| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Manufacturing
14. Mr. Sheerman: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trends in the balance of trade in manufactured goods. [15035]
Mr. Greg Knight: The balance of trade in manufactured goods as a proportion of gross domestic product has remained broadly unchanged over the past four years.
Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister not understand that we must take a longer-term view of the British economy? Any fair-minded person who examines our track record since 1983 will see that since that time we--an industrial manufacturing nation to the core of our being--have had a deficit in manufactured trade, and the Chancellor himself predicts in the Red Book that in two years we will have a £10 billion deficit. Those of us who support British manufacturing industry and want it to thrive must not listen to glib quotations from a few foreign--or European--manufacturers. At home we have a dismal record of under-investment and under-achievement, and it is about time that we had a Government who ensured that the position was reversed.
Mr. Knight: I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. Under the present Government, total investment has risen six times faster than it did under the last Labour Government. Britain is and always has been a trading nation: we have about 1 per cent. of the world's population, yet we are the fifth largest trading nation in the world. Conservative Members are proud of that.
Post Office
15. Mr. Foulkes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office. [15036]
Mr. Page: The Government's view on the future structure of the Post Office was set out in our Green
Paper, "The Future of Postal Services", published in June 1994, and in the statement of my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade to the House on 11 May 1995.
Mr. Foulkes: May I give the Minister some helpful advice? Given that the vast majority of the British public are opposed to privatisation of the very profitable Post Office, and given that they also consider it one of the best public services--way ahead of gas, electricity and water--will the Minister now take action to prevent Tory Members from becoming an endangered species by ruling out the inclusion of Post Office privatisation in the Tory election manifesto?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman will have to await our manifesto and the Prime Minister's statement. He will have to control his natural impatience until then, but let me draw to his attention a document that has just emerged from the Communication Workers Union. In the Green Paper, the CWU seeks greater commercial freedom, and expresses a wish to move the Post Office more into the private sector than ever before. Is that the real break between the trade unions and the Labour party?
Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not always, "Should we privatise, or should we retain in private ownership?"? The real issue is, "What is the best way in which to ensure that the post is delivered to our constituents on time?" If private ownership would achieve that better, and if as a result of that postmen would receive better salaries--and bonuses at the end of the year--perhaps both postmen and our constituents would prefer a change of ownership.
Mr. Page: I fully accept that it is the customer who matters, not the system that is used. In order to help the customer, we have abolished restrictions on capital expenditure in the Post Office. Moreover, a new corporate planning process has been introduced, and we have been able to grant the Post Office significant new end-year flexibility. We have done all that in order to help the Post Office to provide the customer with a better service.
Mr. Llwyd: That may be all very well, but does the Minister not agree that we have the best postal service in the world, or at least in the British Isles? Does he not recall the huge public support for the status quo that was evident in the last discussion about privatisation? Does he agree with the sentiment "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"?
Mr. Page: Life moves on. Nothing can remain static. The recent decision by the Dutch post office--which has been privatised--to bid for the international express carrier TNT is a case in point. We must look to the future to ensure that Royal Mail can stay as No. 1, rather than remaining vitrified.
Ministerial Visits (Hong Kong)
16. Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what visits have been made by Ministers in his Department to Hong Kong to discuss business matters since 1992. [15037]
Mr. Page: Since April 1992, there have been 10 visits by DTI Ministers to Hong Kong to pursue British commercial interests.
Mr. Winnick: It is interesting that the Minister said "British commercial interests", which we all support, but what other business have Ministers been engaged in? In what way is the money from Hong Kong billionaires collected to help fund the Tory party? Is it done through his or some other Government Department? We would like to know, because the money is undoubtedly coming from very rich sources abroad to a British political party.
Mr. Page: I am completely innocent on those matters and am unable to help the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he directs his remarks to the chairman of our great party, who will be able to furnish him with the correct answers.
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would talk about Hong Kong being the United Kingdom's second largest market in Asia and how important it is to British jobs, but obviously he is more interested in funding.
Manufacturing Output
17. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the percentage change in manufacturing output for (a) 1996 over 1995 and (b) 1995 over 1994. [15039]
Mr. Greg Knight: Manufacturing output was 2.2 per cent. higher in 1995 than in 1994. Last year it rose by a further 0.5 per cent. to reach its highest ever level. The CBI expects manufacturing output to grow by 3.4 per cent. this year.
Mr. Cunningham: The Minister's answer paints a rosy picture, but is he aware that, according to the Office for National Statistics, capital investment is down 16 per cent. on last year? What does he have to say about that?
Mr. Knight: I will tell the House what I have to say about that. Manufacturing output has risen by 10 per cent. since the recovery began, and manufacturing exports have risen by more than a third--to record levels--since the recovery began. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
Balance of Payments
18. Mr. Touhig: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the balance of payments current account. [15040]
Mr. John M. Taylor: The balance of payments current account was close to balance during the first three quarters of 1996--the strongest performance for a decade.
Mr. Touhig: But will not 1996 be the 11th consecutive year in which the balance of payments current account has been in deficit? The Treasury forecasts an even wider deficit in the next two years, giving Britain the longest run of balance of payments deficits for 130 years. Are the Government proud of that record?
Mr. Taylor: The current account balance was strong in 1985-87, was weak in 1989-90, and is strong again now.
As I have said before, there have been only six years since 1946 in which there was a surplus in visible trade: 1956, 1958, 1971, 1980, 1981 and 1982. All those were years in which there was a Conservative Government.
Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a factor of great importance to British exporters is the value of the British pound? If the pound becomes too strong, it will be much more difficult for British exporters to win in foreign markets. Is there not a case, perhaps, for cutting interest rates to reduce the value of the pound?
Mr. Taylor: That is properly a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Social Chapter
19. Mr. Simpson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have indicated to the Government that they located in Britain because of the absence of social chapter obligations; and how many have said they would relocate elsewhere if Britain adopted the social chapter. [15041]
Mr. John M. Taylor: Since 1992, more than 1,700 inward investment decisions, expected to create more than 130,000 new jobs, have been notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau. Our flexible labour market has been a key factor in that achievement.
Mr. Simpson: Since my question was about how many firms said that they would not come here if we had the social chapter, and how many would leave if we adopted it, I presume that the answer that the Minister was looking for was, "None".
Is not the more typical attitude of UK industry to share the views of Unilever and United Biscuits, which said that it would be counter-productive to exclude British workers from the provisions of the social chapter? Are the Government not embarrassed to set a benchmark in Europe in which Britain offers no employment rights, low employment protection, no parental leave and no consultation rights at all?
As the Government take their soap-opera policies into Europe, is not it appropriate for the citizens of the UK to ask that the Minister looks for something more inspirational than Ministers behaving badly as the model to which we aspire?
Mr. Taylor:
It is not for me to cross-examine international companies on their reasons for investing in this country. They may do so for many reasons. We have an established enterprise culture, good communications, a skilled work force, low interest rates and inflation and the English language. There are many reasons, and I am not referring to any one of them in particular, but I am claiming that it is a great success story.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |