Industry Year 1986

HC Deb 13 December 1985 vol 88 cc1190-204 9.47 am

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)

I beg to move, That this House welcomes the initiative of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in declaring 1986 Industry Year; agrees that it is essential that society values the contribution that industry makes to the nation's well-being, and that the most talented people are again attracted to work in industry to secure its future; welcomes the support being given to the initiative by the Government, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the British Institute of Management, churches, women's groups and others; and urges all companies and schools to become involved. All round us we can see evidence of the creation of wealth —schools, hospitals, roads and everything that we hold dear to us —but I wonder how many people comprehend how these provisions are made and how the finance is arrived at.

We are a resourceful and intelligent country. In many respects, we are the invention house of the world. Long is the list of British inventions that have been developed by many other countries into commercial success. We have produced more Nobel prize winners than any other country. We excel expecially when we have our backs to the wall. Our performance 45 years ago in the second world war is evidence of that. The struggle that we had just two or three years ago in the Falklands war is ample evidence of the resourcefulness of our industrial background in providing the weapons and tools to enable our forces to do the job.

Yet, despite this resourcefulness and inventiveness, our industrial capacity as a nation seems to be inexorably in decline. Some people can easily identify many of the reasons. It is not difficult to go through the list. Poor design is held up as an example. Many of the products of British origin that we have bought in the past two years leave much to be desired. Poor quality normally goes hand-in-hand with design, because quality starts on the drawing board. If the design is not good, it is difficult to get good quality.

There is an element of poor salesmanship, a sort of take-it-or-leave-it attitude which has cost us dear in many markets throughout the world and in the United Kingdom. The factories that produced good products apparently felt that Britain and the world would beat a path to their door to buy their products. They now realize —if they are still in business —that that is not the case. Poor productivity, brought on by poor management and restricted practices by the work force, played their part in ensuring that our decline has continued for many years.

There is a light at the end of those tunnels. I shall quote Sir Adrian Cadbury, the chairman of the west midlands industry year campaign committee: For too long, Britain has found it more comfortable to sink in a gentlemanly fashion down the international league table than to take the actions needed to reverse the decline. As I said, in some respects, we have been able to redress that decline. We have made great strides in improving the quality and design of our goods and our salesmanship and marketing ability. The evidence of that exists all around us. The most notable example is Jaguar Cars. It epitomised everything that was wrong with British industry until the late 1970s. When grasped by the neck by a good manager, and when the product was revitalised and the work force had received the support that it needed to produce a product of quality, that product excelled in all the markets in which it was offered.

In the early days, companies such as Jaguar Cars and many others were good. The malaise occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. The white heat of the technological revolution passed those companies by. They felt that their products could rest on the laurels that had been gained over many years. They found their capitive markets disappearing to their competitors.

Much has been gained over the past few years, but there is still something wrong with our industry. Despite the improvements in design, productivity, worker-management relations and the number of new products coming onto the market something is still causing the country problems in re-establishing its industrial might.

Other countries do not seem to have such a problem. Countries such as Japan, Germany and America, and many of our European competitors are forging ahead. They seem to have an industrial background which enables new ideas to come forward and their factories to produce goods that are wanted. That is something that we lack.

The purpose of the Industry Year 1986 campaign is to identify that factor and to take steps to eradicate it as far as possible. Other hon. Members may wish to widen the debate into industry's problems generally. I respect that wish because we are talking about industry in 1986 —next year. The campaign does not necessarily cover all Government, local government or regional policies. Many of my colleagues might wish to mention subjects which are not directly relevant to the campaign.

The Industry Year 1986 campaign is non-political. It was felt that to politicise it would lead inevitably to dissent, which would mask the message that the campaign is trying to get across.

What is the Industry Year 1986 campaign seeking to do? The opportunity for the expansion of our industrial capacity is now or never. We have a marvellous opportunity to develop our industrial capacity against a strong economic background and improvements in productivity, industrial design and standards. We need to grasp that opportunity now if we are to provide for health, welfare, education and all the resources that we shall want in the future.

The aim of the campaign is to improve the public perception of industry's importance. A lack of that has proved to be one of the most debilitating factors in our industrial progress. I shall quote from a survey conducted to discover people's conception of industry about —how they see its importance compared with other walks of life. A survey covered 3,333 students between the ages of 13 and 18. It stressed: Perhaps the most important single finding was that there was no significant understanding of the importance of business as the basis of wealth creation, low appreciation that it was a worthwhile career to follow either in its own right or for its wealth creation process or understanding of the benefit it brings the nation —the poor and the sick. When considering the importance of the many professions and occupations, 84 per cent. of the 3,333 considered that doctors and nurses were the most beneficial to the nation and were the most important people. I do not argue that they are not the most important. They are vital, but what disappoints me immensely is that only 24 per cent. of those questioned thought that managers in industry were important; only 21 per cent. thought that the factory worker was important; and only 7 per cent. thought that the shop worker was important. The shop worker is covered by the campaign because of the retail sector's importance to the economy's wealth-creating process.

Many young people and others do not consider that industry and the wealth-creating process are as relevant as they once were. The CBI finds that to be the case. At a recent meeting in the House, the west midlands CBI was asked to state the greatest problem that confronted it in ensuring that British industry improved its productivity. I asked, "Why is it that after 10 or 15 years of trying to improve productivity, you still suggest that your productivity is not as good as that of your competitors? Why is there a delay?" The answer was, "Because, by and large, we cannot get the right men and women into industry. We cannot get the men and women with the brains, the expertise and the desire to improve the wealth-creating process. If we could, we could make the improvements in productivity that we need. They are not interested in coming into industry." That is a problem which we must tackle urgently.

We must try to redress the balance and attract young people into industry. Industry Year 1986 has been initiated by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce. It has three basic aims; first to increase awareness of the fact that industrial success is fundamental to whatever we do; secondly, to increase the links between education and industry it has set targets to be accomplished during the next 12 months or so —and thirdly, to encourage industry to play a fuller role in the community within which it operates.

The campaign has been in preparation since 13 April 1984. It is not an instant, firing-from-the-hip response. It is a carefully co-ordinated and thought-out campaign to bring home to the country the importance of Industry Year 1986. It has a complete regional network. It is probably the most ambitious campaign ever conducted to further any form of industrial initiative. It has a small central organisation. Much of the preparation of the literature and other material has already been done.

There are now regional activity groups and regional working groups which have been set up throughout the country. Many of them are interested in following a preset campaign to attract as much attention as possible. To create awareness of the fundamental contribution of industry, it is necessary to attract the help and support of the media, through the newspapers, television and radio, and to prepare video films for presentation to schools, clubs, colleges and so on. There needs to be stronger links between education and industry. That involves organisation in the schools and colleges. There needs to be action within industry itself, because much has to be done to improve relations within industry between workers and employers, so the trade unions also have to play their part.

Norman Willis, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has written to every general secretary of every affiliated trade union, encouraging participation in Industry Year. He has written an article for inclusion in all trade union journals. Therefore, the campaign does not cover management or industry only; it covers the trade unions. Obviously, we all have a vested interest in ensuring that industry plays a major part in the life of the nation.

I have already mentioned the CBI's awareness that too few people wish to come into industry. The problem starts from the first day that children go to school. Very little contact is made with young children concerning the role of industry. Their education is strictly formalised. Although there are notable exceptions, in general the wealth creating process is not drawn to the attention of children in primary schools, or even in junior schools. We should try to create interest in that process as early as we can. I am not necessarily suggesting that children should go to factories and have jelly and ice cream at the end of the assembly line, to gain some idea of factory life, but during their junior school days children should be given the chance to visit factories and talk to people involved in the manufacturing process. The younger they are when they become involved with the enthusiasm of industry, the more likely they will be to appreciate its importance. From small acorns big oak trees grow. Although I do not suggest that every youngster visiting a factory will be caught up in the enthusiasm of industrial life, the country will be the loser if such visits do not take place.

Junior schools should play a part in creating projects linked with local places of work, including factories. They should be involved in making things, looking at them, seeing how they work and how they can be improved. Factory managers and trade unionists should help the schools with those projects.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with great attention, but is he not founding his points on a false assumption? If his suggestion were to be adopted, is it not equally possible that the visitors would be put off? What contribution have the big public schools made to manufacturing industry as distinct from finance, the City and the law?

Mr. King

I hope that youngsters would not be put off. I am not suggesting that factories should be obliged to receive parties of school children. I hope that they would receive them with enthusiasm and instil that enthusiasm into them. It takes two to tango, and I hope that industry will show enthusiasm for its contribution to the nation, although sometimes it does not appear to show it.

I cannot answer for every public school in the land. For my sins, I went to a public school and my contribution to industry has been minuscule, but I have played a modest part. I hope that many of my colleagues and others who have been to public school are capable of making their contribution. I have no idea whether the public schools have made a contribution. In contrast with the position 50 or 60 years ago, today many quite average people go to public schools for various reasons. The hon. Member will know that many Service personnel are obliged to send their children to public schools, and they could never be described as being the monied people of the land.

We should take every possible step to acquaint junior school children of science and technology. I know that that is difficult because of their learning abilities, but in the school that my children aged 8 attend they are able and willing, together with the other children —partly as a result of television and exposure to the media —to learn a great deal more than children were able to learn a generation or so ago. I hope that basic science and engineering will, in liaison with factories and the manufacturing processes, become part of the junior school curriculum in the not-too-distant future and play a substantial part in awakening the interest of young people in our industrial life.

At the level of secondary education, we must adopt a much more serious approach. I am not suggesting that the relationship of junior schools with factories should not be serious, but in secondary schools we have to make a serious approach to the task of attracting people into industry.

I have addressed many schools. On one occasion, in addressing youngsters aged 15 or so, I asked how many of them would like to start a business. In a class of just under 30, the majority put up their hands. When I asked what they thought was needed to start a business, about 95 per cent. said that money was needed. The other 5 per cent. mentioned the need to have backing. Only one youngster gave the correct answer —that for starting a business the essential requirement is an idea. Without an idea a business cannot be started.

I was worried that those youngsters, having gone through the education system, felt that the main impediment to starting a business was the lack of money. We must try to remove that mental block and show that the most important ingredient is an original idea for a new product or service. Once that idea exists, many of the other problems can be resolved.

We need to establish, within the secondary school curriculum, a proper knowledge of the role of industry. In the past few years great emphasis has been placed on home economics courses —cooking, sewing and all the things involved in maintaining a home. That is very good, but is it not time that there were business economics classes at schools, so that every child leaving school would know about business? Why should not there be an O —level in business? It is extraordinary that we put home economics before business economics, when the wealth creating process transcends everything else in importance.

Why should not we teach youngsters to understand the system involved in our stock markets, the raising of capital, and VAT returns? Why should not there be an O —level in VAT returns or in basic profit and loss accounts? We should be teaching children those subjects, with rather less emphasis placed on sewing and cooking, although they are important. I did not learn them at school and had to get married to get that sort of provision. That may sound to some like male chauvinism, but to me it sounds like common sense.

We should look closely at the curriculum of secondary schools and create a new discipline in the business element, with a business O —level course. That is of vital importance. It is also important to ensure that women are enthusiastic about industry. Because of the attitudes that have been adopted over the years, there are far too few women in industry and running industry. That is tragic. It does not happen in many other countries, particularly those of our competitors. Although there are notable examples of women getting to the top of the tree, they are few and far between. Women are often subjected to male chauvinism and to positive discouragement. That is wrong because they have much to contribute, probably more than many of the males of the species.

The director of external affairs at Austin Rover is Jean Denton. She is a lady of considerable ability and she runs the department extremely well. I am grateful that the company will play a major part in Industry Year. She is going to make a special attempt, as befits her position, to attract more women into industry. There will be a series of video demonstrations and talks at dealers' showrooms throughout the country, with special emphasis on the role that women can play in industry. That is to be applauded, and I look foward to it continuing in many other companies.

Women's institutes, of which there are vast numbers, and all sorts of female-orientated organisations also have an important part to play to discuss the role of industry, to meet people and to learn and understand the process that industry undergoes in order to create the nation's wealth. I hope that women will play a substantial part in the campaign, as should the Church.

Much criticism has been made in recent weeks about the role of the Church within our community. As I receive all the reports here and at home in my constituency and hear the problems of constituents, I often wonder about the problems of our society, such as poor housing, and the many other difficulties that confront us. We all know about that, and the Church commented on it recently in "Faith in the City". No emphasis is given to the wealth-creating process. It is almost as though wealth grows on trees and one has only to shake the trunk and the wealth will drop off. I know that the Church understands the wealth-creating process, but it should pay more attention to it. I hope that Industry Year will encourage the churches to place a greater emphasis on the wealth-creating process and acquaint their congregations with it.

One thing that we do understand is that one cannot have what one cannot pay for, and it cannot be paid for unless the money is earned. It is as simple as that. If we want to cure the problem of the inner city areas, to overcome the urban deprivation and other problems in our society, we must create the wealth to do so and the atmosphere that can bring it about.

