| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.59 pm
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The Opposition motion before the House condemns
- "the Government's failure to take urgent action to give manufacturing a chance".
My memory of the previous Administration goes back a little further than 1990, to 1979. There was not just one major world recession which the previous Government's policies made worse than it need have been; there were two. The first was between 1979 and the early 1980s, and I shall concentrate on the period between 1979 and 1981. The Opposition motion condemns
Within 18 months of coming to power, the Conservatives had managed to close more than 20 per cent. of our manufacturing industry. It did not happen uniformly across Britain but affected some constituencies more than others. Although I did not represent my constituency at the time, I was watching closely what happened in my city of Liverpool. The previous Government closed most of the automotive factories in
my constituency, including Dunlop and Triumph--Ford managed to survive the shock, thank goodness--and the matchmaking factories. They closed 25 per cent. of Liverpool's manufacturing industry within 18 months of coming to office. Is that what the motion means by giving manufacturing a chance? It is not my definition.
When studying a Government's record, one must also look at their general election manifestos. Given the absolute devastation that had been visited on Liverpool, particularly on its manufacturing capacity, I looked at the 1983 Conservative election manifesto and at what they claimed they had done. I noticed with interest that the years 1979-81 were missing from the statistics. One would have thought that the Conservatives had first been elected in 1981. The result was that all the lines on the graph went up instead of down.
The Opposition have been working at collective amnesia for years. It is not new to them. They have got it down to a fine art in the motion before us. They appear to forget that they gave manufacturing no chance when they were in power, when they had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Hayes:
It is most interesting to hear a history lesson, but if the hon. Lady is so interested in manifestos, I refer her to the Labour party manifesto, which talks about improving chances for businesses, boosting employment and giving business more support. How does she reconcile that with recent job losses, closures and ever greater regulation on businesses of all sizes?
Maria Eagle:
I shall go on to answer those points. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman does not want Labour Members to deal with history. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wokingham made that very point in his speech and tried to pre-empt any reference to history by Labour Members. The previous Government's 18-year record needs to be looked at, given what they are calling on the Government to do. The hon. Gentleman will admit that 18 months is not as long as 18 years. The time will come--at the next general election--when the people of this country can judge this Government on their record. There are already welcome signs that the Government are taking more heed of the needs of manufacturing and employment--of individuals seeking employment and those who need to shift from job to job and industry to industry--than the previous Government did during 18 years in office.
The Government's amendment recognises the fact that it was not just in my constituency that manufacturing jobs were destroyed under the previous Administration: 2.75 million manufacturing jobs were destroyed during that period. The Opposition may not want to be reminded of that record, but it is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Brady:
The hon. Lady has laboured the point that Conservative Members do not want to discuss history. Is it not more important to discuss what our constituents and people throughout the north of England want to hear about--what the Government will do to stop factory closures and job losses? She is perfectly entitled to raise issues of history, but she would be well advised to focus on what people outside want to hear.
Maria Eagle:
My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will deal with those points
Mr. Bercow:
The hon. Lady is subcontracting.
Maria Eagle:
Back Benchers cannot subcontract to Ministers. I have less time than my hon. Friend the Minister to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I simply seek to discuss the Opposition motion, which finally
The House will probably be glad to hear that, as other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall discard about half my speech.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for being brief, and I shall be brief so that other hon. Members can speak. I am rather sad, however, because the hon. Lady had an opportunity to tell Government Front Benchers what her constituents want. Of course it is good fun to knock the previous Government, but Conservative Front Benchers cannot, for the next few years, give her constituents what she is looking for.
I listened with care to the Secretary of State. One never wants to insult or attack someone who has decided to leave the Chamber and not listen to the speeches, and we are told that he is a man of great ability, a great wit and a great spinner, but what he was spinning today was great nonsense. I understand that his grandfather, Herbert Morrison, was asked what socialism was. He replied, "Whatever a Labour Government do." That makes him the grandfather of all spin doctors.
The Secretary of State tried to pretend that the 400,000 jobs that have been created since the Labour party came into power were not created because of Conservative party policies, and tried to pretend that the fact that unemployment has been coming down in the United Kingdom for a long time, under Conservative and Labour Governments, was also not due to Conservative party policies. I think that I have been consistent in my advice
to Conservative and Labour Governments about listening to what is happening out in the real world, and the Government are foolish in the way that they treat advice from Conservative Members.
I can speak about factory closures. I was made redundant in 1975 because of the closure of the Edwards Scientific Instruments factory, which operated on behalf of Sinclair in producing calculators. That was a growth market and one of the areas that should have been thriving, even though the then Labour Government were creating unemployment in all directions. The company listened to the blandishments of the Labour Government to take people on--through one of the schemes that they introduced to try to prevent unemployment--in subsidised employment.
The scheme was so complicated that it took the Government a year to come back to the company and say, "For some technical reasons, we have decided that you will not be allowed to get the money." The plug was pulled on the £500,000 that it thought it would receive through that wonderful scheme to employ hundreds of people to make electronic calculators in Yorkshire. The company was so extended by expanding its work force that, once the plug was pulled by the Government, the bankers said, "Oops, sorry, we'll pull the plug as well." The company went down and hundreds of people lost their jobs.
"the continued spate of factory closures".
The previous Administration were not content with closing factories; they shut down entire industries. They were not concerned with a factory here or there, but closed most of our shipbuilding and steel industries and almost all of our mining industry.
"urges the Government to change policy before more jobs are lost."
I was listening carefully to the initial remarks by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, which were extensive, to hear precisely what the Opposition's policy prescriptions were, but I heard not one suggestion. We should be told in a little more detail what policy changes the Opposition would suggest to put the problems right. Given their extensive experience of the destruction of manufacturing jobs, they might just have a helpful suggestion. Perhaps in the winding-up speeches, the Opposition Front Bench will say what we should do.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |