House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Mar 1993

Exporters

13. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote services available to British exporters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh) : In support of the comprehensive and high-quality package of export

Column 279

services that my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office offer to British exporters, we undertake a wide range of ongoing promotional activity.

Mr. Fabricant : Will my hon. Friend take it from me, as one who has exported to all four corners of the world over the last few years, that in the past we have suffered some small disadvantage against the Japanese and the Germans because of inadequate export credit guarantees? Will he join me in congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his excellent move in adding £1.3 billion to the resources of the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Does he agree that this is a victory for common sense and perhaps a victory of the Department of Trade and Industry over the Treasury?

Mr. Leigh : No, I could not possibly say that. It is a victory for Britain. I am sure the House will agree that it shows that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's efforts in ensuring that the DTI is an effective voice of business within government have been proved right. It used to be said of some people that they had a good war. My President had a good Budget yesterday. Whether on advance corporation tax, small firms or ECGD, I do not think that £1, 300 million worth of extra cover is bad for one day.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce : Representing an area with a high number of exporting businesses, I welcome the increase in export credit guarantee support. Will the Minister recognise that he can help exporters by ensuring that Britain becomes clearly and unequivocally a fully-integrated member of the single market and the European Community, that we ratify Maastricht and that he stops accusing Opposition parties of the failure of his own party to get its act together?

Mr. Leigh : After the events of last week, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Mr. Quentin Davies : The improvement announced yesterday will be a tremendous and most welcome boost to morale and the performance of capital goods exporting and contracting industries. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that ECGD is offering competitive premium rates will enable us to negotiate with governmental export credit agencies in other countries a concerted de-escalation of some of the cut-throat competition which has existed over the last few years so that we can avoid making again the mistakes that we made in that area in the early 1980s?

Mr. Leigh : I am grateful to my hon. Friend ; he is absolutely right. In major markets our ECGD rates will be broadly competitive. This is about making Britain win in the world market. We have provided the tools ; exporters must get on with the job.

Mr. Hardy : The dreadful balance of payments position certainly justifies the modest action to which the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred, but does not the Minister accept that if the Government make unwise decisions in regard to the coal industry, the cost of additional imported energy--which would increase dramatically after the next four or five years--would eat away at any export achievements that the Government might secure?

Mr. Leigh : To put the matter in context, the value of our exports is at a record level. Over the 1980s, it increased

Column 280

faster than that of our major competitors. Although import penetration has been an increasing problem for all major industrialised countries, it has been less of a problem in this country than in major competitor countries since 1981--less than in France, Germany, Italy or the United States. Yesterday's announcement will ensure that our exporters will be even more successful in future than they have been in the past.

Deregulation Unit

14. Sir Michael Grylls : To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for there to be an annual report to Parliament on the work of the deregulation unit.

Mr. Neil Hamilton : Progress reports to Parliament are made regularly under the deregulation initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to Parliament on 4 February, when he outlined the results of the seminar of Cabinet Ministers and senior civil servants that gave rise to the appointment of seven business task forces, to involve the private sector in furthering progress with the deregulation initiative.

Sir Michael Grylls : While I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given his support to the campaign, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the value of a regular report to Parliament and a debate. On the Government Benches, an army of my right hon. and hon. Friends are behind my hon. Friend the Minister and want him to succeed with his good work. I ask him not to turn his face entirely away from a formal report--almost like a Budget--that could be debated in the House over two days. That would help my hon. Friend in his work and would have the support of us all.

Mr. Hamilton : I am delighted to account to Parliament as often as possible on my responsibilities, and I thank my hon. Friend for the help that he gives me in achieving success. He is joined by many others on these Benches--particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat), who was this week elected chairman of the deregulation sub-committee of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which itself is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls). This side of the House is serious about deregulation because we know that it will bring more jobs and increased prosperity for all our people.

Assisted Areas

16. Dr. Berry : To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his review of the assisted areas map ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sainsbury : An announcement will be made as soon as possible, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.

Dr. Berry : Is the Minister aware of the enormous support for assisted area status for the Bristol travel-to-work area? Is he aware that the submissions of the local councils have cross-party support and the support of the public and private sectors in Bristol? Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Bristol has risen at twice the average national rate over the past two years,

Column 281

with record levels of long-term unemployment and thousands of jobs lost at companies such as Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace? When will the Minister do something about that?

Mr. Sainsbury : I am aware of those matters. The joint submission made by the county, district, borough and city councils and Avon training and enterprise council and the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be carefully considered, along with those relating to all other travel -to-work areas, before we announce the result of our review.

Mr. Barry Field : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Isle of Wight has left no stone unturned in making its case? Does he agree that it is appalling that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pilot study of the benefit to jobs, we heard only carping criticism from the Liberal Democrats? That is the very sin of which they always accuse other parties. It is just too bad ; when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor adopts an Opposition suggestion all their spokesmen could do in the House last night was to criticise the Budget.