Trade unions obviously have a strong part to play and I look forward to them being seen to play an important role in harmony with and alongside management, not in competition with it during the campaign. Many of the problems that are perceived in people's minds are due to the antagonistic attitude that has been engendered by decades during which it was management versus worker, strike and turmoil. Much of that has now been eliminated and is history. Both parties now get on exceedingly well as the problems of industry begin to be understood.

Industry itself has a demanding task. It will have to work in schools, colleges and universities to preach the gospel. Without industry taking a prominent part in preaching that gospel, much of what Industry Year seeks to provide will not come to pass. We need to have open days in factories, visiting lecturers to schools as I have already mentioned, and the creation of video films about what a business does. All those things will help to put the role of industry across to the public.

The museums also have a role to play by highlighting much of our industrial past. We have a great and glorious past. Our capacity as the first industrial nation is something to be proud of, although exploitation took place, as we all know from the history books and probably from personal experience of our families and ancestors. Nevertheless, that which we created in the 19th century and the early part of this century we can and must re-create using many of the same ideas, but harnessing many of the new ones that we have learnt to develop over the past few years.

The question that many parents may face is whether to put their daughter on the stage. However, not many people would send their daughter —or these days, their son —into industry. It has a reputation for being dull, boring, repetitive, noisy, unhappy and strike-prone, with a love-hate relationship. It is also risky because of redundancy and unemployment. One can be in one minute and redundant the next. That risk does not always face those in a profession. There have been such risks in careers in industry, but the reason why Industry Year is so apposite now is that many of the problems of redundancies and so on are past. I admit that they still occur. There is a tragedy at Castle Bromwich in Birmingham where 750 Austin Rober tool room workers are being made redundant. Such problems will continue to occur because we shall always go through periods of industrial change. There is no stopping that.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned in his intervention the problems of coming to grips with industry and its capacity, and how it is financed. Much of it is cloaked in mystery. I believe that that is wrong and that we should take whatever steps are necessary to make the financing of industry completely open and understood by all, because once it is understood it is not feared. One of the prime obstacles for young people going into industry is fear that they will not complete their career without being made redundant, the company going bust or being taken over.

I speak with some experience in industry, because in 1974 I had the privilege of starting my own business from scratch. I went into business with two colleagues and we went through all the trials and tribulations that one experiences when starting a business. We were always under-financed, struggling to make a product that had a ready acceptance in the market place and trying to balance our cash flow correctly so that we could pay suppliers as money was received from customers. It is risky to start a business, and I suppose it always will be. It would be wrong for us to make it too easy because if it is, people will go into business for the wrong reasons. The product that we made lent itself not just to the home market but to the export market. As we grew from a company of two —myself and my wife —to a work force of some 42, we were producing goods for export to Japan, America and many of the continental countries.

As I look back on the six years when I was involved in that business, I can say: never mind the trials and tribulations, never mind the bank manager ringing me up and saying, "I have a cheque for £2,000 here. Your account is already £1,000 overdrawn. What shall I do with it?" I would say "I can tell you" and usually, to help me out, the bank manager did as I suggested. One Christmas in 1976 we were so short of money that my wife and I went to the local bank and drew out the wage packet on our Access cards to pay the work force, and we had precisely £2.50 for spending over the 10-day Christmas period. Never mind about that. The memories that I have are of producing a product which we made in our factory and which was sent to Japan, America and many European countries.

It was satisfying to fill up a large container with our products. We turned the raw material of steel tube, foam, cloth and so on into a car seat. We sent it to a market that other people found hard to penetrate. The satisfaction was enormous. However, so were the dangers. We ended up by dramatically changing the company, after the vagaries of the pound-dollar relationship. The pound suddenly shot up to $2.40 and pushed us out of the American and Japanese markets. We had to make redundant nearly half our work force. It was a tragic experience, when one had been used to employing and hiring people, to have to make 20 people redundant, but that is the risk in industry. That is one of the reasons why so many people choose a much softer option by going into a profession or working for local government rather than risk the problems that might beset them in industry.

I emphasise that for the young business man starting up, the opportunities and the satisfaction of producing goods for sale at home and abroad are immense. One cannot get such satisfaction from anything else in which one indulges. It is satisfying to produce something and put one's name to it.

However, the Government have their part to play in ensuring the continuing success of the development of industry throughout 1986. Although the Industry Year 1986 campaign is for that year only, it will not accomplish everything in 365 days. It will take a good deal longer than that. It is hoped that the campaign will run on and on until at some stage in the future we have revitalised our industry, encouraged young people to go into industry and made them appreciate the role that it plays in our society. Equally, it is no good, when we have such a campaign doing everything that it can to stimulate local industry, and when the Government are playing their part, if local government does not join in as well.

Mr. John Ryman (Blyth Valley)

I refer to the role of Government in promoting industry. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government, whom, presumably, he purports to support, are successfully ruining industry in the north-east of England by the abolition of special development area status and by the asinine introduction of disastrous regional policies?

Mr. King

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do not think that any form of regional assistance that Governments have introduced has been any good whatsoever to British industry. All that it has done is move jobs from one part of the country to another. Other forms of assistance could have been given. The disaster overcame the west midlands area because for 25 years industry was told that it could get out of the area and scatter to the breeze, which brought the problem home to roost. I agree that successive Government policies on regional aid have been a disaster, although I am not giving the hon. Gentleman the reply that he would like.

Local government has a role to play. I look with horror and fright at this prospect in Industry Year. The City of Birmingham council is talking, albeit with a smile on its face, because nobody seriously thinks that it will come to pass, of a 60 per cent. rates increase, which will crucify industry throughout the area. Local government must play its part in reducing the burden upon industry.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

The hon. Gentleman says with enthusiasm that we should watch out for the rise in rates inflicted by Labour-controlled councils. No doubt many such councils are inflicting rates that are well above what is necessary. Nevertheless, does he not concede that many of the rate rises this year will come about as a direct result of central Government policy, not local government policy? For instance, in Somerset we may have a rate rise of 25 per cent., which will do great damage to local industry, but about 22 per cent. is a direct result of the Government's policy of no increases in the budget. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that?

Mr. King

I cannot recognise the problems of Somerset because I do not know them. The hon. Gentleman commented on his part of the world, and I am restricting my comments to Birmingham, which I know. I shall be as charitable as possible because the Industry Year 1986 campaign is supposed to be a non-political event. Some aspects of Government policy have had and will have an influence on increasing the rates, but one must also look at the role that local authorities, many Labour-controlled, have taken upon themselves in the community. In Birmingham, tens of thousands —indeed millions —of pounds of ratepayers' money have been spent inadvisedly on grandiose Labour party schemes, for example neighbourhood councils, costing us about £5 million or £6 million of expenditure on leisure service arrangements and so on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

What about recreation facilities?

Mr. King

I am not against recreation, but I feel that, if people had jobs in commerce and industry, they would have their own money to provide their own recreation. It would not necessarily have to be provided by the local community. We also need a stable economy. We have more or less got that at the moment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Why, every year, does the hon. Gentleman vote for money to go to Ulster to provide the very recreation facilities that the Birmingham authority is trying to set up? He votes in the Lobby annually for moneys to go to Ulster so that a Government Department can provide those facilities. He should look at his own voting record.

Mr. King

I am not—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

It is true.

Mr. King

It may well be correct. I would not deny it. I give the same answer to the hon. Gentleman as I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I am addressing my remarks to Birmingham and the west midlands area, not to Northern Ireland, which is an area with a peculiar set of circumstances. It demands certain facilities and policies that would not necessarily be carried out elsewhere.

The Government must also create the right regional climate. Although I do not welcome regional assistance, I am happy to note that in the west midlands, with intermediate status, many new jobs have been provided, and many new businesses established. That is commendable, given that we have to have regional assistance.

The Government need to create the right environment and roads. Roads are the main arteries along which our goods and freight travel. It is essential that we have roads to the docks. Many of the projects that have been earmarked for development to open up the west midlands area still await final approval and construction.

In the west midlands, young people look out on a sea of industrial dereliction. Old factories and businesses have gone. That happens in industry. Nothing is for ever. One recognises the problems of industrial areas that have undergone such a decline. There is no way young people wish to take part in industry when they can see nothing around them but old factories lying obsolete, and weed-covered sites where businesses used to be. They shudder and are dismayed at that, and do not want to get involved with anything such as that. We must tackle the problem during Industry Year 1986 d subsequent years. We must improve the environment for industry. We cannot all go to green-field high-tech sites. Indeed, we do not want companies to go there.

We want them to stay in our conurbations where vast acres lie ready to be developed. The CBI in the west midlands has voiced its anxiety. It wrote to me as follows: I know you are aware that this is a very important subject for the region. Despite the fact that the total allocation was 13.98 million in 1984 –85, and is expected to be £12.59 million in 1985 –86, it is still the case that in the years 1974 –85 the net effect has been that reclamation progress has not kept pace with the increase in dereliction. Thus, the amount of derelict land in the region has increased by 24 per cent. between 1974 –82 to nearly 5,800 hectares. Of this total, 1,900 hectares lie in the West Midlands County (including 1,500 hectares within the Black Country Boroughs of Dudley, Walsall, Sandwell and Wolverhampton). In addition, Staffordshire has 1,500 hectares, Shropshire —1,200 hectares, Warwickshire —1,000 hectares and Hereford/Worcester —200 hectares. This is, therefore, a major and growing problem". The Government and industry must combine to eradicate it as quickly as possible. Eyesores and dereliction will not attract young people to industry. It is essential that we grasp this nettle for several years. It is only a problem of will. Many companies would he prepared to do much of the work themselves if they could get Government assistance.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is keen on public purchasing. It amounts to £14 billion a year and I know that he is also anxious that as much as possible of it occurs in the United Kingdom. I hope that more can be done to satisfy the Government's requirements from within the United Kingdom provided that it is up to the job. If the products are no good, we have to go somewhere else, even if that means Japan or America. We must establish a more aggressive international posture to get business. We must tackle the problem of Spanish car imports, for example. That is an old chestnut but it epitomises many of our trading relationships. The Export Credits Guarantee Department could also help to get business. We know in our heart of hearts that many of our competitors are buying with under-cover assistance. That was highlighted recently by the Bosporus bridge contract, which went to Japan. Whatever country is in the business of getting business, we must be there horse trading as much as the rest of them.

The creation of new businesses has attracted much attention. Britain has been successful in the past five years —about 141,000 VAT registered businesses have been created in that time. They are using many of the facilities offered by the Government, such as the business expansion scheme, the loan guarantee scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme, the business improvement scheme and the venture capital scheme. The national insurance surcharge has been abolished and the VAT threshold has been increased to £19,500. It is well below the £50,000 that I should like, but we can always press for that improvement.

I still receive letters from constituents saying that they are interested in starting a business, that they have an idea, but that they do not know where to get financial backing. We must redouble our efforts to acquaint people of what is available to help them create new businesses. A central co-ordinating body is required in that regard. Perhaps we could rename job centres business centres. A high street shop next to building societies might be a suitable vehicle.

New business is essential to the development of our economy. I wonder, however, whether too many people start up in business, unaware of the pitfalls or hoping that they will not fall into them. It is not too difficult to raise the initial finance if one has an idea. A second mortgage can be taken out or money can be borrowed by scratching around the immediate family. A sleeping partner can be brought in as a shareholder. The difficulty occurs 18 months or two years later when the business has developed but there are cash flow problems. The business requires plant and equipment more quickly than it can sustain them, so business is lost.

I wonder whether it is wise of banks to allow a loan on the strength of a second mortgage because, if a business does not succeed, people can find themselves homeless. I wonder whether a certificate of business competence should be a prime requirement of anybody setting up on his own. It could be acquired at school or college. Businesses will continue to fall into traps without it. After 12 months in business, the VAT men, the PAYE men and a host of others descend like paratroopers demanding payment and saying that the books are a mess. The result is that a good product hits the dust simply through lack of basic form filling expertise and financial experience.

Business has a role to play in improving its own image. Far too often people think of it as remote from the community and its work force. Management takes decisions well away from the site of production. I wonder whether it is time for companies to have some form of factory parliament which would enable the work force to question the management once a month. That might help to break down old barriers. Perhaps companies will consider how they relate to their work forces during industry year. That is especially important for factories which are dotted all over the country. I hope that the era of companies controlled from facilities overseas which make decisions that affect whole communities is a thing of the past. I am reminded of the tragedy of BSR in Halesowen. The company operates principally out of Hong Kong and 4,000 jobs have gone, presumably because the management does not want to modernise here and prefers to make its products in Hong Kong or Taiwan. We should discourage such remoteness.

This year is also energy efficiency year. Such industrial campaigns are good but should highlight improvements that can occur for several years. The two promotions —energy efficiency year and industry year —should compliment each other. Efficient energy management is an essential part of good industrial and commercial management. The nation's energy bill reaches some £35 billion a year. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has said, about £7 billion is wasted each year. That is an immense amount of money and we should all ensure that the nation realises the opportunities for economy. No less than £2 billion is wasted on energy by industry and commerce each year. I remember industry being able to reach normal five-day week production levels on a three-day week. I do not want to return to a three-day week, but much can be done to contain energy expenditure. We often hear industry complaining about the cost of energy, but even the most half-hearted energy conservation programme can achieve enormous savings.

During the past two years, the Secretary of State has been promoting energy efficiency with great effectiveness, and energy efficiency year will be a great step forward in that campaign. It was launched in Birmingham in November and should gain the support of businesses large and small.

There is a Queen's award for export achievements. To make our industry more efficient, we need, not a Queen's award, but perhaps a Duke of Edinburgh's award or a Prince of Wales's award for energy efficiency. That would go a long way to encouraging industry. There is nothing like putting up a flag in front of one's factory or on the masthead of one's notepaper. I hope for great changes in that direction.

Industry is about buying British. Each of us can play a part in that. If we do not buy British products, but continue to support products from foreign manufacturers, we will not create the jobs and opportunities that we need. Industry Year will depend upon our supporting British industry. I am not talking about creating new jobs. I hope that they will come as a result of improved efficiency, marketing and sales expertise. We must create public awareness of the role of industry. There are many facets to industry, from retailing to tourism to manufacturing, but I can say one thing with great conviction: without industry we shall surely perish. Industry is leisure, health, entertainment, pensions, sport, art, fashion, food, education and travel. Industry makes it all possible. Without industry, nothing is.

10.41 am

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) on his good fortune in winning first place in the ballot. I have been trying —perhaps you have, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker —for all the years that I have been a Member of the House, except when I was a Minister, to win a place in the raffle and have not succeeded. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the motion. I and many hon. Members wish Industry Year well.

The hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting. I hope that he will not think me churlish if I say that he lost me after the first 25 minutes, as I fear that he lost everyone else in the Chamber. However, those things happen from time to time. I accept the spirit of his motion, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Opposition, the CBI and the TUC. The hon. Gentleman also said that the churches look forward to Industry Year 1986. Were I a young aspiring Conservative Member of Parliament, I would not have included the word "churches" in my motion. That is not a nice word in the Conservative party nowadays, and it might cause him a little embarrassment. Above all, I hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the motion and will do something positive to encourage industrial prosperity.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for adopting a parochial note and speaking about industry in Scotland. He spoke, properly, about the West midlands and his constituency in particular. In Scotland, industry means jobs; at present, we do not have them. Industry means apprenticeships, but we have few of those. Almost 400,000 people in Scotland are out of work. Since the figure has more than doubled during the six years of this Government, we are especially aggrieved about our industrial position. Sad to relate, the same pathetic story is true all over the United Kingdom. Industry Year 1986 will be a success only if unemployment is substantially reduced.

During the next year we should give much more thought to the place of our older and more traditional industries. In Scotland, industries such as coal, shipbuilding and steel have been almost destroyed during the past five or six years. The coal industry has lost about 10,000 jobs; shipbuilding has lost 5,000 to 6,000 jobs; and the steel industry has lost about 9,000 jobs. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is well briefed to say later that although all those jobs have been lost in traditional industries, the Government has created many jobs in new industries in Scotland, the north and elsewhere. Although I welcome the creation of jobs in the high-tech industries, I must tell the Minister that Scotland still has 200,000 fewer jobs than it did five or six years ago and that is a scandal.

Our great anxiety in Scotland is the future of the steel industry, and especially the future of Gartcosh. Just after I became a Member of the House, at almost the same time as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) when there was a steel debate the Opposition Benches were packed and there was squabbling over who should speak in the debate. However, in recent times, because of the almost complete destruction of the industry, there is hardly a soul here to speak in steel debates. None of us has the same constituency interest in steel as he did 22 years ago.

Gartcosh has become a symbol to the people of Scotland. We shall judge the Government's enthusiasm for industry in Scotland by their approach to this problem, and we shall be satisfied that the Government believe in a strong steel industry only when they give a positive guarantee about the future of Gartcosh and of Ravenscraig. Not only Labour Members, but people outside the House are extremely cross. This week, we had the dreadful spectacle of the Scottish Conservative Members who serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs wrecking any prospect of an early decision on this vital matter. They told us that they wanted yet another review because they believed that the evidence was inconclusive, Most of us believe that the evidence is conclusive, and the local people want an end to the wrangling.

The problem arose, as the Minister may be aware —if he is not, his Whips will tell him —because during the past four or five weeks there has been a power struggle for the position of chairman of the Scottish group of Members of Parliament. Why anyone would go to such trouble to become the chairman of only 13 Members is beyond my comprehension. However they have been so concerned about their own affairs that they have let this massive issue go to the wall. Therefore the steel workers at Gartcosh will face Hogmanay, the eve of Industry Year, without any guarantee about their future. It is completely uncertain: all because of the malarkey that has gone on in the Scottish Conservative group during the last few weeks. It has caused a great deal of bitterness in the steel constituencies of Scotland, particularly in Lanarkshire. We want an end to all of that and to all the tripe that we have heard from the Government Benches during the last few weeks.

Our older, traditional industries need real help and much more support. The workers in those industries —the miners, the steel workers and the shipbuilders —are beginning to laugh at the Industry Year concept. That is sad indeed. I very much hope that the Government, instead of saying that everything is a matter for the chairmen of the nationalised industries, will tell them that they do not run the country: that Parliament and Government run the country. I do not want to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board, but Gartcosh is not a day-to-day affair. Major decisions have to be taken, in which the Government must be involved. Government Ministers cannot shuffle off their responsibilities and put them on to the shoulders of non-elected chairmen of the nationalised industries.

I want to make two points about the speech of the hon. Member for Northfield. He referred to the "Buy British" campaign, with which I have considerable sympathy, but I do not agree with those hon. Members who favour wholesale import controls. We are a great trading nation. We ought to do business with other countries. We want to encourage them to invest in this country, particularly in the high-tech industries. We shall not encourage them to do so if there are wholesale, indiscriminate import controls. However, I favour import controls when there is unfair trading or when other countries, notably Japan, export but seldom, if ever, import the goods of other countries.

As for unfair trading —I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will discuss this matter with those of his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who are responsible for trade —one or two nations adopt very unfair trading practices. Some of them are our partners in the European Community. This country has always aided strictly by the trading rules, but that does not apply to other countries in Europe. There is legislation on the statute book to cover unfair trading, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will take back to his colleagues the message that new legislation about unfair trading ought to be put on to the statute book. Such legislation ought to be able to respond very much more quickly to unfair trading practices.

I do not have the exact Japanese export figures and I do not know what Japan imports, but one does not need to be very clever to understand that Japan exports much more than it imports. The Japanese Government have been at pains to say recently that they favour the import of goods, but we have yet to see the realisation of the Prime Minister of Japan's ambitions. No matter what he says, Japanese business men do not want goods to be imported. Japanese citizens, who show great loyalty to their own companies, do not want imports, either. The hon. Member for Northfield knows a great deal about the car industry in the Midlands. He knows that Japanese cars are imported in their thousands. Each Japanese car is imported, by definition, with five tyres. That does not help the British tyre industry. Each car is also imported with its lighting equipment. That is not good for the British electrical appliances industry.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that between 1960 and 1982 the average productivity of manufacturing industry grew by over 500 per cent. in Japan, whereas in the United Kingdom it was under 80 per cent.?

Mr. MacKenzie

That reinforces my argument. The Japanese do exceedingly well out of Britain but we get absolutely nothing in return. The sooner something is done to make them understand that we are in earnest about this matter the better.

The hon. Member for Northfield referred to education and training and to the recruitment of young people into industry. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said in public recently that in Industry Year the face of industry must be made more acceptable. He said that an effort must be made to recruit young people from schools and colleges into industry. Sir Terence Beckett went further and suggested that it would be helpful if a member of the royal family went on to the shop floor and got his hands dirty. I am not very concerned about that, but I am concerned that colleges and schools should try much harder to encourage young people to enter industry, as indeed they do in Europe. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) knows that the Scottish tradition is that if one has a son one wants him to enter the law, medicine or the kirk. In my own family young people have mainly entered the law instead of going into industry, so my family has failed industry. But the law, medicine and the kirk are not the only places for bright young people.

The Government could encourage young people to enter commerce and industry by providing the technical colleges and polytechnics that train young people for industry with a much higher status and better resources. Furthermore, the Government should alter their recruitment policy for the Civil Service. I have never understood why it is necessary to have a first class honours degree in classics or history to become the Permanent Secretary of a major Department of State. I look forward to the day when engineers and scientists head our Departments of State. My hopes for Industry Year are that we shall encourage our older, traditional industries and that we shall also do a great deal more to build up the high-tech industries.

We should sort out our trading position by looking at the whole business of imports and exports in 1986. We should give much more respect to our engineers and scientists, but, above all, we should provide jobs for our people in Scotland and in other parts of the United Kingdom and give those people back the dignity that they have lost by being unemployed.

10.59 am

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

I am pleased to speak after the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie). However, the thrust of the debate should concern not so much the help that the Government should be giving but the understanding that everybody should be building—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).