| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swayne: I am concerned by the use of the word "safe". What are the hazards consequent upon hot nuts, either environmental or otherwise?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows about the hazards because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border explained them. We are talking about the definition of heated items. We are talking about heated hamburgers, heated hot dogs and hot fat. Those are all
perishable and potentially dangerous. They are a hazard to health and a danger to whoever handles them. That is where the COSHH regulations arise, which were correctly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border under amendment No. 28.I recall dealing with this in the past when I had certain responsibilities for the Health and Safety Executive. There is an attempt under the regulations to try to ensure that in the workplace--ironically, this is a workplace of sorts--we do whatever we can to ensure that unnecessary hazards are not met. There could be a hazard for the Mafia man, with whom we are becoming familiar--or even fond--the officer and any members of the public in the vicinity. Let us not forget that this is a public area. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, all those people are protected. That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. Enough of that.
My amendment No. 22 seeks to strengthen the Bill. I thought that there was a risk that the drafting of clause 5(2)(b) may be unduly restrictive. Subsection (2) says:
- Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid--
(a) against the person from whom the thing was seized, and
(b) in respect of his activities at the time of the seizure.
- at the time of the seizure
My amendment seeks to insert the words "or before". It occurred to me that a narrow interpretation of the current drafting could unnecessarily restrict the powers available to the precise moment of seizure. To be more effective, the subsection needs to be broadened to encompass activities that may have occurred before or just before the time of seizure. I am trying to be helpful. I have identified what I believe is unduly restrictive wording and I hope that the Minister can reassure us or, who knows, accept this modest but helpful amendment.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 touch on what I believe is an important area. Throughout the Bill we are talking, necessarily, about a tension or conflict between the understandable desire of the authorities and the House to deal with what everybody perceives to be antisocial, unpleasant and unfortunate while also dealing with individuals who have rights, who are attempting to run a business and who own property in the form of perishable or non-perishable materials.
The Bill introduces some draconian powers. Indeed, clause 4 is entitled "Seizure of property" and clause 5 is entitled "Retention and disposal". One of the main arguments in favour of the Bill--it is argued by the Minister--is that, in addition to mere fines, which were discussed earlier, the ability to seize or confiscate property will be one of the most potent new weapons available to the authorities.
Given all that, and accepting the thrust and the principle of the Bill, what bothers me is that we must make sure that we strike the appropriate balance between our desire to do all the necessary seizing, confiscating, punishing and stopping of illegal trading while considering the proper rights of the individual. We live in an age where we are sensitive, perhaps overly so, about the powers of the police and the possibility of giving them more.
I bet that, in a different context, the Chamber would be full of people frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that we should give the police any more powers, yet the Bill gives the police considerable extra powers and there is little frothing. I am puzzled as to why such powers should be given almost casually in this case, when in other circumstances there would be widespread concerns.
My modest amendments are an attempt to strike a proper balance between the increase in powers and the rights of individuals, by putting reasonable time limits on the process, so that if someone is deprived of his livelihood and it turns out, after rapid due process, to have been an injustice, he will at least be deprived of it for only a minimum, reasonable time. We all know that the wheels of justice tend to grind somewhat slowly. If such draconian powers are introduced, some innocent individuals may be deprived of their livelihood almost indefinitely, or at least for too long.
Mr. Swayne: Under some of the amendments, including No. 28, for which I know my right hon. Friend is not personally responsible, the police may actually lack powers. I am not persuaded of the hazardous nature of many of these comestibles--they are for consumption--but if we accept the force of the amendment, that they are hazards, under proposed new subsection (4)(c) they are not to be removed; they are to stay in the park. What agency is to remove them thereafter?
Mr. Forth: That thought is even less palatable--if I may use that word--than what we had before. My hon. Friend illustrates the alarming element of doubt in everyone's mind about what is to happen to these hot, unpleasant perishables when the cart has been seized. Are they left in the park? Are they taken away, and by whom?
Where are they put as a matter of safety? The Minister may have satisfied the Committee--it went so quickly that nobody would have noticed whether he did--but he has not yet satisfied us. We are now properly fulfilling our role on Report, and he will have the time carefully and comprehensively to answer our questions.I tabled my amendments to raise those questions and to probe. I hope that we will get full answers, because I am very attracted by amendment No. 28, which contains much that is valuable and would strengthen the Bill. We will listen very carefully to the Minister's response before deciding how far to proceed. If necessary--if we are not satisfied--my right hon. Friend may want to press amendment No. 28 to a vote.
Mr. Chope: I support amendment No. 6. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that it was designed to probe. My worry is that clauses 4 and 5, which it would delete, might have unintended consequences--not an unusual effect for the legislation that we discuss.
The rationale for the Bill is succinctly expressed by a source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 4 February. He said:
- The Royal Parks should be a showcase for Britain. They should not be ruined by a dodgy geezer selling a burger on a dirty old trolley.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Manufacturing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Dowd.]
10 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): During this Adjournment debate, which I am pleased to have secured, I hope to talk about matters equally as interesting as hamburgers, of which I am a great eater. I thank the Minister for attending, especially as manufacturing industry was discussed at length yesterday. I shall try not to repeat any of those remarks.
I have initiated the debate because I have a manufacturing background, although I have no interest to declare these days. However, I have worked for about 80 different companies as a consultant. Most were manufacturing companies and a lot were in the textile industry. I want to consider the background to manufacturing, discuss the problems that the industry faces and perhaps touch on a couple of local issues that affect my constituency.
Since the industrial revolution, the wealth of this country and individual prosperity have increased greatly because of developments in manufacturing such as automation and mechanisation. It is relatively difficult to improve the productivity of a restaurant or of service industries, but increased wealth can be achieved by improving manufactured goods industries and through the world trade that that facilitates. Service industries are not easily traded internationally, but it is relatively easy to trade manufactured goods, although it is crucial to be efficient in world terms. In other words, better manufacturing performance makes goods relatively cheaper and makes us all better off. That is the battleground and, therefore, that is where we must concentrate.
Manufactured goods also represent about 63 per cent. of our exports, so they are extremely important in terms of national earnings and the relative wealth that is created for the people of this country. However, I am concerned by some manufacturing industry statistics which suggest relative decline. Indeed, some are startling. The manufacturing industries employed 8.3 million people in 1950, and that figure remained relatively stable for about 20 years. Today, they employ only 4 million. To put that into perspective, manufacturing employed about 41 per cent. of the work force in 1950. I do not want to be party political, but the Government have said that 160,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the election and the percentage of those working in manufacturing has fallen from 18 to 16 per cent.
There are other problems. Companies find it difficult to recruit school leavers, who find the computer, high-tech and financial services industries far more attractive. Many potential recruits have been lost over the past 20 years or so because at one stage employing young people became expensive. That mistake should not be repeated, and I shall return to that point.
We have to accept that productivity increases and mechanisation have in part caused the decline in the number of people employed in manufacturing industry, and manufacturing's share of gross domestic product represents another depressing statistic. In 1950, manufacturing provided about 37 per cent. of GDP.
Today, that figure is 20 per cent. and falling. It would be easy to say that industrial workers have been very greedy. At times, that has been the case, but, using the same dates, in 1950, wages in manufacturing were about 104 per cent. of the average wage--slightly above average. Today, they are about 99 per cent., so it is not true that manufacturing workers have priced themselves out of work.Some of the decline that I have spoken of is relative. It is due to the growth in service industries. However, the demand for manufactured goods is on the increase. These days, many families do not have just one car. Quite a few have two, or sometimes even more. There are colour televisions not just in one room in a house, but sometimes in two, three or even four. Likewise, computers, mobile phones and pagers--mine is being a nuisance at the moment--are commonplace, so there is a great call for manufactured goods. There is a market for more and more goods. The saturation point with manufactured goods is much higher than that for the service industries.
All that is borne out by the level of imports. Twenty years ago, manufacturing made up about 50 per cent. of all imports. Now, the figure has risen to 67 per cent. At the same time, although there has been greater demand for services domestically, the level of services imported has been static because it is more difficult to import services. Because of that, we are retaining service industry jobs but losing manufacturing industry jobs. However, it is manufacturing that creates the added valued. Manufacturing has not declined because there are no orders, or because no one wants manufactured goods--far from it. It has declined for other reasons.
May I suggest several ways in which the Government might help manufacturing industry? First, it has been right to concentrate on the car and coal mining industries recently, but there are many other industries in the country--perhaps not high profile and perhaps a lot smaller, but they require recognition of what they contribute to GDP and, indeed, to the wealth of the nation. Thousands of jobs in, for example, the textile industry, my old industry, have been lost recently.
Secondly, it is essential that instead of increasing taxes, the present Government--indeed, all Governments--should cut taxes. Taxes stifle enterprise, put up costs and drive jobs abroad. A particular example is petrol in the United Kingdom, which I understand starts off as the cheapest in Europe, but, when tax is added to it, ends up the dearest.
Thirdly, some countries that are far less efficient than us are catching us up because they are less regulated. Again, many regulations that have been introduced by the Government, although well intentioned, will not help. Companies stopped employing and training youngsters, as I have said, because it became too expensive to do so, partly because of the wages councils that existed at that time. I would not want further regulation and burdens to cause industries to employ even fewer youngsters.
Fourthly, it is important that we understand industry. It is extremely difficult to make things. Deadlines are tight and margins are low. The quality of manufactured goods, rightly, must be very high. Fifthly, we should ensure that European competition rules are not being broken by other countries on the continent when we try to comply with them so strictly. Sixthly, we should pursue policies that would enable interest rates to be reduced and, therefore,
the pound to fall in value, although it seems that the weakness of the euro as a currency will always be a problem--at least it will be for the foreseeable future.While I am on Europe, my final suggestion is that the Government should avoid economic and monetary union at all costs. We should be more competitive than Europe and not the same as Europe. If we are just the same as Europe as regards add-on costs for industry, employing people, tax, wages and everything else, why on earth should companies come to the periphery of Europe? They would build factories in the centre of Europe. We must be different from Europe and, indeed, better than Europe.
I want to mention two local issues that are to do with manufacturing industry and of which I have given the Minister notice. A company in my constituency called Ultra Hydraulics has employed 252 people. It is owned by an American company--a joint venture between Commercial Intertech and its partner Parker Hannifin in Ohio. One of the partners has been systematically transferring work from Tewkesbury to Chemnitz in Germany, with the consequent loss of 252 jobs.
The parent company blames sustained losses, the strength of the pound and the prevailing economic conditions in this country, but it also blames the incentives being offered to it by the German Government to relocate there. Will the Minister consider those incentives? Are they legal? I should like an assurance from her that she will look into the matter.
My second point, on a slightly more positive note, concerns the A400M airbus project. I welcome the long-awaited decision to order 25 of those planes, should the project go ahead. British jobs--again, many jobs in my constituency--will depend on it, but they will also depend on fair competition rules. We need to ensure that any help that is afforded to companies in France particularly, but on the continent generally, is also available to companies here. British companies should not be disadvantaged in this respect. In the case of aerospace-type work in particular, the set-up costs are very high. Our Government should give at least as much help to our companies as, say, the French give theirs. The Minister must persuade the Europeans to follow suit and pledge to support the project. Otherwise, the project simply will not go ahead, and, obviously, jobs will be created and safeguarded only if it does go ahead.
I am not asking for intervention or state control in manufacturing industry. The industry made itself great, and Government interference is often the problem rather than the solution; but Governments can create the right conditions, which I am asking this Government to do. I am looking for a recognition of the value of manufacturing to the economy and to our wealth generally. I am looking for an understanding of how hard it is to manufacture goods. So much can go wrong, and, as I have said, the margins are so slim, especially when some workers in the world are earning trifling amounts in wages and yet producing the same goods. I am looking for lower taxation and less burdensome regulation, and I am looking for a determination to make British manufacturing prevail again.
10.12 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |