| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Apr 2003 : Column 1103—continued
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): It is impressive that manufacturers have responded. I speak as someone who worked for a British manufacturer for eight years. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that many of those inquiries from manufacturers are prompted by their need for Government advice about how they should interpret, implement and apply the plethora of legislation that the Government have imposed on manufacturers since coming to office?
Ross Cranston: I do not accept that argument. I understand that the great majority of those inquiries are technical, with manufacturers asking how they can improve their performance so that they can move to higher value production. The Department of Trade and Industry claims that the in-depth consultancy work under the scheme has resulted in average productivity savings of £85,000. I am rather sceptical about that figure, but it may be true.
Government can do a great deal to improve skills. At a local level that can be done by colleges of education, such as Dudley college in my constituency. I have previously told the House of the virtues of Dudley college, which is the fourth biggest college in the country and offers traineeships and modern apprenticeships. It has a construction curriculum centre that has been recognised as a centre of excellence nationally. At national level Departments must work closely together, and in the past month or so I have been gratified that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has indicated that he will work much more closely with the DTI to improve skills levels in the economy.
Industry itself can do a great deal. It is in the driving seat. Recently some of my hon. Friends and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were at the launch of the
Black Country chamber of commerce manufacturing support campaign. [Interruption.] It is a great pity that the shadow Leader of the House was not able to attend. The chamber of commerce says in its detailed statement that it wants to work with various partners, especially the educational establishments, it wants to change the perception of manufacturing, and more importantly, it wants to identify champions of the sector so as to stimulate the growth of high quality manufacturing establishments. It speaks of
- "helping to identify niche segments, promoting higher value added activities, driving the way to fully exploit design and innovation, seeking to lead and inspire Businesses."
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The hon. and learned Gentleman breezily dismissed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). Instead of speaking about what the Government can do, why does he not speak about what the Government should stop doing? Given that more than 99 per cent. of companies in this country employ fewer than 100 people, account for more than half of the private sector workforce and produce two fifths of our national output, why is he so complacent about the fact that those small businesses face a regulatory sea that is deeper and more hazardous than any that they have previously had to negotiate?
Ross Cranston: As I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I do not accept the argument that red tape is an unaffordable burden on the economy. Most of the regulation is designed to improve the position of those working for or affected by the activities of manufacturing establishments and businesses generally. I welcome that regulation.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): Does not the criticism that has just been levelled at my hon. and learned Friend resemble the argument a few years ago that the national minimum wage would be disastrous and cause a great deal of unemployment? The Opposition have changed their tune on that.
Ross Cranston: As they must on a number of other matters, as well. We heard predictions that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost. Of course, the number of jobs has gone up by 1.5 million since 1997.
Rob Marris: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his generosity. He may have, as I have and as you may have, Madam Deputy Speaker, visited the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the west midlands based in West Bromwich. When I spoke to the advisers there, they did not speak about lots of inquiries about how to deal with red tape. They spoke about innovation, information sharing and how they could access the substantial funds that the Government have provided to help the transition in manufacturing to the high tech innovation to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
Ross Cranston: I agree. Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has reduced
the number of sources that businesses must access if they want assistance. The West Bromwich centre is a good example of that.I come to the third aspect of my contribution. [Interruption.] I know that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to it. It relates to the nature of the House, which may interest him. We need to improve our procedures. Recently, I was part of a working party set up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). Under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd, the working party produced a report that was recently launched. It is entitled "Making Tax Law" and the argument of the working party paper was that fully to understand and enact tax legislation, we need entirely different procedures. It is an area where experts need to make a contribution much earlier in the process, so that we as legislators can fully appreciate what we are enacting.
After six years in the House, it seems to me that we spend far too long on some matters and not enough time on others. Recently, I raised an issue that other hon. Members, including the shadow Leader of the House, might consider trivial: legislation to implement the UN convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that there is no legislative time at present to deal with that, but it is important for our position as an international trading economy to sign up to that convention as soon as we can. It is not acceptable that we cannot find legislative time for that.
I want to say something about the House of Lords, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his Committee are still considering. Let me set out my stall at the outset. I am not impressed by the case for an elected second Chamber. Much of that case proceeds on a false premise, which was starkly set out in the report of the Public Administration Committee, which states that Parliament's key task is
- "holding the Government to account".
In my view, once a party element is introduced into the equation, the key task of Parliament is not that of holding the Government to account. From the point of view of the governing party, it is to provide and sustain the Government. From the point of view of the main Opposition party, however, it is to undermine them. That does not mean that holding the Government to account goes out of the window, although from the point of view of members of the governing party, they will hold it to account as much through internal and informal party discussions as through parliamentary channels, if not more so. From the perspective of the main Opposition party or parties, that will happen as much through the media as through those channels.
My first point is that, if one starts with what I believe is a more realistic assumption about Parliament's key task, one can reach different conclusions about reform of the House of Lords. If one is talking about enhancing Parliament's ability to enable the Government to meet their manifesto commitment, one will come to a different conclusion about the role of the House of Lords. Secondly, discussions about House of Lords reform tend to assume that the reformed body will not lead to constitutional deadlock. Neither the royal commission, the Select Committee on Public Administration nor the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform suggest any alteration to the Parliament Acts. It is said that they provide sufficient safeguards against such deadlock. Of course, there is consensus against the introduction of significant new powers for the second Chamber, although there are suggestions that there could be more effective control over statutory instruments and a role in relation to some constitutional Bills.
My concern is not deadlock, which I concede would be rare. I am concerned about what an enhanced, more confident and legitimate House of Lords might do without any change in its formal powers. First, it can obstruct. In 1993–96, the average number of defeats was about 12 a year; since 1997, there have been at least three times as many. In addition to defeats, Bills have been withdrawn or delayed because of the Lords' obstruction.
Without any change in the formal powers of the House of Lords, there is a danger that an enhanced, more confident and legitimate Chamber will strain at the practices and conventions on which our constitution is based. If there has been a constitutional practice that the Lords should not challenge the clearly expressed view of the Commons on major issues of public policy, it has been sorely tested in the past couple of years. At present, there is a power to veto statutory instruments. It was previously the convention that that power would not be used, but that has now been white ant-ed out. The convention that the Lords should not stand in the way of manifesto commitments would be even more severely tested than at present by an enhanced and more confident and legitimate House of Lords.
I voted for abolition of the Lords, as unicameralism has its attractions—we have it in Scotland and other parts of Europe—but I can see that it is not a practical solution and it is, frankly, not on the cards. The difficulty with a fully and directly elected House is that the constitutional conventions will be under very great strain. None the less, reform must continue and we must deal with the hereditary peers. In terms of appointments, we should also ensure that the Lords do not become either cronies or a self-perpetuating oligarchy through an appointments committee of the great and good. We must also explore the possibility of indirect elections from the nations and regions.
Those are my three main points and I ask that they be considered before the Easter Adjournment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |