UK Exporters

HC Deb 23 June 1994 vol 245 cc383-445

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

4.51 pm

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham)

The House has had several debates on exports over the past few months, but, as I have been away trying to get business for the United Kingdom, I have unfortunately been unable to attend them. I welcome this opportunity to take part in such a debate because I believe that there is now an enormous chance to rebuild Britain's share of world trade.

The United Kingdom's present position is one both of hope and of opportunity because, in the past 15 years, two revolutionary changes have transformed the opportunities that now confront us. The first is the transformation in industrial relations. I am sure that the present dispute is purely a hiccup in Britain's advance from the appalling problems of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The number of working days lost due to labour disputes in 1993 was 600,000 compared with 29 million in 1979. Fewer days were lost during the whole of the past nine years than in the single year of 1979 alone. I am also glad to say that the message is getting through to the most important trade unions in the country.

I mentioned to the House yesterday a brochure produced by the Amalgamated Engineering Union called "The Dawn of a New Era: Improving Industrial Relations". One of the first statements that it contains is: The new age of industrial relations in Britain means a more common-sense approach to trade unionism is needed if companies are going to prosper. That is a fundamental change from the 1970s, when management spent most of their time closeted with their shop stewards while union bosses spent most of their time, having lost total control of their membership, in No. 10 Downing street trying to run the country.

All that has changed. We are not returning to Victorian-style management, but are achieving a genuine wish by everyone in business and industry to work together for a common cause. The effects of that can be seen in our economy. Manufacturing industry invested a greater proportion of its output in the 1980s than in the 1970s. Profitability of manufacturing since 1980 has averaged 5.2 per cent., compared with 3.4 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. Growth in business investment in the 1980s was faster than in any other major industrialised country except Japan. Compared to 1979, investment in plant and machinery is nearly 50 per cent. higher. Over the last economic cycle, manufacturing investment increased by nearly a fifth and business investment by more than half. We have attracted the lion's share of inward investment into the EC—more than 40 per cent. from Japan and nearly 40 per cent. from the United States.

Even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), there have been six investment projects in 1993–94, involving a total plan investment of £15 million and some 500 jobs. With one or two notable exceptions, Labour Members say that there is a decline in manufacturing. That is nonsense. Since 1981, output has risen by a quarter, productivity by nearly three quarters and exports by three quarters.

So that is the first revolutionary change that has occurred. The second, which has been just as important, has been the privatisation of our public monopolies and basic industries—the water industry, British Telecom, British Gas, the electricity industry, the nuclear industry, British airports and British ports. None of those either exported or invested abroad before 1979. British Steel, British Leyland and British shipbuilding were all in terminal decline. They had appalling labour relations, poor quality and out-dated products, and were under-invested. Those companies are now becoming major contributors to Britain's export effort and invisible trade surplus.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

The Minister mentioned two profound changes in the landscape over the past 10 years. Will he add a third—the profound swathe of destruction over much of manufacturing industry, which happened just over 10 years ago as a result of the Government's exchange rate policy?

Mr. Needham

The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said about manufacturing output, which has risen by 25 per cent., and about the success that Britain's manufacturing industry has had in increasing its productivity, efficiency and investment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a decline in Britain's manufacturing in the early 1980s. The reason for that was that, in the 1960s and d 1970s, Britain's management could not manage. It could not make profits, and managers spent their life in endless debate with shop stewards. The Government, particularly the Labour Government, had no control over the trade union movement, which did enormous damage to Britain's image and industrial infrastructure. Only when the Conservatives returned to power in 1979 did investment from overseas start to flow back into the country and British manufacturing companies start to re-invest here rather than go overseas.

Had the Labour party been in government since 1979, would trade union labour relations have been reformed? Would a Labour Government have reformed the labour relations system, as we have? I spent the first four years of my time in this House listening to Labour Members oppose every measure that the Government brought on to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

Is not the Opposition's true interest in how well our industry is doing shown by the fact that, at the opening of this important debate, only two Labour Back-Bench Members are present?

Mr. Needham

I shall discuss my hon. Friend's argument later, because indifference towards exporting characterises the Labour party, with the honourable exception of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), who are in the Chamber.

Does anyone suggest that, had the Labour party been in power, we would have had privatisation? Would we have made that enormous change, which has allowed our former public monopolies—now our private companies—to go overseas to trade and export? Are any Labour Members saying that they would have followed the privatisation route? If they are saying that now, they will have to answer the charge that they opposed every privatisation measure that we have ever brought before the House.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

Is not one of the many fascinating side effects of the privatisation programme of public utilities the £2 billion worth of contracts that the privatised water companies have brought back from Latin America—a result of what can be done by our utilities if they are freed from the dead hand of Government control?

Mr. Needham

My hon. Friend mentions one example; I shall mention more later. That is exactly the type of thing that would never have happened if the Labour party had been in power in that period. Britain would have been to the Europe of the 1980s what Spain was to the Europe of the 1780s if the Labour party had had anything to do with our affairs. To use a phrase of the mid-west of America, if the Labour party had been in power we would have been "hollowed out".

It is not enough to have achieved what we have. Now, we must seize the chance to devise and implement a strategic partnership with industry and business and to build on the opportunities that we have created for ourselves, and we are doing so. In the past two years, we have attracted into the Department of Trade and Industry from the private sector more than 90 export promoters. They are experts in the markets in which they have worked. They are the hinge on which the Government are building the partnership with business. With their help, we now have about 80 country market plans. We have considered the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities and the threats in the markets and what Britain can bring to those countries that we do not currently bring.

We have identified sectors in each of the countries. We have linked the sector opportunities to companies in this country. We are using the most senior people in British industry and British business—British management—to help to godfather our staff in the DTI and to work with the export promoters to ensure that every opportunity that presents itself in those countries is transmitted to the companies in the United Kingdom that could benefit. We have linked the holders of posts overseas—the commercial attachés, the ambassadors—into the market plans through the Joint Export Promotion Directorate so that we have a seamless, coherent policy in each major market of the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) mentioned South America. I shall take India as an example. In the past eight months, we have signed more than £2 billion worth of orders for infrastructure projects in India. Four export promoters are in place. We have identified 15 sectors of the Indian economy in which British companies can do more than they are currently doing.

We have increased export credit guarantee cover. We have ensured that that export credit guarantee cover is competitively priced with export credit agencies anywhere in the world. In fact, we are in danger of running out of the cover because we have used so much of it. We are talking not only about the big companies in infrastructure but the little companies—companies such as Mr. Brown, who has developed a system of new types of grass seeds which could revolutionise the growing of grass in India. He has even come up with a brand new form of begonia, which is taking the Indian market by storm. There are 200 million middle-class Indians, capable of spending their money and wanting to spend it on high-quality British products.

We have considered the city of Bangalore, one of the most exciting cities in India. Together, the Singaporeans and the British will make Bangalore one of the great cities of the next century. We are flying Concorde out in November with 100 British business men on board and we shall bring Concorde back with 100 Indian business men on board, to consider the opportunities for Indian companies to invest in the United Kingdom and to discover how we can help India to expand its economy by exporting through the United Kingdom and into Europe.

Our exports to India are now more than £1 billion, as are India's exports to us. Through the organisational structure and infrastructure that we have set out in the Indo-British partnership initiative, we have created opportunities in that country, which, after China, is the most exciting opportunity anywhere in Asia. That would not even have been thought of, let alone possible, two, three or five years ago. Throughout the world, whether it be with Japan, the United States, Korea, Malaysia or Thailand, we are working to establish closer, bilateral trading relationships, against the market strategy that I have just described.

We must get that message through to small and medium-sized British companies. I ask all Members in the Chamber, including Opposition Members, if they have companies in their constituencies that are good exporters but do not necessarily have the support and back-up to tackle every major market, to tell them about the DTI plans. If those companies are told about what the DTI is doing, we will ensure that we envelop them in the strategy that we are following so that those opportunities are brought direct to their doorstep.

I am delighted to say that when we decided to go to Members of the House of Commons to explain that, about 60 Conservative Back Benchers came along and showed interest and commitment. However, I am afraid that, although the hon. Member for Middlesbrough did his best to try to interest his colleagues, we only managed to find six of them. I hope that that message of indifference will be reported back.

We are setting up 200 Business Links offices to provide a single access point for companies throughout the country. Every one of those offices will have proper information databases about opportunities for exporting and will have available to it the full range of overseas trade services. The larger Business Links offices will have export support services attached. We shall appoint 70 export development counsellors to work in those areas, who will be able to help companies to begin exporting and to become involved with the other DTI opportunities.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the excellent practical content of his speech? It makes such a refreshing contrast to the vague, idealistic waffle that we have heard so often from the two socialist parties. I have no doubt that we shall hear more of it from them this afternoon.

Mr. Needham

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall discuss some of that vague waffle later.

We are developing closer relationships with the clearing banks, including a pilot service for referring potential exporters. We recently announced the language for export initiative. The need for it and the response of business have surpassed our wildest estimates. British business now knows what needs to be done in terms of competitiveness, management skills and the learning of languages and it is taking advantage.

We are also ensuring that the Departments in Whitehall that are responsible for the sectors of British business and British industry for which the DTI is not responsible, such as agriculture, construction, health and education, have their own export strategies and export units, and that each of them has a Minister who is responsible for exports. We are co-ordinating between ourselves the missions that go abroad. We are ensuring that we support the exhibitions overseas that are most likely to deliver the targeted approach and that we bring out to the markets the companies that are most likely to benefit from participating in such exhibitions.

We are ensuring that people in the regions have an opportunity to understand what is happening in their regions through the celebration of industry years. We are designating 1995–96 a major celebration of industry year in the west midlands, which will proselytise and promote what the west midlands has done, what it is doing now and what it can do in future. It will bring to the west midlands all the major potential inward investors to see for themselves what the west midlands is still capable of. It is the home of the British industrial revolution and is still one of the proudest and most successful industrial manufacturing bases anywhere on earth.

We are looking separately at how we can maximise those strengths that Britain has in the capital goods sector. We exported £9 billion worth of capital goods in 1990. We brought the major companies and major banks together with the Export Credits Guarantee Department to examine our strengths and weaknesses in the highly important sectors of the advancing world to see how we could achieve a much greater rate of success. The companies have decided that, with the right sort of support and organisation, we can increase our sales from £9 billion in 1990 to £27 billion by the year 2000.

We have groups in health, education, power, oil and gas, telecommunications—where GPT recently picked up an order for £40 million in Wuhan in China—water and the environment—which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned—airports and transportation. All those groups include a national promoter to chair them—Sir Wilfrid Newton of London Transport chairs the transportation group and Sir Desmond Pitcher chairs the airport group. Their job is to bring together contractors, consultants, subcontractors and major companies, such as National Grid and PowerGen, to ensure that we have a British consortium capable of winning business for United Kingdom plc.

Of course, we understand that there will sometimes be competition between the groups and it will not always be easy, but we have put in place a system that rivals anything that is being offered by the Germans, French, Italians, Japanese or Americans. That is undoubtedly starting to show in the sort of orders mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On the issue of power and capital goods, I am unashamedly in favour of Sizewell C and Hunterston C. A problem was acutely outlined to those of us who went to the nuclear forum yesterday. The NNC and others asked how on earth we could continue to improve our levels of exports in the nuclear industry unless the home industry had major projects allowing continuity, either by Nuclear Electric or Scottish Nuclear. What are the Government's reflections on that?

Mr. Needham

I speak as the Minister for Trade. Clearly, in order to sell the nuclear power industry overseas, whether Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear or British Nuclear Fuels, we have to be prepared to support our industry here strongly and openly.

I do not want to make any more party political points, but some Opposition Members make it easy to do so. When we consider Nuclear Electric's proposals for Taiwan it obviously helps, as has been said, to be able to mention successful and continuing developments in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I agree that the basis of a strong export strategy has to be a strong home market. That is why it is vital to pull together the companies to ensure that we are better organised to stand and fight, in our home markets, the competition from outside that is an inevitable consequence of the single market.

We must take that organisation or system vertically and horizontally into the overseas markets. That is true for the water, power, airports, oil and gas and telecommunications industries. The other day, we took to India the telecommunications group, which comprises Cable and Wireless, British Telecom, Racal and GPT, all of which gave presentations on how they felt that they could assist in the telecommunications industry. It was a much more impressive exercise than taking each organisation individually so that each was scrapping with the other.

Of course, some companies will be in existing markets, with existing confidentiality structures, so that they will compete with one another, but there are many opportunities in the world. Britain must organise itself across the capital goods sector. One of the most exciting sectors is education, where Baroness Pauline Perry has done an extraordinary job in bringing together universities, management schools, grammar schools, higher education establishments and technology colleges, and has started to promote and sell the best of British educational quality.

We are now establishing the national vocational qualification system en bloc in Oman. We have opportunities to do the same in Saudi Arabia. We are also looking at opportunities to introduce national vocational qualifications in Malaysia and across the far east. At present, the training is primarily job related; we want to look at skill-related training. If we can achieve and maintain our own quality and keep to our standards, there will be many opportunities for us in the educational sector.

About two weeks ago, we signed a memorandum of understanding to build a British university in Thailand—there may be two British universities in Thailand. The university of London is setting up in Malaysia. The number of students coming here from Taiwan in the past three years has gone up by a factor of three. Across the range of British businesses, there are groups and organisational systems that can deliver aspects of Britain in a coherent way.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

May I say to my right hon. Friend—it is a great pleasure to address him in that way—that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the opportunity for export. That is one of 126 different nuclear projects that are either going ahead or are likely to proceed. The nuclear industry is one of the industries in which Britain is a world beater. Will my right hon. Friend accept my absolute support for what he said about making possible through the privatisation of the water industry, the presence of world-class activities in industries from Britain? They can now go into markets where a British presence simply did not exist before and where other countries, particularly France, used to have the field far too much to themselves. There are now huge opportunities for Britain, provided that there is bipartisan support for the activities of those organisations, whether in the nuclear or water industry.

Mr. Needham

I agree with my right hon. Friend. When I deal with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I have no doubt that bipartisan support exists. I could not ask for more support than that which I receive from the hon. Gentleman for the proposals and strategies that we are putting forward. I do not want to flatter him too much—he can do without that—but he is almost unique in that capacity. I wish him all power to his elbow in trying to persuade more of his colleagues not only to listen to such debates but to participate in them.

We must, as other countries have done, put across the message and the strategy. All of us, including industry and the trade union movement, must work towards the common cause. The requirements for Britain to survive in the next century include quality, competitiveness and productivity—we must all agree with that.

The Labour party displays indifference, sometimes ignorance, too much carping and, occasionally, contradiction. I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will not mind my saying that I took time to look in depth at the policies set out in "Winning for Britain", which the hon. Gentleman's boss recently produced. It began with an executive summary—the Labour party is beginning to get the wording right. It stated: This document is the result of a year long nationwide consultation by Labour's Trade and Industry Team with those who work in British industry. Its conclusions reflect a consensus about the importance of industry to the British economy and to the future prosperity of the British people. In the whole document the word "export" is used only once. I do not know to whom in British industry the Labour party spoke, but I find it astonishing that exports should be mentioned only once in a strategic policy document.

It is not only the lack of Labour Members present for this debate that betrays the indifference of the Labour party to these matters. There is also considerable ignorance in the Labour party—again, I exclude the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. The other day, I had occasion to write to the hon. Member for Livingston, who had claimed that the ECGD made a profit of £750 million in 1992–93, and that that money should be used to reduce the premiums. That certainly shows a lack of knowledge and experience on the part of Opposition spokesmen on industry. The fact is that the losses accumulated by the ECGD amount to £3.6 billion. Like any other insurance business, it has to pay off that deficit. It may run up a surplus at times, but the surplus from one year must go to reduce the enormous deficit.

I, therefore, wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 4 May pointing out his mistaken ways and asking him what he would do to the ECGD system and the portfolio management system that we have in place. I asked: Is it Labour policy to scrap or change the present system? I appreciate that the hon. Member for Livingston is a busy man—the fact that he is not here today is evidence of that. He is busy helping all sorts of people around the country. However, I should like an answer from him; perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough would remind him of his pending tray.

Last week, I listened to the hon. Member for Livingston speaking on "Question Time", when he tried to curry favour with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary by saying that he would help to reduce public expenditure by introducing a minimum wage, thereby doing away with family credit. I was pretty cross when I heard that. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough may take an interest in what follows, as he used to be my opposite number for Northern Ireland. What will happen to the women who work in the shirt factories of Derry if we introduce a minimum wage and do away with their family credit? Will the shirt factories be able to pay the minimum wage, so that family credit can be abolished in line with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion?

The answer, of course, is that the ladies in question will lose their jobs. It is arrogant to suggest that those companies can afford to take over the burden, or that the workers will find alternative employment under what the hon. Member for Livingston describes as some form of training for high-technology, high-skill jobs. Of course we all want such jobs, but we cannot put the burden on employers who would then have to put hundreds of thousands of people on low pay out of work. I deplore the arrogance of those who say, "We will retrain them in some fictional skills that will find them alternative work."

Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough could explain to me why "Winning for Britain" contains no mention of Northern Ireland, even though Wales and Scotland are mentioned. Perhaps the answer is that the Opposition—again I exclude the hon. Gentleman—would like to see Northern Ireland packaged and floated off elsewhere. It is a disgrace to the people of Ulster that the document does not mention Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dalyell

What is the hourly wage of the women in the shirt factories in Derry?

Mr. Needham

Two years ago, it was about £120 a week; with bonuses they got £150 a week. If the minimum wage required a minimum payment without bonuses of £150, and it also had to be paid to part-time workers working, say, three days a week and at present topping up their wages with family credit, differentials would be forced up all along the line and the company would become wholly uncompetitive. I have spoken to people in the garment factories of Northern Ireland, and I know that the companies would go out of business—the Opposition should make no mistake about that. Where would the workers find jobs then? It is not good enough for the Labour party to come up with generalised policies without working out their effects on ordinary working people.

"Winning for Britain" contains another extraordinary passage: The strong individualism of the Anglo-Saxon business ethic may also inhibit the development of a corporate long-term perspective. British business culture is vulnerable to the vision of the chief executive as hero. I could understand all that in the context of the hon. Member for Livingston standing for the leadership of the Labour party—but has someone told the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that British business culture is vulnerable to the vision of the chief executive as hero? How does Labour propose to change the culture of British business? What do the hon. Members for Livingston or for Sedgefield know about British industry? Has either of them ever worked in it? The answer of course is no—

Mr. Donald Anderson

rose—

Mr. Needham

I accept that the hon. Gentleman may have worked in British industry, which makes him exceptional in his party, but there is one suggestion in "Winning for Britain" with which I have some sympathy: the idea of establishing a university for industry. The first two people who need to attend it and who could learn the most from it would be the hon. Members for Livingston and for Sedgefield.

Mr. Anderson

As someone who has worked in export promotion both in the United Kingdom and abroad, may I appeal to the Minister to make up his mind about whether he wants to enlist the non-partisan support of the whole House for UK plc, or whether he wants to indulge in this sort of party-political knockabout? We can have the latter if he wants it, but it will do nothing for Britain.

Mr. Needham

I understand that point, but on the day the hon. Member for Sedgefield has released his "Change and National Renewal" document, an endless attack on what he sees as the incompetence of the Government in running industrial policy for the past 15 years, he cannot expect me not to reply in kind. The hon. Gentleman should be on the Opposition Front Bench to speak for industry. Meanwhile, he must allow me to explain what the effects of Labour policy would be on British industry.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield claims for his goals: We are not going back to the past, nor drifting without purpose, as Britain is at present. It is the Labour party which is drifting. Then comes the astonishing phrase: Labour will open up greater opportunities for the retraining of those in work by ensuring that every company invests in upgrading the skills of the work force. There could be no stronger statement than that, but he continues: the objective will be to encourage. Would someone explain to me how greater opportunities will be opened up by mere encouragement? That is yet another statement of policy not backed up by any realistic ideas for action. The Opposition berate us continually about the importance of the manufacturing base and throw extraordinary statistics at us. The other day, the hon. Member for Livingston said that our manufacturing investment is now one tenth of what it was in the 1970s. That is just not true. The document says: The old debate whether manufacturing or services is the more virtuous is pointless and sterile. In the first place, the dividing line between them is increasingly hard to define. The highest value added in computer application is now software programing. It is simply meaningless to go on drawing a distinction between the production of hardware as a manufacturing process and design itself. What do Opposition Members want? Either manufacturing is that important or it is not. They cannot continue having it both ways. The hon. Member for Livingston said: The turn of the century could make or break Britain. If we are not by then making the things that the world wants to buy we will not be making a living in the world. How on earth are we to make a living in the world with a minimum wage and the social costs of the social chapter wrapped round our necks? If we are to succeed with Britain in manufacturing we have to create, on the back of the policies that the Government introduced in the 1980s, the sorts of strategy for partnership that I have just been suggesting to the House.

To return to the issue of bipartisanship, I accept that there are people such as Bill Jordan and the Amalgamated Engineering Union who have got that message. It said: British industry is undergoing a period of change, of growing prosperity."— this was the AEU talking, not me talking. That was not a Conservative party broadsheet. It continued: This has been directly attributable to the influx of inward investors wishing to use our plants and our labour. How many times have we heard that from the Labour party? [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] Never. What about the policies of the Labour party? One of its policies is to support trans-European networks in transport and telecommunications. Trans-European networks are enormously expensive and costly and mean that British taxpayers' money would be used to improve Greek and Portuguese roads. It would not do not anything here.

The second part of the Labour party's policy is to establish a network of regional development agencies to empower local business and community leaders to take local decisions that shape their regional economy. Is that Dolly Kiffin? Is that Mr. Stafford? Who are those community leaders who shall determine the regional economy? Is that the best that Labour party can do? I am sorry if it upsets the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), but I am not going to sit here and say that the criticisms that the Opposition Members make, the knocking comedy that they write and the policies that they come up with are anything other than amateur. That is the nicest thing that I can say.

We are in a position where we can take advantage. Since 1981, the volume of manufactured exports in Britain has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy or Japan. Our share of world trade has now stabilised. We are exporting 20 per cent. per head more than Japan and 85 per cent. more than the United States. Our visible deficit has improved since the start of 1993. Our exports for the quarter ending May 1994 are 9.5 per cent. up by value in comparison to May 1993. Over the past 15 years, the Conservative party has put in place the revolutionary changes that give us the platform from which British exports can take off in the 1990s. The only party that has any concept of how to do it and any plan for doing it is the one that forms the Government, and we intend to ensure that it stays that way.

5.32 pm

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

I am grateful to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair again. One of the great difficulties in debates that deal with subjects which are important but, nevertheless technical is the tendency to try to make them lively rather than like a funeral oration. One can hardly say that the speech of the Minister for Trade was anything like a funeral oration. As Charlie Chaplin once said, "Enthusiasm is the thing." We have long admired the Minister's enthusiasm and we witnessed a great example of it again today.

The Minister mentioned a number of issues, such as hope, opportunity, and the two revolutionary changes. He also managed to bring in the subject of the railway strike. Opposition Members are constantly peppered and bombarded with views on the railway strike. I can give the Minister a view clearly, simply and without hesitation. After all the changes in the Thatcher years, after all the changes and reforms in the trade unions, the management of a company is unable to avoid a strike, and after 13, 14 or 15 years, we have a Government who intervene. Then they ask us who is to blame and where we stand. Honestly and categorically, the management has failed if it has got itself into a strike situation under the legislation of the Thatcherite years. The failure is a failure of management; my hon. Friends and I clearly state that.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

rose—

Mr. Bell

I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman at this point and I will tell him why. I have sat with him during many debates on Fridays, Mondays, and so on and he begins to intervene about one minute into a speech and he continues to intervene throughout the debate. I am sure that he will find another point in my speech when he may intervene and I shall be glad at that stage to give way to him.

The Minister talks about the dawn of a new era—a statement made by Bill Jordan, for whom I have a great deal of sympathy, respect and support. The great dawn of a new era, which is frightening the wits out of the Conservatives in the House and in the country, and even Conservative central office, is the possible election of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) as leader of the Labour party. At business questions time earlier, we heard questions about the education of my hon. Friend's children. It shows how deeply the fear runs through the Conservative party when it has to try to score a point by bringing in the children of a future leader of the Labour party in that way. The dawn of a new era, to which Bill Jordan referred, will come about quickly with the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield as the leader of the Labour party. The changes that will come about as a result of his leadership will be every reason for concern to the Conservatives.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Bell

I shall go through the points made by the Minister for Trade on an ad hoc basis, if the Minister and the House do not mind. Later in my speech, I shall be glad to give way to Conservative Members.

The Minister for Trade mentioned trade union leaders running the country. There was beer and sandwiches at No. 10 Downing street on just one occasion—in 1965, when there was a railway strike. There was only one occasion, and it was nearly 30 years ago. The Conservatives have had wonderful mileage out of that over the years. We may talk about trade unions leaders running the country, but now we have nobody running the country. That is one of the consequences of 15 years of Conservative rule.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

The hon. Member is rewriting history.

Mr. Bell

I am not rewriting it at all; I am responding to the Minister for Trade. I shall make my own comments later.

The Minister talked of the first revolutionary change, which was to deal with trade union reform and trade union law. It was my noble Friend Lady Castle who tried to reform the trade unions with the document "In Place of Strife" way back in the 1960s. We have sought constantly to change trade union relationships with Government. The President of the Board of Trade, in his book entitled "Where there's a Will", supported the concept of the National Economic Development Office—a relationship between trade unions, Government and management. It was his concept and he wanted to support it, but the former Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished it as soon as the President of the Board of Trade took his post so as to be sure that the Department of Trade and Industry did not gain any pre-eminence over the Treasury.

Labour Members are happy to go along with trade union reform. We are happy to accept those reforms that have been put on the statute book by the Government over the years and which are accepted by the trade unions themselves. We will reform the relationship with the trade unions by putting into that relationship a package of rights for part-time workers.

The Minister also referred to the subject of a national minimum wage, so I will move it up a little on my agenda. It was a travesty for the right hon. Gentleman to use his experience as a Northern Ireland Minister to threaten those who work in the shirt factories of Derry with our national minimum wage as he has perceived it, conceived it and interpreted it, and to say that they will lose their jobs. The onus is on the Opposition in the two to three years ahead to consider the concept of a national minimum wage to help the low-paid workers and those who are sweated labour in our society and to give them a proper minimum wage. How we do that is a matter for us to work on so that it does not not put low-paid workers out of work and does not affect piece-rate workers adversely. We can do it and we will do it.

The Minister said that we had maintained our level of world trade, but he did not mention the fact that the French have increased their share of world trade—and they have both a national minimum wage and the social chapter. We shall not have such a diversity of interpretation—

Mr. McLoughlin

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bell

No. I am answering all the points made by the Minister for Trade. I shall then come to my speech, when I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. Needham

The point that I was making—and I should like the hon. Gentleman's view on it—was that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that one of the ways in which he wanted to reduce public expenditure was through employers taking up the minimum wage costs, which would reduce the costs of family credit. The introduction of the minimum wage, which would minimise family credit, would inevitably put the lower paid out of work. There is no question about that.

Mr. Bell

I understand the Minister's point. I did not see the programme to which he referred earlier, but I was told that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was the best of all the candidates for the leadership of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has made it clear that our minimum wage will be worked out on a common-sense basis. There is no question of its threatening the jobs of the low paid or of piece workers and it will not interfere with training schemes. Between now and the general election, we shall not allow the Conservative Government—who will then become the Conservative Opposition—to dictate and define what Labour's national minimum wage will be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, mentioned exchange rate policy. We could discuss that for some time. There was a devaluation on 15 September two years ago and the value of the pound has been modified. The exchange rate policy between 1979 and 1981 pushed up the pound's value to $2.50. That decimated our industry. We have not heard from the Minister, in his first revolution, about how 1 million jobs were lost between 1979 and 1981 as a consequence of an exchange rate policy which damaged our exports and destroyed or almost destroyed many of our manufacturing companies. It left us at the end of the recession not leaner and fitter, but worse off and, years on, still struggling to achieve anything.

The Minister was carried away by his own enthusiasm, saying that the Labour party was like something from 1780. I remind him that that was even before the time of Napoleon.

Mr. Donald Anderson

Another major deterrent to our exporters is the discordant note being sounded by the Cabinet and members of the Conservative party on European policy. One thing is crystal clear: the Americans and the Japanese view Europe as one market, but they are not sure whether Britain wants to be part of that single market or not. While diverse voices come from the Government because of their internal contradictions, that will be a major constraint on our export efforts.

Mr. Bell

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has spoken of drift and we see it in the Government's position on Europe. On the one hand, Britain is in the heart of Europe; on the other, it supports a two-speed Europe. The Government speak with one voice in this House and with another in Brussels. The Foreign Secretary must be seriously depressed when he has to say one thing at an international conference and then return here and say something different. On the last occasion, he simply said that he would leave it to the Cabinet to decide. That smacks of really firm government. It is certainly evidence of the drift referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.

The Minister for Trade was happy to refer to 1780, but he failed to refer to the trade balance in manufactures in 1979 compared with 1993. The Minister knows that I have the utmost respect for him both as an individual and as a Minister. We are pleased that 90 people from the private sector are working at the Department of Trade and Industry. We welcome the sector by sector approach. The Minister's use of the term "godfather" was possibly a little out of place in relation to staff at the DTI, but we can get over that. We welcome grandfathering, which is better than godfathering—

Mr. Stephen

The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that he feared for Britain's position as a destination for foreign investment. Does the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) accept that Britain attracts more inward investment than any other Community country? The over-bureaucratised, over-centralised, over-socialised Europe that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends foresee is certainly not the kind of place where our Japanese, American or other friends would wish to invest.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Gentleman illustrates one of the difficulties of believing one's own propaganda. It is often said that inward investment from countries such as Japan and the United States is greater in Britain than in other Community countries, but that is not so. There is massive investment in France and there will be massive investment in Finland and other countries—[Interruption.] We shall not fall for the myths and shibboleths of Conservative Members.

The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred to the socialisation of Europe, the social chapter and social laws. Can he explain why Germany has the strongest economy in Europe although it has the social chapter? Why is France doing so well when it has both a national minimum wage and the social chapter? It is because the framework is right. Those who are in work invest their time in their place of work and they understand the need for productivity, output and security.

The Minister for Trade gave us welcome information about India and the £2 billion worth of orders coming from 15 different sectors. We welcome the fact that the export credit guarantees are being used. I almost made a trip to Bangalore with the Minister. The programme was extremely strenuous. He spent a day there, but that was obviously sufficient for him to build it up as the city of the next century. We welcome the use of Concorde to carry 100 British business men to India and to carry 100 Indian business men back. We also welcome the programme for the capital goods sector, seeking to move orders from £9,000 million to £27,000 million by the year 2000.

The Minister referred to UK plc. When he looks again at "Winning for Britain" he will see a number of paragraphs on that. He spoke of Britain competing on level terms with Germany, France, Japan and America. We must ask whether the packages are the same. Do we have the right package to enable us to compete with the French and the Germans? Our exporters tell us that that is not the case and that the French and the Germans have better packages.

The Minister comes to the House and pleases his Back Benchers and I wish him well. However, exporters still tell us that Britain's package is not so good as—

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bell

I have not reached my speech yet, so I will not give way. The debate is about the opportunities for exporters, but the Minister spent at least 25 minutes making a political attack on the Opposition. I intend to respond to every point of his attack before I get to my speech on the opportunities for exporters.

Mr. Donald Anderson

There is some concern about export promotion agencies. France and Germany are organised differently in terms of chambers of commerce and so on. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is now a real danger of a substantial cut in the number of our overseas diplomatic posts due to Government policy failures? That is bound to have adverse repercussions on the ability of our exporters to continue to get the assistance to which they have become accustomed.

Mr. Bell

Such cuts also have an impact on the country where they are made. When I visited Australia last summer, I heard it said that past cuts had sent a signal to the Australian Government that we were not so enthusiastic about Australia as we might have been. It is the language of the Minister to support our exports, but it is the language of the Treasury to cut back. We have yet to hear what will be the impact of the latest spending plans which were discussed at No. 10 Downing street today. How will they affect export credit guarantees and export posts?

Mrs. Gillan

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I do not apologise for calling him my friend earlier.

The hon. Gentleman said that he does not believe Tory party propaganda on inward investment. Does he accept the United States survey which showed that of current business prepared by MITI more than 39 per cent. of all inward investment into European Community countries from Japan comes to the United Kingdom? We also enjoy a similar proportion of US investment. The nearest country to the UK in this respect is Germany, where inward investment from Japan is well under 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman may accept that information from an independent source.

Mr. Bell

I am always grateful to hear from the hon. Lady, but she did not distinguish between manufacturing and service investment. She had better take a good look at those figures and establish whether financial services are included. One thinks, for instance, of the Paris and Frankfurt exchanges. Using sound bite figures on the Floor of the House is dangerous.

The Minister referred to the nuclear industry—

Mr. Jacques Arnold

Oh no.

Mr. Bell

If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he may learn something. If he insists on making sedentary interventions, he will learn nothing. The House may find that I am writing Labour party policy as I go along, much to the benefit of the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman must be patient.

We accept the Minister's point that a strong, viable and expanding UK nuclear industry can link with technology which helps to increase exports. We are aware also that Sizewell C would create 10,000 jobs. However, we are still waiting for the Government's nuclear review. It is a bit hard to ask the Labour party for its policy when there is no Government policy. It is difficult to give answers when the Government have not yet stated their own policy.

I shall now move on to my own speech.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has been making a speech for the last 20 minutes. I presume that he was referring to the way in which his speech was prepared—off the cuff or prepackaged.

Mr. Bell

At least the package is my own work. I do not have four civil servants in the Box behind me. When we debated insurance the other day, there were 12 civil servants in the Box. My speech in answer to the Minister is my own work, but it was also partly prepared earlier. Nevertheless, it will refer to many of the points made by the Minister.

We have twice debated exports and the Minister was absent on both occasions. We saw this afternoon the fervour and enthusiasm that we missed. His speech today was enthusiastic and critical of the Opposition, and I hope that it will serve to keep him in his job. However, I can reveal that the Minister need not worry so much. He does not have to attack the Opposition to keep his job as Minister for Trade. The reshuffle has already happened and the names are already decided. They have all been put in a safe at No. 10, and they will be taken out at the appropriate time. If the number of Government seats in the European elections had fallen to seven or eight, those names would have been produced the next day and Ministers would have been put out of their misery. As it is, they will probably hang on until July. I have said publicly—I put my two pennyworth on the table—that I hope that the Minister will keep his job because of his enthusiasm, energy and attacking approach to exports.

It was not always thus. The Minister said that the word "exports" appeared only twice in our document, "Winning for Britain," which is about 40 pages long. I invite him to read Lord Lawson's book, "The View from No. 11," which runs to about 1,100 pages. He will not find the word "exports" anywhere in its index. The book by the President of the Board of Trade, "Where There's a Will," shows in its index entries for "Eggar", "energy", "English Development Agency" and "environment"—but none for "exports". We welcome the Government's change of attitude since 1992 with the appointment of the Minister for Trade, but what were they doing in the 13 years before that? The view was never held in the last Parliament or the penultimate one that emphasis must be placed on exports. They were seen as important, but not that important, and the same applied to industry. The prevalent view was that our balance of payments was not a constraint on macro-economic policy. The Government were able to take that view because of North sea oil and a drop in demand for imports. The current account stayed in surplus until 1986, even though unemployment was rising throughout that time, reflecting a drop in gross domestic product. The current account went into deficit as a consequence of the Lawson-induced boom to win the 1987 general election.

I add in parentheses that our North sea oil account is again in surplus. In the first five months of this year, there was a £36 million oil surplus, compared with a £1.38 billion deficit in the 1993 calendar year. North sea oil masked the progressive deterioration in our trade balance in manufactures throughout the 1980s. When the Minister spoke of his two revolutions, he did not mention the two revolutions of the recessions of 1979–1981 and of 1991. Those were difficult times for business men trying to stay in business during a recession.

Regardless of the Minister's energy, which we applaud, and his commitment to improving Britain's export performance, the lack of overall Government policy means that while our share of world trade remains the same, that of France increases—notwithstanding that country's social chapter and its continued presence in the exchange rate mechanism. France is still part of that mechanism in Europe and Britain is not. The failure of the 1980s remains the most persistent obstacle when the Minister seeks to improve Britain's share of world trade.

We have seen a failure to pay sufficient attention to investment and the encouragement of excessive dividends even in time of recession, as opposed to investment. We have seen a failure to pay sufficient attention to training, and to create a framework for research and development. What kind of economy must we have to provide the wherewithal for our exporters? The Minister did not say that we have a lopsided and destabilised economy which survives on a wing and a prayer. It has external deficits, is debt ridden and has slow growth and high unemployment. That is what the Government describe as a success story. If the economy is as it should be in accordance with the gospel according to the Minister, why has it not been perceived as such by the electorate? Why have the Government lost both local government and European elections?

I was rather surprised to note that the Minister spent more time on the Opposition document, "Winning for Britain" than on the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win".

Mr. Needham

It is very good.

Mr. Bell

The only good things about it are the index and the glossary of terms.

The White Paper attempts to mask the Government's massive failure. It attempts to scatter its shot far and wide. It seeks to mask the fact that if we are to improve our ability to sell goods and services abroad, a change in economic policy is required. We need a policy that provides more skills and training, is designed for the long term rather than the short term, creates a proper and more appropriate balance between investment and dividends, directs itself through training to the problem of skill shortages, and which believes in Britain rather than hoping for the best for Britain. I remind the Minister that Charles Dickens and Mr. Micawber are dead: hoping for something to turn up does not represent the best economic policy on which to create our so-called opportunities for exporters.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) revealed his concern for environmental protection when he pointed out that the White Paper cost £600 per page. He hit the nail on the head equally well when he said that it contained no new ideas on investment, research and development or training, and no strategy to restore the strength of Britain's manufacturing industry"—[Official Report, 22 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 226.] The Labour party has argued that there is a theoretical case for free trade in that it is meant to provide the most efficient producers with access to world markets. That creates lower prices and forces domestic producers to be more efficient. Consumers and the most efficient companies benefit and therefore there is a public interest in offering choice through free trade. I was interested to note that the White Paper calls for "fair and open markets". That is a better definition than free trade. The Opposition and the Government are almost in agreement on that because fair and balanced trade is not far removed from "fair and open markets".

Mr. Jacques Arnold

How would it help free trade if we pursued the Labour party's calls for action against what it describes as social dumping, which means the export from the third world of products produced more cheaply than the developed world can produce them? Surely if we block such social dumping we shall be doing a disservice to the developing world. Will the hon. Gentleman explain Labour party policy on that?

Mr. Bell

I am always grateful for the opportunity to explain Labour party policy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Needham

The hon. Gentleman makes it up as he goes along.

Mr. Bell

No, I do not. It is all written down in my speech. The hon. Member for Gravesham asked a question and then answered it himself. Social dumping has nothing to do with workers' rights and I shall make that distinction when I get to that part of my speech. The hon. Member will not be forgotten.

Mr. McLoughlin

What about social dumping?

Mr. Bell

We shall get to that; there is no need to worry—this is called a structured speech.

A section of the White Paper refers to trade, but the Minister for Trade did not refer to it. I have read the entire document and consigned it to my heart. It refers to trade policy, export promotion, measures to combat unfair subsidies, state aid and inward and outward investment. It is all there. We welcome the emphasis that is placed on those considerations. No doubt the other half of the team—two Ministers are here, in tandem—will refer to them in replying to the debate.

We also welcome the initiatives that are referred to in the document—but which, once again, the Minister failed to mention—to link the Department of Trade and Industry with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide United Kingdom business with help overseas.

Mr. Needham

I mentioned that.

Mr. Bell

Not in relation to the White Paper.

We welcome the Treasury's grudging admission that trade might matter after all—that it is not simply a matter of financing deficits across the exchanges—and its involvement in attempts to win overseas contracts. We welcome the fact that Overseas Trade Services has reached thousands of small firms through the publicity about new opportunities for business with India. I noted what the Minister said about the initiatives listed in the White Paper for trade with India in 1994, including plans for a major promotional event in Delhi in November focusing on smaller firms producing high-technology products. I assume that that is what the Minister had in mind when he referred to Concorde flying back and forth to India.

The Opposition have noted that the United Kingdom is the second biggest foreign investor in the United States and accounts for more than 20 per cent. of the $419 billion invested by foreign enterprises. I do not get around as much as the Minister, but I managed to get to Australia last year and I was in Washington recently. I can testify to the seriousness that the commercial section at our embassy attaches to trade. I note that within the manufacturing sector United Kingdom investment stands at more than $40 billion, making it the biggest foreign investor in the United States.

The Labour party accepts that we are in a global economy, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made plain. We accept that large-scale investment in the United States is necessary as part of that global economy. The Opposition accept that other considerations must be taken into account over and beyond simply investing in our country. Those considerations are important to outward investment and such investment is linked to inward investment, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said. In turn, it is ultimately linked to fair and open trade in fair and open markets.

The Minister was kind enough to refer to my attempts to involve myself, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, with his office. He has been courteous enough to invite me over to explain many of the Government initiatives. He has also given me various documents about those initiatives to study. I thank him for his gracious behaviour.

The Minister said that he had a strategy, but we cannot discern where it is. We understand where he wants to go and how he wants to do that, but where is that over-arching strategy? The efforts of the Minister and his Department must be considered against the fact that our non-oil trade deficit is likely to increase. This is when we come to the facts, not the myths—the reality, rather than the perception of it in which the hon. Member for Gravesham seems to like to live.

Our exports will not benefit fully from an increase in world trade. Even the devaluation of the pound will not prevent our trade position from deteriorating. Even the benefits that arose from the competitive devaluation in September 1992 are already fading. If our exports are to pick up in relation to imports, our growth rate will have to be slower than that of our overseas competitors.

Conservative Members should listen carefully to this part of my speech because, given the rosy description of our exports and our economy, they must wonder why the Governor of the Bank of England is talking about raising interest rates. If things are looking so good, surely they must wonder why interest rates may have to go up. That is the dilemma that the Government face, because they cannot create sustainable and non-inflationary growth through their policies. They cannot break out of the stop-go cycle. We are already suffering from the threat of slower growth or at least growth being curtailed—that will mean that it cannot reduce our unemployment rate—because of the threat of interest rate rises.

At least the Governor of the Bank of England is no longer saying that if interest rates are increased it will all be because of the workers. In the past, the workers got the blame for everything. In this case, he has said that it is not a question of pay rises, but the fact that the economy is over-heating. The fact that the Government cannot even sustain modest growth in the economy without running into balance of payments constraints and having to talk about increasing interest rates is a measure of the failure of their policies overall. I am not talking about the Minister, but about his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury. I am not alone in that view. Nomura Research Institute Europe Ltd. points out clearly what the Opposition have known all along, which is that the current account does matter. A current account deficit can be financed—that is obvious—but it can be financed only by leading to slower growth, higher inflation, weaker exchange rates and higher short and long-term interest rates. That will happen in our country, but not in countries with current account surpluses. The proof of the pudding is Germany.

The Minister was right to touch, albeit briefly, on the emphasis on opportunities for exports. He was right to exhort those in the export business to more effort. He knows in his heart of hearts that if the United Kingdom Government cannot bridge or reduce the current account gap, the economy will remain unstable. The Minister is right to bring to the attention of the House the opportunities that he is making available through the Government. He is right, by implication, to distance himself from the so-called Thatcher years.

Is it not truly astonishing, even at this time, that more help is not available to our exporters from our banks? I pray in aid, if not in comfort, the second survey of international services provided to exporters commissioned by the Institute of Export and NCM Credit Insurance Ltd. The 1994 survey of exporters shows that one in four businesses does not use banks to finance its export business. It shows that banks remain the initial source of general advice for exporters, but that the quality of service provided has improved only marginally. It shows that 49 per cent. of those surveyed remain unhappy with the attitude of the banks and that three out of four companies with turnovers below £10 million fail to receive an advance from their bankers.

The failure by banks to finance overseas debts was commented on by many companies. The banks have lost their identity, if not their soul. They have certainly lost the focus of their business, which has been destroyed—like so much else in the Thatcher years—so that they look to profits from the capital markets rather than assisting small businesses. It is that lackadaisical approach to exports that the Department of Trade and Industry must tackle if the Minister wishes to maintain the impetus of his initiative.

I must tell the Minister that there is some unease about the creation of 11 regional offices with 185 staff. The plethora of export information in the past has caused some confusion among companies and they are wondering where it will all lead with the reorganisation of regional centres. Small businesses do not like confusion, especially when it relates to a Government Department or affects export potential. The existing regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry receive commendations and are used by two out of three existing companies. However, some effort of communication, information and even reassurance will be needed to maintain that confidence in the new regional centres.

I now come to the point made by the hon. Member for Gravesham. The Government have not achieved all that they might have done through financial services and the general agreement on tariffs and trade. That was the point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. It is convenient to base the investment on manufacturing investment, but as hon. Members know, investment in the service industries is equally important. We had a canter around that paddock earlier in the week when we debated GATT. At that time, we were reminded that 23 per cent. of our exports come from services, which amounts to about £23,000 million a year. We were also reminded that we are the fourth exporter of invisibles in the world. We had a little bit of that yesterday when we were told by the Minister that the President of the Board of Trade is in the land of the midnight sun".—[Official Report, 22 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 217.] We are happy for him to be there to discuss invisible exports.

Why were we not able to make greater progress in financial services in the latest round of GATT negotiations? Why did not the Minister refer to that? Perhaps his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will refer to it later. What were the Government up to? What representations did they make to Sir Leon Brittan? What representations were made by the City of London—that great bastion of enterprise? I am glad to see the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) in his place. I hope that he will make a contribution.

Why did we not make a greater point about financial services? Why did we fail to make greater leeway in the GATT accord on a matter that touches 23 per cent. of our exports? We have been told often enough in the Chamber that Sir Leon Brittan is running for the presidency of the European Commission. As a former Member of the House we wish him well. But where was our case on financial services? What were we afraid of? Where are we going now? Perhaps we shall get to that when we learn from the President of the Board of Trade—

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I require your guidance. I commend the brave attempt by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) to speak alone for the Labour party. However, you will have noticed that there are many Conservative Members who wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. Would it not be advisable if, unusually, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough were allowed to speak again halfway through the proceedings to give us the second half of his speech? Then, instead of having to speak with a modular expandable speech which may go on for two hours to compensate for the total of one and a half hours of speeches from Conservative Members, we would have a more orderly debate and a wider variety of contributions. I say this in all sincerity and flattery for the hon. Gentleman. He should get a medal for what he is doing tonight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will send a memo to the leader of the Labour party to say that, unsupported, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has done a sterling job. However, in the interests of the House, could we have an unorthodox procedure in terms of calling people to speak?

Madam Deputy Speaker

In contrast to the flamboyant remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the short answer is no.

Mr. Bell

I am always grateful for an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, even though it was on a point of order. I know that he works well and closely with the Institute of Directors and I have had dealings with him on that subject. I simply wish to remind him of the maiden speech of Benjamin Disraeli, who was also heard by an almost empty House. He ended his speech by saying, "You will remember me." I am sure that when we fight the general election in 1997, Conservative Members will be astonished and, I hope, pleasantly surprised to see how much Labour party policy they find in my speech tonight.

To return to the pre-packaged part of my speech, financial services are important. During the GATT debate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), in his second speech in the Chamber, referred to the Minister for Industry who had been to Marrakesh to sign the GATT agreement. My hon. Friend asked why the Government had sent a grocer to Marrakesh. I found that amusing.

Mr. Needham

It was offensive.

Mr. Bell

It was not offensive; it was amusing. It reminded me of what Winston Churchill once said: some chicken, some neck—it takes a lot of gall for an Opposition Member to refer to Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill in the same speech—and I thought: some grocer, some Minister.

The Minister for Industry was right in his speech the other night to refer to the benefits that come from the GATT round. The Government will need to pursue vigorously the question of financial services. They will need to pursue the issues of banking, insurance, securities, telecommunications, maritime services, aerospace and steel. Attention will have to paid to these matters in relation to GATT for some time, certainly for the next two to three years.

We often hear the question—and we shall hear it increasingly in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield—"Where's the beef?" The beef is, of course, in the hamburger. During the GATT negotiations, did the Government know what they wanted in terms of exports? Where was the overarching strategy? Where was the beef in the Government's policy? The document entitled, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" is not a policy document—it is pious aspiration dressed up as a policy document.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

What about social dumping?.

Mr. Bell

I shall come to that in a moment.

What the Government should do but are not doing is arrest the decline in our exports. They cannot increase exports, only maintain them. GATT might be said to provide an opportunity, and that opportunity will come through the World Trade Organisation. The Minister did not refer to our trade dispute with Malaysia, although he has been there. I hope that such disputes in future will be handled through the new WTO. Incidentally, we are pleased to note that in May our exports to Malaysia were £161 million; in April they were £110 million and in January £78 million. We shall, however, need to examine ways of democratising the WTO and how we can make it more accountable.

The President of the Board of Trade's visit yesterday to Helsinki has already been mentioned. We shall be looking for an early statement from him and we shall be asking whether his meeting there was consultative or indicative, whether it affected the WTO, whether it arose out of the Uruguay round of GATT, whether it affects bilateral trading in services between nations and, indeed, whether financial services such as banking, insurance and securities were topics of discussion. We know how the President of the Board of Trade respects the House and his Department's Question Time, and we shall be anxious to hear his views at an early date—not too early, however, as I shall not be here on Monday.

The hon. Member for Gravesham has been very patient in waiting for a response for his comment on social dumping. This is rather like a television series where one has to wait until after the advertisements—we are getting there now. We need to strengthen the environmental aspects of GATT, although that is not a matter dear to the Government's heart. Over the years, we shall write into GATT an appropriate chapter or clause on workers' rights. The hon. Member for Gravesham seems to confuse social dumping with workers' rights, but there is no comparison between the two.

The Labour party, the Americans, the French and the Government—I shall deal with them in a moment—are saying that a nation's economy can be developed within a framework of workers' rights which not only assists that nation's exports, but improves its standards of living and makes it a nation of consumers, as well as producers, so that it can import goods that we manufacture. The hon. Gentleman should therefore get away from the idea of social dumping and consider a proper framework of workers' rights going hand in hand with fair and balanced trade.

When he wound up our recent debate on GATT, the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs revealed something that I, however, knew already because the American Administration had told me. If they had not done so, I do not know how long I should have had to wait to hear it from the Government, but, in any event, I heard it from the Government on Monday night. I heard that the Government have agreed to promote proper analytical work by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to examine workers' rights and ascertain where there are problems that need to be dealt with. That means that the Government are examining workers' rights in relation to trade and that we are beginning to move towards the position held by France and the United States, no matter how the Government dress it up.

Over and above the practical opportunities for exporters, which we welcome as a change from the so-called Thatcher years, the Department will have to work harder on a strategy. They cannot simply hope that this document represents a strategy. It places little importance on the difference between high and low technology. The Government appear to believe that competitiveness is a matter of price, not quality. They will have to work much harder on a strategy if they want to persuade us that they know where they are going.

As I have already said, we accept that there has been a change in attitude since 1992, since the Minister took on his portfolio. It is now accepted that exports count, that the external deficit counts, that manufacturing counts and that the economy cannot for ever continue on a wing and a prayer. His own vigorous efforts should be matched by a properly thought out, overarching strategy as well as tactics.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who is taking such an interest in the length of my speech, might like to know that I am on the last page of the first instalment. With the leave of the House, I shall later wind up on behalf of the Opposition.

When I was preparing my contribution to the debate on GATT, I referred to the line: Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small". Most Conservatives recognised the line, but did not, of course, know the following line, of which I am happy to remind them. The poem continues: Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all". The Minister can have tactics and initiatives. but at the end of the day he still has to face the voters and when he and his party do so he will meet the same fate because, with patience, the public and the electorate stand waiting and with exactness they will grind all.

6.26 pm

Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire, West)

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is held in very high regard by Conservative Members. There was therefore a tingle of anticipation on this side of the House when he said that he was going to talk about Labour party policy and make up much of it on the hoof. He told us several times and with pride that it was all his own work—my speech, too, is all my own work—but we were disappointed to hear so little about Labour party policy.

The only thing that we managed to prise out of the hon. Gentleman was something about social dumping, a line that he was thrown by one of my colleagues. It was a disappointing speech, because it did not tell us more about what the Labour party has in mind for us.

Mr. Fabricant

It took 55 minutes.

Mr. Marland

Yes, it was a long speech.

I begin by complimenting my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on all the energy that he has expended in trying to stimulate trade for this country. His travel schedule has been punishing and has earned him the respect not only of the people who travelled with him but that of many hon. Members of all parties. I hope that he will have the health and strength to keep going.

It will probably come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend to know that it is my intention not to speak about Lloyd's. [Interruption.] It probably will come as a surprise, in fact. I wish to speak about the problems facing the recycling industry. My interest in its efforts are well catalogued, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown considerable interest in the difficulties facing the industry. I have talked to him about them several times. What are the problems facing the United Kingdom's metal, textile and paper recyclers? How do I want the Department of Trade and Industry to help?

The problem, simply put, is one of definition. Well-intentioned legislation is placing unnecessary and ill-considered regulation in the way of developing businesses in this sphere. That regulation is beginning seriously to hamper their development, jeopardising their exports and adding considerably to their costs and paperwork. In short, the European Union's definition of waste needs to be amended.

Before I outline the problem in more detail, let me give the House some idea of the scale and breadth of the metal recovery industry in the United Kingdom. Each week, the industry collects 175 tonnes of reusable metal, 30,000 old motor cars, 30,000 refrigerators, 20,000 washing machines and a further 20,000 assorted white goods—items such as cookers, dryers and deep freezes. In addition, it collects huge quantities of industrial, demolition and constructional reusable material, as well as ships, torpedoes, telephones, old bicycles, discarded House of Commons metal chairs and paper clips.

That reclamation activity saves in energy terms the equivalent of 140,000 gallons of petrol for each 1,000 tonnes of new steel produced from recovered metal rather than refining original ore.

The environmental advantages are also obvious, yet the important recycling business, along with the textile and other recycling and exporting businesses, is now under threat from ill-defined and ill-considered legislation, which insists that, irrespective of evidence to the contrary, the metal recovery industry is merely a waste disposal industry, and that those businesses are merely handlers of waste.

The misconception spreads throughout Europe and beyond. Last year, the ferrous reclamation industry collected, processed and sold more than 9 million tonnes of iron and steel. Nearly 4 million tonnes of that recovered metal was sold abroad; hence my interest in today's debate on exports. The trade was market driven, and brought more than £300 million to the United Kingdom in overseas earnings.

Today, however, the United Kingdom metal recycling industry, together with other recycling interests, faces the greatest threat to its activities since the era of export controls pre-1979. The heart of the problem is the misconception that valuable recovered metal, prepared and sold for melting into new steel, is waste and that it should be controlled in the same way as harmful waste for disposal.

It is not merely a domestic problem, as I shall explain. The recycling industry needs help from the Government at home and abroad to change the definition of waste.

So where did that well-intended, but ill-considered, legislation come from? It was the Basel convention. Quite rightly, the Basel convention seeks to control and reduce the export of hazardous waste from developed countries to developing countries. Furthermore, at its second conference, the Basel convention banned all movements of hazardous waste destined for recycling or recovery from OECD to non-OECD countries from 1 January 1998. On the face of it, that sounds a good idea, but the definition of waste under the Basel convention is very broad, as is the classification "hazardous", and that brings problems to the industry.

In a forum dominated by Greenpeace International, and with civil service experts from participating countries' environmental departments only, there is a real risk that the balance will swing too far, so that recovered and processed material could be considered as hazardous waste. I have examples of just that happening.

The OECD proposed a separate regime for the trans-frontier shipment of wastes for recovery, dividing such wastes into red, amber and green lists. Why should recovered and processed metal, together with other material, be regarded as waste, when these products have been bought by the recipient and are to be reused as a raw material? The difficulty is that some countries may and do place restrictions on the trade, simply because the material appears as waste, irrespective of which category of waste it is.

The European Union seeks to regulate the movement of waste into, out of and within the Community along the same lines as the OECD, using the categories green, amber and red. While green wastes are subject only to normal commercial regulations, non-OECD countries can insist that such wastes are controlled as if they were amber or red-listed. That means that, after 1 January 1998, exports of green-listed recovered metals, papers and textiles could be banned.

It is interesting, if horrifying, to note that, only last month, at an international reclamation and recycling convention, a senior official of the Spanish Government spoke with some passion of his country's refusal to import waste. Quite obviously, he had not done his homework and did not understand his own regulations, as Spain currently imports 3.2 million tonnes a year of reprocessed metal, which is classified as waste, for its own steel industry. I am pleased to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that 1.1 million tonnes of that furnace feed comes from the United Kingdom.

Is it any wonder that United Kingdom business men and politicians are sceptical about our European partners enforcing European regulations, when their own senior civil servants do not even seem to understand them?

Further afield, the Indonesian Government, failing to understand the ramifications of the waste lists, advised the European Union last month that they had imposed a ban on the importation of all waste. That meant that a large cargo of recovered ferrous metal classified as waste, which at that time was on the high seas bound for Jakarta, was therefore illegal and would not be accepted.

However, thanks to pressure from the United Kingdom—and, I suspect, from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade—the Indonesian Government realised the potential harm to their own steel industry and reversed their earlier decision. They, too, did not understand the regulations.

Now India and Turkey, which between them import nearly 1 million tonnes of furnace feed per year—the bulk of it from the United Kingdom—have announced that they will not import waste.

The House will be aware of the difficulties faced by the industry with regard to exports. Those of India and Turkey were further cases of not understanding the waste regulations.

There was also the case of the lorry from Swinnerton Brothers, a company based somewhere in the United Kingdom. It was carrying a load of secondary raw material from Britain across Belgium to Italy. The cargo was described as waste and stopped, by Belgian customs officials, who delayed the load for 10 days, causing much frustration and expense for those involved. That was another case of the Belgians not understanding their own legislation.

In the past few weeks, the following countries have demonstrated that they do not understand the waste regulations: Indonesia, Turkey, India, Spain and Belgium.

What must be done is clear, and the United Kingdom Government can show some real leadership at the heart of Europe. Those responsible for the regulations must realise that the material we are talking about is not waste, but a valuable secondary resource, for which buyers are willing to pay large sums of money.

Mr. Fabricant

Hear, hear.

Mr. Marland

I appreciate my hon. Friend's support. The waste regulations must be changed.

Madam Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker: if that is the worst error I make in my speech, I will be all right.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

It is flattery.

Mr. Marland

As we are in the business of quotes, thanks to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, Oscar Wilde said, "Flattery will get you anywhere."

To give credit where credit is due, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside have recognised the problem and are trying to help.

The impact of international legislation spills over onto the United Kingdom domestic scene and it is intended that United Kingdom recycling should be brought under the auspices of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the United Kingdom waste management regulations.

The regulations and the licensing regime were due to apply to the metal recycling industry from 1 May, but, thanks to the interest shown by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who took the time and trouble to look at the industry at first hand, he has recognised that metal processors should be licensed as metal recyclers and not as waste managers. In the light of his first-hand experience, he has given the industry a further five months—until 1 October—to apply for exemption from the current waste management licensing regulations.

A further problem, however, is that the competent authorities in the United Kingdom for licensing and inspection, as well as for export purposes, are the 140 waste regulatory authorities. I believe that in describing material for export and interpreting the Government's regulatory guidance, there would be a standardisation problem, with 140 different authorities throughout the country. Furthermore, those authorities would have great difficulty in ascertaining whether the countries of destination had the appropriate and authorised facilities to receive processed metal cargoes described as waste.

I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no one in the recycling industry fears appropriate regulation and licensing. On the contrary, that would be welcome, for there are still far too many unscrupulous operators, who do nobody any good, in the market.

We are talking about a high-tech industry which has invested millions of pounds in its plant and machinery. In all its different guises, it employs thousands of people and brings enormous wealth and massive environmental benefits to this country. That industry is in danger of being over-regulated and unnecessarily regulated, so it warmly welcomes the Government's determination to deregulate.

Today, too much well-intentioned national and international legislation is introduced as a result of activity by well-funded and determined single-issue politicians and pressure groups. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is to reply to the debate, to understand that recycled material for sale is not waste, but a valuable secondary raw material. In recognising that, and in redefining waste, they will release the stranglehold that regulation could exert on much of British industry and its export potential.

6.40 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has done the debate, and the House, a service by raising the important issue of the recycling industry. The House is in his debt. From our constituency experience, we all know that that is indeed an urgent problem.

I should like to talk quietly to the Minister for Trade on six subjects—very succinctly on five of them. First, the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to Livingston. I used to represent part of Livingston—it is in the West Lothian area—and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather hard on British Leyland. Honestly, it was not industrial relations that brought the Bathgate operation to an end, but the great difficulty of having a motor industry located away from the centres for the ancillary industries.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) knows, there were deep-seated problems and, at least over the past few years, the British Leyland management were in no way critical of the co-operation that they had received from the work force. Hon. Members who represent Birmingham and Coventry seats will know what the problems were. I owe a great deal to the late George Park, my colleague from Coventry, who used to give me much expert advice on the real problems of the parts of the motor industry that had moved out of the midlands. Perhaps the mistake was ever taking them out of the midlands in the first place.

Another question arises, and I want to address it to the Minister for Trade. Are we sure that we have the balance right between the money that the British state puts into attracting industries from the United States, Japan and elsewhere, and what we do to help our own industries? There is a great feeling that if only more money had been invested in, for instance, the North British Steel Foundry, that would have been far healthier than spending those huge sums on attracting industry from abroad.

I shall never forget visiting a famous Japanese company, accompanying a ministerial visit by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) when he was Minister for Technology. I asked him, "How much grant are they getting?" and the right hon. Gentleman gave me the figure. It was confidential, but I was taken aback. The sums that our indigenous industries receive do not bear comparison with what goes to incoming industry from abroad.

Also on that issue, I give a gentle warning to the Minister for Trade that in areas such as mine people are most concerned about the effect of local government reform. He said that prosperity had come to the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and he was right; there is a good story to tell. But part of that story is the way in which Lothian region has been able to react quickly to packages suggested to it—for instance, by Motorola. I doubt whether smaller unitary authorities could have acted in that way, and even at this 59th minute of the 11th hour I tell the Government that they will get into terrible difficulty over local government reform in Scotland. I am not an English Member, but I understand that there may be problems in England as well, with all the orders that are now to be introduced. I really believe that the Government should think again.

My second main question concerns the quarrying industry. I shall start with two facts. To build the new Scottish Office building for the ancient monuments board and other branches of the Scottish Office at Longmore in Edinburgh, Ullapool marble is being used. But that has to go to Carrara to be processed and then come back to Edinburgh. For the new work at the Broomielaw in Glasgow, not Aberdeen granite but Brazilian granite is being used, and that has to be processed in Portugal.

We used to be a country with a thousand quarries, but now we have very few. Off the top of my head, I would say that in Scotland there are now six sandstone quarries, one marble quarry, one flagstone quarry—in Caithness—and no slate quarry. That may be a matter for import substitution, but, we must ask how the Department of Trade and Industry can resolve a chicken-and-egg situation so as to rejuvenate the British quarrying industry.

That industry is all the more important because 50 per cent. and more of the building being undertaken by the construction industry is not new build but repair and renovation, so traditional materials are that much more important. Another reason for concentrating on traditional materials is that the people employed in quarrying are often over 40, and the Minister and I know that those are the most difficult people for whom to find alternative work.

I ask for some reflection on the state of the British quarrying industry, and especially to what extent snatch quarrying can be encouraged. That describes what happens when a certain amount of stone is urgently needed for new buildings in the centre of cities, or for new public works such as the national museum of Scotland or the science museum in Exhibition road.

I can say quickly what I have to say on my third issue. The Minister and I served on a Standing Committee that dealt with the question of markets ouverts. In that connection, I must mention the export of art. In the light of what has happened at Floors, at Scone and at Abbotsford, the Scottish heritage is in peril. Those places attract hundreds of thousands of visitors, and artefacts have been stolen from them and quickly disposed of. I cannot expect an immediate answer, but I know that the Government are working on the problem. Markets ouverts are a real problem, and I hope that they will be able to do something about that.

The fourth issue, like the next two, concerns countries abroad. What is happening to our exports to Iran? Our political relations with Iran have been difficult enough, but they are becoming even more difficult because, for some reason or another, which has not been made clear to the House, we are asking for Iranian diplomats to be withdrawn from this country. That leads to a tit-for-tat situation. On the surface, the reasons seem trivial, but Iran used to be an important market and I ask the Department of Trade and Industry to ask the Foreign Office whether it has the right sense of proportion and whether it should be developing appalling relations with a country that is a good market.

My fifth point takes me next door to Iraq. This is not the occasion to parade my views on how we should react to sanctions against Iraq, but does the DTI realise the extent to which the French have gone back to Baghdad? Last May, in controversial circumstances, I stayed in the only major hotel in Baghdad, where it was almost impossible to get breakfast—I shall put it that way—for the want of people from Elf Aquitaine and other French companies, who said that they were not breaking sanctions, but preparing for the time when sanctions would be lifted. Dutiful as I am, I gave a full report to our embassy in Amman as soon as I crossed the border into Jordan. On the night of my return, the Foreign Secretary courteously saw me in his office and I made the same point.

Remembering that Iraq was one of our best markets—for instance, we undertook massive graduate training there—I believe that operating sanctions may present a problem. The DTI should reflect on what our competitors are doing in Iraq, which has the second biggest, if not the biggest, oil reserves in the world. I do not want to trespass on other matters and I realise that there are great difficulties following the Gulf war, but, at the very least, questions should be asked.

