on the Opposition Benches.
Research and Development
8. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in total Government spending on research and development since 1985. [10596]
The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Estimated Government expenditure on research and development in 1996-97 is 36 per cent. higher than the cash expenditure in 1985-86.
Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister was unable to answer the question that I asked. The answer is that there has been a
decrease of 16.5 per cent. since 1985. Is it any wonder that, because of cuts in Government-funded research and development, we have fallen from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Lady forgot to ask the question that she obviously wanted to ask because she did not put the words "in real terms" in her question. There has been a real-terms cut in total Government R and D mainly because of cuts in the defence industry, which I have not heard many Opposition voices oppose. She therefore should not try to be too clever on that account. The science base is at the heart of Britain's efforts to be competitive in the long term, and expenditure on it under this Government has risen by 15 per cent. in real terms during that period.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Would it not be more significant to ask what our gross R and D spending is as a proportion of gross domestic product? Is it not broadly in line with our European competitors? Is it not typical of the Opposition that they ask about Government R and D spending as though that will solve all our problems, whereas it is private sector investment that creates jobs?
Mr. Taylor: It is axiomatic that the Government aim to invest in research and development and thereby to stimulate industrial investment. Industrial investment in the United Kingdom still has further to go, although in recent years there has been a year-on-year increase. I have never denied that my message to industry is that it should invest more intensively in R and D. The Government's record is extremely good and compares favourably with Government expenditure in countries such as Japan and the United States. I intend to ensure that the UK research base is the finest, as we believe it to be. That will come about through the schemes that we are delivering to bring the science base and industry closer together.
Public Sector Research Establishments
10. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's prior options reviews of public sector research establishments. [10598]
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Government are considering the prior options review reports. We are determined to achieve the greatest possible benefit from the substantial resources devoted to public sector research establishments. We expect to make further announcements about outstanding decisions in the near future.
Mrs. Campbell: Has the Minister read the comments of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which described the scale and conduct of the reviews as profoundly unsatisfactory? Is he aware of the disruption that has been caused? Does he plan to make a further announcement before the general election?
Mr. Taylor: I always treat with great respect the views of the Science and Technology Committee and always look forward to appearing before it. There have been misunderstandings about the objectives of the prior options reviews. As the Government consider that £690 million of expenditure on R and D through the
research departments should be undertaken efficiently, prior options are clearly important. However, we are nearing the end of the process in the current round, and in the very near future--certainly before the general election--I expect to make an announcement concerning those institutes on which we have not yet made any public statement. I draw attention to the announcements that are already on record. Some of the research departments have stayed in the public sector, some have undergone management adjustments and some have been moved into the private sector.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the people working in the public sector research laboratories in Norwich? Will he confirm that the Ministry of Agriculture's Central Science Laboratory will stay in Norwich? It would be very good news if it did. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has just said, how much longer will people in Norwich who are working in the other research laboratories have to wait for final decisions affecting their future?
Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to say that on 9 December my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the future of the Central Science Laboratory as an agency with various management tasks ahead of it. The new facilities in York are of great importance--I shall be visiting the York region this weekend--but I am pleased to say that the excellent work on food science will remain in Norwich. I intend to make other announcements as soon as possible.
Mr. Ingram: One of the central questions that the Minister must answer is what cost-benefit analysis he is using to justify the Government's continued obsession with the privatisation of large swathes of the nation's public sector research establishments. Have not millions of pounds from a hard-pressed science budget been wasted, and thousands of scientists demoralised in pursuit of the Government's flawed policy? The Government should provide encouragement and support for the PSREs, not uncertainty and continuing confusion about their future.
Mr. Taylor: I do not recognise that situation. A review process is not always enjoyable, but some of the research establishments report that the review has given them a more tightly defined mission statement, and they welcome the opportunities that have emerged from the prior options process. I challenge the hon. Gentleman, who has forlorn hopes of his party one day occupying the Government Benches. His question shows that he is not prepared for that transition. If £690 million is to be spent on research establishments, it is the duty of any Minister for Science and Technology to ensure that the money is spent efficiently. We are doing that. We have found new ways of delivering quality in science. I am certain that, as a responsible Minister, I had to undertake that process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |