| Home Page |
Column 957
House of Commons
Wednesday 12 February 1992
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Manufacturing Output
1. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.
The Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley) : The reduction of inflation is thprecondition of renewed sustainable growth.
Mrs. Adams : Given that the second Tory recession is set to cost 550,000 manufacturing jobs and 100,000 companies and is set to put the United Kingdom at the bottom of the European Community league table on under-investment and employment in 1992, will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that urgent action is needed to boost employment in Britain to take us out of this situation? Will he also introduce training schemes to put the United Kingdom back where it was before we had a Tory Government and to take it out of this recession?
Mr. Lilley : The key to renewed growth is lower inflation, which in turn makes lower interest rates possible. The interest rates in this country are now down to their lowest differential with those on the continent that we have seen for many years. We certainly do not need higher taxes, a minimum wage and the restoration of trade union power, which would prolong the recession and abort a recovery.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I thank my right hon. Friend for responding so promptly to my request that either his good self or my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs should visit Nottingham. I understand that the Minister is planning to visit Raleigh Industries within the next 10 days. That company is the most famous cycle manufacturer in the world, but it is subject to the most unfair dumping of bicycles from China. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to protect that most famous name in the industry.
Mr. Lilley : I recognise the powerful representations that my hon. Friend has made for industries in his constituency, and particularly the bicycle industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet representatives of that industry when he visits Nottingham and will
Column 958
discuss the problems with them. Anything that we can do within the context of European Community trade policy, we will do.Mr. Gordon Brown : On top of the 2,300 jobs tragically lost at British Aerospace today, the textile and motor trade federations are now predicting 40,000 more job losses this year, the Building Trades Federation predicts that 50,000 more jobs will be lost this year, the Engineering Employers Federation predicts that 70,000 more jobs will be lost, and the Confederation of British Industry has said that 200, 000 jobs will be lost in total unless Ministers take action. Has not the Government's last remaining friend, the Governor of the Bank of England, now extinguished the Government's last remaining claims to a pre-election recovery, and is it not the case that, having lost his support, the Government have now nothing left to lose but the election?
Mr. Lilley : I naturally regret the loss of jobs by British Aerospace and other companies, not least those in my constituency. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the press release from British Aerospace today began :
"The aviation market continues to suffer from the world-wide recession".
The hon. Gentleman, however, continues to deny the existence of that recession, which makes a mockery of those who have lost their jobs as a result of it. British Aerospace has to reach world standards of productivity and efficiency, as it made clear in its press release. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House of the additional job losses that would follow if Labour's reckless defence cuts were superimposed on the problems already faced by the industry.
The Governor of the Bank of England said that there are firm indications of an upturn coming and that the basis of sustainable growth remains a credible commitment to the goal of price stability. The Labour party could never credibly offer that.
2. Mr. Cran : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in manufacturing output between 1985 and 1990.
Mr. Lilley : Manufacturing output rose by nearly one fifth between 1985 and 1990.
Mr. Cran : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large proportion of world-beating, world-class companies? That is illustrated by Rolls-Royce, which has quadrupled its share of the jet engine market since 1987 and, even today, by the news of the British Aerospace section, which has a £13 billion per annum order book and in size is second only to that in the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would not be nearly so many such companies if they had to put up with the economic and industrial policies of the Labour party?
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend is right to mention the strengths of those companies, even when they face difficulties in world markets, and to emphasise the difficulties that they would face at home if a Labour Government were adding to those problems. There has been a tremendous growth in exports in the aerospace industry, as in other industries. We welcome that and will do all we can to sustain and build on it in the future.
Column 959
Mr. Alex Carlile : Will the Secretary of State confirm that bankruptcies and liquidations, affecting manufacturing as well as other industries, are at record levels not only in the south- east but particularly in Wales and Scotland? Will he also confirm that the fact that those bankruptcies and liquidations are occurring now in high- tech industries is a particularly worrying aspect? Does he agree that there is plenty of venture capital about, but that the venture capitalists do not have the confidence to know where to invest it? How will he instil confidence in the market so that investment in manufacturing industry can really start again?Mr. Lilley : Confidence will not be instilled by harping solely on the negatives. Naturally we regret any rise in bankruptcies, but let us remember the strengths of British industry, which has increased exports in the past 10 years by more than France, Germany, the United States or Japan- - [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that answer because he wants to talk Britain down.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Does my right hon. Friend accept that the motor manufacturing industry is one of the greatest providers of employment in this country? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the company car is not a tax-avoidance weapon but an essential tool of British industry and that, if we are to have a strong home-based industry, we do not need taxes so high that Jaguar and Rolls-Royce lose money? If those companies cannot sell their products at home, and if the Government do not encourage them at home, people abroad will not be encouraged to buy them either.
Mr. Lilley : I have always shared with my hon. Friend a belief in the importance of manufacturing industry, particularly the motor car industry. Therefore, like him, I rejoice in the fact that in the last three months of last year the motor car industry earned a surplus on the balance of payments, and exports of motor cars rose by 55 per cent. I shall convey his point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who also recognises the great importance of a strong and recovering motor car industry.
Dr. Moonie : I notice that the main question carefully ended with the date "1990". Why has manufacturing output fallen faster and further in Britain's economy than in those of any of our competitors in western Europe? Does the Minister not yet realise that the country needs action, not words?
Mr. Lilley : The hon. Gentleman should remember that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and that it is up under this Government. Compared with 10 years ago, at the same point in the economic cycle, output is up by nearly a quarter, investment is up by a third, manufacturing productivity is up by more than a half and manufacturing exports are up by nearly three quarters. That is a record to be proud of and to build on in the future.
Column 960
Telecommunications
3. Mr. Mans : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for telecommunications headquarters of internationally mobile companies.
The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood) : The United Kingdom is extremely attractive as a location for inward investment in the telecommunications industry. Recently, US West and IBM have announced that they are to move their business headquarters to the United Kingdom. One of the important characteristics of those moves was the support that it represented for British liberalisation policies. Many more companies will follow as investors.
Mr. Mans : I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Government will continue their policy of liberalisation in the telecommunications industry and continue to welcome foreign companies to compete on an equal basis in this country--provided that, in return, our companies can compete in those countries?
Mr. Redwood : My hon. Friend is quite right. That is exactly what the Government intend to do. We welcome all sorts of investors here on fair terms. Another feature that we welcome is that manufacturers are now investing here in the manufacture of equipment to supply the telecommunications industry because of the strength of the underlying service provision in this country. How much I welcome NEC, Motorola and the other companies, which make large numbers of mobile phones in this country in response to the strength of the cellular mobile phone market.
Mr. Alan Williams : Is it not strange that, while foreign companies invest in this country, British companies which are aware of the position here have invested £40 billion more overseas than the foreigners have invested here?
Mr. Redwood : Investment both ways is welcome because free trade and free investment flows increase world prosperity. I am delighted that enough large companies in this country have the profits to invest both here and abroad to bring more dividends and income into this country. It is a great testimony to this country that far more of the large, successful companies in Europe are based in Britain than in France or Germany.
Mr. Gerald Howarth : Does my hon. Friend agree that the stunning improvement in telecommunications in this country in the past 12 years has been led by British Telecom? Will he confirm that not only has British Telecom invested--this is what the Opposition keep talking about-- £20,000 million in new technology, but it has contributed no less than £1,000 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer?
Mr. Redwood : My hon. Friend is right. Much of the major investment in this country's telecommunications infrastructure in recent years has been from BT, which has made a much bigger contribution to the Exchequer than it did in the 1970s, as it is more efficient, more productive, sells more services, makes more money and pays more tax. That is true not just of BT--a large number of other investors are coming on to the market. Some £5 billion is pledged from the cable companies alone, which now have
Column 961
20,000 telephone service customers. That is just the beginning. Many thousands more will follow. We offer choice, competition and more investment--how different from Opposition policies which would smash profits and investment, and return to a monopoly.Steel Production
Mr. Strang : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the figures for steel production in the United Kingdom for the last two years for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh) : United Kingdom production of crude steel totalled 17.8 million tonnes in 1990 and 16.5 million tonnes in 1991.
Mr. Strang : Is the Minister aware that in Scotland we have gained the impression that while the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to have meetings about the industry such as the one that he had yesterday with the shadow Secretary of State for Industry--the man with the real power in relation to the steel industry, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is not prepared to lift a finger to help secure a future for steel production in Scotland? Will the Minister answer one straight question? Is the Department of Trade and Industry prepared to do anything to help the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) to try to secure thin slab steel production in Scotland--or are we to be left entirely to the mercy of that virtual private monopoly, the British Steel Corporation?
Mr. Leigh : We would be happy to consider the prospects for thin slab steel production, but unfortunately there has been absolutely no commercial interest in such production. Those are the economic facts of life. As for the Government's position, we are investing £120 million to help the people and economy of north Lanarkshire, including £40 million from this Department. The hon. Gentleman asks what we intend to do. One could well direct that question to the Labour party. Will the Labour party nationalise, subsidise and force British Steel to keep the plant open? The Labour party should put up or shut up. Mr. Andrew Mitchell : Is my hon. Friend aware that British Steel's productivity woud be fatally crippled by Labour's absurd proposal to ban coal imports? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of imported coal goes directly to British Steel and that that coal is not currently available in the United Kingdom? Should not the Labour party occasionally pause and think before announcing ridiculous objectives which would cost so many British jobs?
Mr. Leigh : We are extremely worried about that proposal, which was no doubt drawn up on the back of an envelope. British Steel tells us that there is no viable United Kingdom source of metallurgical--grade coal-- coking coal. It has to import 100 per cent. of that grade of coal and take advantage of world markets to buy from the cheapest source. The Labour party wants to stop British Steel importing that coal.
British Steel has trebled productivity since 1979. Does the Labour party want to return to the days when British Steel cost the taxpayer £8 billion or £16 billion in today's
Column 962
money. The Opposition must withdrawn their policy, and do so today, or everyone will know what their policies mean for British Steel.Mr. Salmond : Is the Minister aware that the case for expanded production and investment at the Dalzell plate mill in Lanarkshire is now backed by the Glasgow university study, the Scottish Office, the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish National party and Motherwell district council, all of whom believe that it is an outstanding plant, given the requisite investment, with a ready market for its enlarged product? Would the Minister be prepared to back such investment and expanded production, provided that the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is prepared to stop rubbishing the plant and its work force?
Mr. Leigh : There is every provision for market investment in this area. If the market wants to back such a scheme the market will back it.
Mr. Oppenheim : Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that in the heady days of politician-directed industrial strategy in the 1970s Britain had a deficit on our steel trade of £1 billion per year and British Steel lost £16 billion during that decade, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient steel maker in Europe and we have a surplus on our steel trade of £1 billion per year? If Labour Members are so keen on Ravenscraig staying open, why does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) not have the guts--or perhaps the influence in the shadow Cabinet--to give an unequivocal commitment that if the Labour party came to power it would keep Ravenscraig open?
Mr. Leigh : I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is seeking to intervene. The whole House is waiting to hear what the Opposition's policy is. Will they subsidise? Will they nationalise? We want to know now.
Dr. Bray : Is the Minister aware that the proposals for the expansion and development of the Dalzell works have been pursued for many years more consistently and vigorously by the Labour party than by any other party? Is he also aware that British Steel cannot go ahead with its plans for building a new plate mill on Teesside because of the depth of the recession into which the Government have plunged the country? Is he further aware that he is out of date about the commercial interest in thin slab production at Ravenscraig, which has been communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland but not, apparently, to the Department of Trade and Industry?
Is the Minister aware that substantially lower steel production costs are being achieved by NUCOR with thin slab production in the United States? Will he confirm, in line with undertakings given at the time of privatisation, that he expects British Steel to consider offers for the sale of Ravenscraig on a commercial basis at opportunity cost--at a price which British Steel could expect to get for the plant on world markets?
Mr. Leigh : That was a very interesting academic lecture, but it was absolutely meaningless because I have already said that if there was a market for thin slab production we would welcome that. Once again, despite the smoke-screen, the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question to which everyone in Scotland wants an
Column 963
answer. Will Labour subsidise Ravenscraig? Will it nationalise it? Will it force British Steel to keep it open? The Opposition refused to answer that in the recent debate, and they have refused to answer it again today. Their only guiding light is ambition for office, and they refuse to tell the people of Scotland what their policy is. That is disgraceful.Hosiery and Knitwear
5. Sir John Farr : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in the last six months to protect hosiery and knitwear manufacturers from dumped third-world imports.
Mr. Redwood : The United Kingdom Government will pursue vigorously with the EC authorities any dumping cases brought to our attention. In this industry, none has been brought in the past six months. Last year, under different provisions, a temporary ban was imposed on Chinese underwear imports to stop a temporary surge.
Sir John Farr : Is my hon. Friend aware that up to 500,000 jobs in Britain depend on having a sensible, controlled market, and that discipline and control of third world dumped imports can be brought about only if we have a sensible GATT regime? Will my hon. Friend please encourage my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to press to ensure that we have the protection of a new GATT structure as soon as possible?
Mr. Redwood : My hon. Friend has my full assurance. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade are dedicated to pursuing sensible GATT solutions to these problems. The Government fully recognise the importance of the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, (Sir J. Farr) so ably represents, and we want proper GATT disciplines for fair trading in this as in other sectors. I hope that our partners in the world economy and the European Community will assist our efforts to achieve speedy resolution of the GATT discussions.
Mr. Cryer : How is it that at the British yarn show held recently in Leicester the chairman of Benson Turner, a firm of spinners in my constituency and an efficient and well-organised company, complained that the Department of Trade and Industry shows inertia and indifference when the industry submits complaints about illegal subsidies and dumping? The chairman called on the Department to take action about those complaints because if it did not do so there would be little industry left to take action about.
Mr. Redwood : I can promise that the Department will take vigorous action where there are good cases. I am advised that no cases came to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the past six months. The hon. Gentleman should represent his constituents by writing a letter with specific complaints. We shall then take action to follow it through with the EC authorities.
Mr. Andy Stewart : My hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work in the knitwear industry and are grateful for the steps already taken by the Government. Does he agree that they are at greater risk not from imports but from the minimum wage, which would devastate the knitwear industry?
Column 964
Mr. Redwood : My hon. Friend is right. The proposals of the Labour party, and some of the proposals in the Maastricht social protocol, would be deeply damaging to the industry. We do not want to see those jobs destroyed. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might like to remember that in the polyester yarn sector, which is not covered by the question, there are anti-dumping suits going on, so we are pursuing the cases of which we are aware.
Mr. Kirkwood : Is the Minister aware that it is not true that there have been no notifications of dumping in the past six months? Is he aware of the work that the Scottish Knitwear Council has been doing with departmental officials showing that in 1990 a total of 123,000 knitted garments in cashmere coming from China were dumped over the quota agreed? What action is the Department taking to seek compensation and redress so that the overshipments in 1991 and this year are stopped forthwith?
Mr. Redwood : The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) was specific. It asked about six months in a limited industry, and I gave an accurate answer on that. There have been cases in cashmere relating to an earlier period and we are pursuing those actively with the EC authorities. We have to ask whether there was some failure in the mechanism of the quota arrangements, and whether they can be adjusted or whether there needs to be some compensation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is actively pursuing that.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. We are making slow progress. In fairness to those whose questions come further down the Order Paper, I propose now to speed up a bit.
Post Office
6. Mr. Hain : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Post Office's negative external financing limit for the year 1992-93.
Mr. Leigh : A negative external financing limit of £66 million has been set for the Post Office for the year 1992-93.
Mr. Hain : Since 1979, the Post Office has contributed more than £1 billion in negative external financing limit payments, at 1991 prices, cutting back on investment and milking the customer. Would it not be far better for the Government to end these punitive and ridiculous double tax payments--the Post Office already pays corporation tax--thus allowing it to concentrate on improving the quality of service to customers rather than pursuing abolition of the second delivery in towns and putting restrictions on rural services such as insisting that people have letter boxes at the bottom of their gardens or, in some cases, making people go to village centres for their letters? Should not the priority be investment to improve the quality of services?
Mr. Leigh : Let us put the matter into perspective.
[Interruption.] I am sorry, I am only trying to answer the question. We are talking about an organisation which has a turnover of £4 billion. It is not unreasonable that, from
Column 965
that, it should give its only shareholder-- the Government--a dividend of £65 million per year. If we did not require that dividend, which is spent on hospitals, schools and much else, we would be able to cut only about 1p off the 24p cost of a first-class stamp. This year, the Post Office has a £340 million capital investment programme. The first and second-class delivery services have shown a marked improvement over the past two or three years. The Post Office is a successful and profitable organisation, and I hope that the Opposition wish it to remain so.Mr. Bellingham : Is my hon. Friend aware that the rural sub-post office is at the heart of the rural community and that it plays an essential role in west Norfolk? Will he do what he can to ensure that as many Government services as possible are available at post offices? For example, why cannot every rural sub-post office have a vehicle relicensing facility?
Mr. Leigh : We are anxious to protect the rural post office network and one of the main purposes of the citizens charter is, through the process of competition, to improve quality and choice within the constraints of an affordable uniform tariff. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, that we have very much in mind the needs of rural post offices and we shall look with interest at any requests that they make to us for extending their liability to sell other services.
Mr. Wigley : Does the Minister accept that it is feared in rural areas that a move towards privatisation would lead to services that require subsidies being axed, which would be a body blow to those rural areas and their opportunities for economic development? Can he give any assurance about the future of such services in rural areas?
Mr. Leigh : I have already given such an assurance. I have said that the Government are committed to the maintenance of the uniform tariff structure, about which people in rural areas are concerned. That is the commitment that we have given and by which we stand.
Mucking Flats
7. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to visit Mucking Flats in south-east Essex, to discuss industrial growth in the area.
Mr. Lilley : I shall read this answer with particular care. I have no plans at present to visit Mucking Flats.
Mrs. Gorman : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government's progressive policies in privatising the electricity industry, that area of south-east Essex deserves a visit because methane produced by all the muck that comes out of London is being dumped at Mucking Flats, converted into electricity and sold to the national grid, thanks to the enterprise of Cory's, which is in my constituency? Is he further aware that, just up the road from Mucking Flats at Shell Haven, Shell and Mobil are planning to turn their spare gas into electricity? Does not that show that when we introduce private enterprise we turn muck into brass?
Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend offers me an enticing invitation which I shall consider taking up. This is an interesting plan and I am delighted that my Department has been able to offer a grant to help it. We want to see the
Column 966
environmentally friendly development of electricity. I understand that this scheme will be able to light up a town of about 30,000 people, just as my hon. Friend can today, almost single- handedly, light up her constituency.Recession
8. Mr. Orme : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession in industry.
Mr. Redwood : My right hon. Friend receives considerable correspondence about the state of north-western business.
Mr. Orme : Will the Minister confirm that since 1979 there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in manufacturing industry in the north-west--a larger proportion than in any other region in the United Kingdom--that last year 16,800 jobs in the manufacturing and engineering industries were lost and that, unfortunately, we foresee more jobs being lost as a result of the statement made by British Aerospace today? Faced with those facts, what action will the Government take? Why do they stand aside as British manufacturing industry is reduced, whereas our main competitors in other countries support their industries?
Mr. Redwood : My right hon. Friend set out the Government's policies some time ago in a clear document that was fully backed by the CBI, which believes that we have the right policies to improve our competitiveness and to take advantage of lower inflation and of business conditions around the world as they improve. In the 1980s, north-western output expanded, as it did nationwide. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that manufacturing output was up by more than one fifth, and productivity, investment, and exports by much more impressive figures. The CBI stated recently that matters will improve and the Bank of England says that the leading indicator measures point firmly to an upturn in output in 1992.
Sir Peter Blaker : As to British Aerospace, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that the Government will continue vigorously to support exports of military aircraft--something which is strongly opposed by many Opposition Members? What is the Government's attitude to Labour's proposal for a defence diversification agency, bearing in mind that if it were so easy to create jobs through a Government agency, it is surprising that Labour has always left behind more unemployed than when it took office.
Mr. Redwood : My right hon. Friend is right. The Government will offer all assistance under our policies and programmes to help British Aerospace to export its products. After all, it is orders that businesses need to provide jobs and to guarantee employment. The large defence cuts that Labour proposes would be ruinous to job prospects, and its ham-fisted intervention plans would not work. It would not be easy to effect the transition that Labour suggests by Government sleight of hand. What is required is careful business planning by the managers and directors of the companies concerned.
Column 967
Mr. Hoyle : Yes, but if the Minister will come into the real world, he will find that redundancies are still occurring. Many of the redundancies at British Aerospace involve white-collar workers, including professional engineers--many of whom are graduates. What future will they have in the recession that continues under the present Government?
Mr. Redwood : The worldwide recession will lift. It is doing so in many parts of the world, and that provides export and job opportunities. Skilled people always have opportunities ahead of them, and I am sure that they will continue to do so under this Government, who have the right economic policies. Those opportunities would be wrecked by the Opposition's policies for commerce and industry.
Deregulation Unit
Mr. Hague : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's deregulation unit.
Mr. Redwood : The Government have a strong programme of deregulatory work. I will announce shortly the work programme for the coming year. Removing or reducing burdens on business is vital to successful enterprise policies.
Mr. Hague : I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work so far. Does he agree that minimising the regulatory burden on business is a worthy objective for any Government? Would not it be a disaster for business throughout the country suddenly to be confronted by a long list of new regulations and constraints? I refer to social audits, contract compliance agencies, work force monitoring, compulsory disclosure of information, minimum wages, equality tribunals and many other Opposition ideas.
Mr. Redwood : That is a forbidding and worrying list for all business people. One of this country's great strengths is that the burdens imposed by the Government on employing people are much lighter than in France and Germany. That is why we enjoy higher inward investment compared with those two countries. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen think that that is amusing. They do not understand the importance of keeping costs under control, and of making sure that the Government do not impede enterprise.
Mr. Flynn : As an apostle of deregulation, will the Minister investigate why British Transport Advertising has banned British Medical Association advertising that seeks to discourage smoking by young people when, at the same time, the tobacco industry spends £300 million on advertising--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.
Mr. Redwood : I do not see how I can answer the question as I could not see properly the document that the hon. Member was waving.
Mr. Speaker : We proceed here by speech, not by visual aids.
Mr. David Shaw : Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he announces new proposals for deregulation he will
Column 968
ensure that he and his officials have consulted the Minister for small businesses to see that every effort is made to take into account the needs of small businesses and that deregulation, wherever possible, is increased, so that small businesses can get special exemptions where possible from what can be very complicated regulations and procedures that the Government introduce?Mr. Redwood : I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Much practice in the past year or two has reflected just that process, after a good deal of consultation with small businesses. They have been exempted from certain reporting requirements by my Department under the companies legislation, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a lot of measures in last year's Budget to improve the position of small businesses, because tax is revealed to be one of their most noticeable problems when they reply to our consultations.
Ms. Mowlam : When the Minister reviews the business regulations will he consider extending that review to the regulation of financial institutions, in view of the problems with the collapse of Guinness III and the potential collapse of Guinness II, and in view of the serious difficulty with fraud regulation at present, particularly now that only three people will be going to gaol for a shorter time than the whole of the Guinness trial was taken, with one of them, Mr. Ernest Saunders, whose sentence was reduced because of ill health, on the national media this morning in blooming health and protesting his innocence?
Mr. Redwood : I do not intend to comment on individual cases before the courts. The general principle of the Government's policy is clear : we will ensure that people who commit fraud and swindles are brought to book through the courts. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently made statements, and was on the radio this morning, about the review that he is conducting of how court procedures can be improved. The House can rest assured that the Government will take every action possible to bring villains to book. We will not tolerate them.
Recession
10. Mr. Clelland : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the long-term effects of the recession in industry.
Mr. Lilley : British industry is well placed to grow as we recover from the recession.
| Next Section
| Home Page |