Mr. Sainsbury : My hon. Friend made his second point with his usual force and strength. I confirm that not only the Isle of Wight authorities but my hon. Friend have left no stone unturned. In fact, I would say that they have turned over every stone at least twice, in making representations for the Isle of Wight and its possible qualification for assisted area status.

Mr. Jim Cunningham rose--

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman's name escapes me.

Mr. Cunningham : It is not very often that my name escapes people. Does not the Minister realise that the delay in disclosing the date for the announcement of the assisted areas map is causing great uncertainty for cities like Coventry, which recently experienced further redundancies in companies such as Rolls-Royce? When will the Minister be able to announce the exact date so that the uncertainty in relation to investment may be removed?

Mr. Sainsbury : I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I can assure him that we will make the announcement as soon as we can, taking the coal review into account, as I am sure the House would wish us to do.

Business Men (Meetings)

17. Mr. Oppenheim : To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings he has had with business men before 8.30 am in the last month ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine : I have had no such meetings.

Mr. Oppenheim : In considering what he might do before breakfast, or indeed before any other meal of the day, will my right hon. Friend take into account the effect of state-directed industrial strategies on the European steel industry? For many years, politicians considered that the right macho strategy for that industry was to pour billions of pounds into the creation of ever-increasing capacity, and we are now asked to provide even more billions to close down much of that capacity. Does not this illustrate

Column 282

that while decisions left to the market may produce outcomes that are not perfect, they are a great deal less imperfect than those determined by politicians?

Mr. Heseltine : The whole House knows what I am doing before breakfast. I am intervening, as I am doing before lunch, tea and dinner. What I am not doing is subsidising British industry, before or after any meal.

Mr. Robin Cook : Should the President of the Board of Trade manage to intervene with business men before breakfast, will he make available to them the report of his competitiveness unit? Can he confirm the Sunday Times story that that report concludes that the British industrial base is fundamentally weak and that the trade deficit will last for decades? How can the Government seriously claim that they have put in position the conditions for recovery when that report tells them that what they have put in place is an industrial base low in investment and low in skills? Is not that an appalling verdict on 14 years in office? Is not that the real reason for the President's refusal to publish the report?

Mr. Heseltine : The uncomfortable fact for the hon. Gentleman is that the report clearly reveals the devastating inheritance of 1979, when, economically, this country was perceived as the weak man of Europe because of over-taxation, over-inflation and

over-nationalisation. We are now recovering from that situation, and the hon. Gentleman just cannot stand the changes.

North Sea Development

19. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve competitiveness in the development of the North sea.

Mr. Eggar : I published the report of the working group on United Kingdom continental shelf competitiveness on 2 March, and I am encouraging all concerned to implement the group's recommendations.

Mr. Thompson : Bearing in mind the fact that many of my constituents in Norwich, North depend for their jobs on the further development of the North sea oil and gas industry and reserves, does my hon. Friend agree that yesterday's Budget announcement of the reform of North sea oil taxation was very good news with regard to jobs in the constituency and very good news for people throughout the country?

Mr. Eggar : My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday. Of course, these are very wide-ranging changes in the structure of petroleum revenue tax and associated North sea oil taxation, and the companies will respond to the changes in due course.

Coal Review

20. Mr. Hoon : To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the results of the coal review.

Mr. Heseltine : I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).

Mr. Hoon : Is not the truth that the purpose of the delay in publishing the review is to enable the right hon.

Column 283

Gentleman to cobble together some sort of majority on his own Back Benches, rather than to take account of any concern for the country's energy requirements?

Mr. Heseltine : The truth is that my overall responsibility is to provide competitive energy from a diversity of sources. However, in the process, I must have regard to any changes that take place. I am therefore examining the effects of the coal industry upon energy policies and the level of the marketplace, and I will report to the House as soon as I can.

Mr. Ian Bruce : Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the reaction of the House yesterday to the suggestion that energy prices would be raised when he considers whether it is right to increase the cost of electricity and other energy by giving coal a higher price than the average that could be obtained on the open market?

Column 284

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has raised one of the central dilemmas. I am considering it extremely carefully, along with a range of associated matters.

Mr. Stevenson : Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that hardly anyone in the country does not believe that his major preoccupation is trying to cobble together a deal to get out of the hole that he has dug for himself? Will he take this opportunity to reject claims that he has not taken fully into account the reports from the Select Committees on Trade and Industry and on Employment in his assessment of energy and employment needs?

Mr. Heseltine : No one could possibly make such a suggestion, because I have not responded to either report. I intend to respond to both fully. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the President of the Board of Trade should not be preoccupied with the costs to British industry, he merely reveals the divide that exists between the two sides of the House.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page