The sixth and final matter on which I wish to dwell involves Libya, again an awkward subject. The Minister and I have discussed the matter before. Libya, like Iraq, was a British Arab market and not an American market. The Americans had other markets, particularly in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia. Britain's university and technical colleges have trained most of Libya's decision makers. I know that I was on unsafe ground when advancing my arguments on Iraq because difficulties were involved that were not germane to this debate. I feel very strongly, however, that there is a case for lifting sanctions against Libya until we have a far clearer idea of who perpetrated the Lockerbie crime.

A libel case has been successfully conducted in the courts by the Maltese against a Canadian company that asserted that there was a Maltese connection between the bomb and Pan Am flight 103. Once the Malta connection is challenged, as it is more and more by serious people, the case against the Libyan state falls to the ground.

In an Adjournment debate and in other debates, I have argued that the Libyans were not involved and that other people have made them the scapegoats for an appalling crime. I went to Lockerbie on day three. The police from my area were there to clear up. The Lockerbie crime was the most terrible crime against civilians in the western world since 1945. Before we operate sanctions, however, we have to be clear that the people against whom we are operating them are the people who perpetrated the crime. There is mounting evidence that we have got the wrong people.

I asked the Prime Minister to identify the lead Department in the matter. I suspect that it is probably the Crown Office in Edinburgh. It is high time that the DTI went to the Foreign Office, the Crown Office and the relevant sections of the Home Office and asked, "For how long are we going to go on denying ourselves access to the plums of the Libyan markets?"

We still have 5,000 British nationals working in Libya. There are huge demands because of its high-quality oil, which can finance huge projects such as the great man-made river, which those of us who visited it thought was an ecologically sound and major project. There will be huge developments there and British industry is missing out. It is my strong impression that the Italians are not missing out. I not only have an impression, but am certain that the South Koreans are having a field day and making a bomb. [Laughter.] Sorry, that was an unfortunate phrase. If I could erase something from Hansard, that would be it. They are making a pile. No, that is also unsatisfactory. They are making a fortune and British industry is missing out.

If the Minister thinks that I am exaggerating, let him talk to senior management at Babcock and Wilcox, who said only yesterday that it had major orders waiting and that, if sanctions were lifted, it could start those orders tomorrow.

I promised to be brief. I leave those thoughts with the Minister and I hope that he will reflect on them over the next month.

6.56 pm

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West)

I do not want my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to reply to my comments. I wish merely to place them on the record and to ask for some discreet inquiries to be made of his officials. I want to discuss corruption in Russia and the extent to which it may pose dangers to British exporters.

The Russian market presents huge opportunities, but it may also present huge dangers. It appears that gangsters and mafiosi have almost totally penetrated Russian commerce and industry. There is, in effect, an alternative and more effective governmental system operating in Russia. It may be highly dangerous, therefore, when British and western European companies go into Russia to look for joint ventures. Russian gangsters may apply the same methods to western European joint ventures that they do to Russian businesses. Those methods are well known. They involve blackmail, extortion, protection and the placing of henchmen in a company's management structures.

Perhaps most worrying of all, a new phenomenon seems to be appearing. Employees of joint ventures with foreign companies are being asked to accept middle managers and observers, who may go to the host country, usually western Germany, to go on a study mission and to learn what is happening in the exporting country. They may also be there, however, to spy out the land for the development of their particular form of exports—corruption, extortion, blackmail and other methods that I mentioned.

That fear has been expressed in some quarters. I ask only that Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have put in place the excellent structure about which we heard earlier, undertake internal studies of the extent to which their officials are picking up such signals and the extent to which British business men are being exposed to pressures that, initially and to a large extent, were placed on German business men, the most prevalent group of business men in Russia.

We take great pride in the fact that our business ethics and the way in which we do business are of the highest order compared with almost any other country. We do not want certain corrupt practices to wash back to the United Kingdom as a result of sincere, open and honest efforts to indulge in joint ventures in Russia or merely to export to Russia.

I leave those thoughts with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who commented in opening on the way in which he and the President of the Board of Trade have organised exports. That is music to the business community, which has wanted something like this for a long time. The system that my right hon. Friends have delivered makes Britain a first division player in export activity and I congratulate them on it.

7 pm

Mr. Nigel Jones (Cheltenham)

I seem to be making a habit of following the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). When I last spoke, I followed his generous speech; today, he made a thought-provoking speech, following his extremely amusing point of order earlier in our proceedings.

I am delighted that the House has found time to debate one of the most crucial issues that faces Britain. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Iraq, which I visited in helping British exports before the recent troubles. Will the Minister tell us what happened to the money owed under the Export Credits Guarantee Department's scheme to companies exporting at the time of the troubles? Does he think that British exporters are getting a fair share of the construction work in Kuwait?

By inventing things before anyone else and by making high-quality products for sale to the rest of the world, the British have traditionally enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world The industrial revolution began in the west midlands—with the invention of railways, for example—and that peaceful revolution continues to bring change across our planet.

In recent years, Britain has fallen behind—or, rather, other nations have caught up and some have overtaken us. The centre of invention has moved away to Europe, North America and, increasingly, Japan and the far east, and with that movement, the potential, through exports, for future wealth and prosperity in the United Kingdom has been threatened.

Our competitors will not easily give up their new-found wealth. They have succeeded by investing more than us in the future. Their Governments play a more active role than ours in co-ordinating, encouraging and, in many cases, providing financial pump priming for, exporters. Liberal Democrats and Conservatives understand that, in a free market, Governments should not attempt to run industry. But this Government fail to understand that even in a free market, Governments continue to have a vital role to play in helping industry to help itself.

The Minister gave examples of help that the Government are giving, but it is not enough. The President of the Board of Trade once promised to intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner to help British industry, but we have seen precious little sign of his doing so. We have seen even less sign of the Government's investing in the future or of their having a vision or a strategy. Instead, they appear to be conducting a closing-down sale.

I should like the Minister to explain why a quarter of the people employed by the Foreign Office to help exporters have lost their jobs in the past 12 years. Has any research been conducted into the correlation between export success and Foreign Office assistance?

Our scientists and designers have a superb record of inventing things—there is nothing wrong with our innovation—but, too often in recent years, Britain has missed opportunities and has failed to generate wealth by exporting its inventions. As a result, we have a serious balance of payments deficit, including a deficit on manufactured goods. We must look again at making high-quality products for export on a large scale, so employing people who should be employed and paying taxes rather than sitting at home miserably twiddling their thumbs. Only with higher employment and higher-volume productivity will Britain afford a decent social programme, which probably all hon. Members want.

Our key industries, such as aerospace, must be nurtured. Companies such as British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Dowty TI, Westland and Smiths Industries bring in a net £2.5 billion to our balance of payments. Some people think that the black gold in the North sea—oil—has been wasted. Instead of giving unsustainable tax cuts to the rich, the Government should have used oil revenues to invest in the future and in Britain's infrastructure.

We have heard about the pharmaceutical industry and financial services today, but we run the danger of missing out on future opportunities in information technology, converging communications technology—made possible by fibre optics—environmental technology and biotechnology. These are key new areas in which high value-added jobs should be created in Britain. They offer huge opportunities for United Kingdom exporters. Other countries may have a lead, but it is not too late to do something to enable British companies to compete in world markets.

With margins squeezed in the European Union, many companies have looked further afield for business. The relaxation of the COCOM—the co-ordinating committee of western nations on technology transfer—restrictions has helped significantly to open up opportunities in central and eastern Europe.

What United Kingdom exporters need like a hole in the head is the reintroduction of national trade barriers; they need existing barriers to come down. They must be able, where possible, to buy components for their products from United Kingdom suppliers.

I shall give an example from an industry in which I spent more than 20 years—the computer industry. At this stage, I should declare an interest in ICL. Companies that manufacture information technology in the United Kingdom have global competitors. A company in the United Kingdom that assembles, for example, a box using a 486 processor will probably import its semi-conductors from the far east, but the European Union maintains high tariffs on semi-conductors, so a United Kingdom company that has made the box for export is at a price disadvantage in relation to its competitors in Japan or the Pacific rim countries, which need not pay that artificial tariff. A practical step that our Government could take would be to seek to persuade the EU to reduce or remove tariffs that harm our companies as they seek to compete in export markets around the world.

Another prime example of the United Kingdom's shooting itself in the foot is in relation to the new telecommunications technology and information super-highways. The commodity of the future is information. In the 1970s and 1980s, jobs that should have been kept in the United Kingdom and Europe migrated to low-cost Pacific rim countries; if, through inertia and misguided regulation, we allow North America and Japan to take an unassailable lead in the new communications technologies, the same fate will befall our knowledge-based industries in the 1990s. Those industries have the greatest potential for growth. Emerging information industries will simply locate where they find the best infrastructure and skills.

Potentially, the United Kingdom has an immense amount to offer in terms of technology, software skills—two out of five computer games are designed here—creativity and, crucial in a knowledge-based world, culture. We also have the English language, which is an enormous benefit to us. But it all needs to be joined together in an information super-highway. Current United Kingdom telecommunications policy, however, effectively excludes the two British flag carriers, BT and Mercury, from developing all but the most limited broad-band networks. It is a disaster. Perversely, it has resulted in cable television companies—largely United States-owned—being handed out a patchwork of technically different regional monopolies for an indefinite period to deliver broadcast television and telephony down the same pipe.

Mr. McLoughlin

The hon. Gentleman must get the facts straight. He cannot say that he supports investment while attacking it; and he cannot say that he wants to promote super-highways throughout the country while attacking all the ways in which they are being promoted in terms of cable television companies. He must accept that nothing stops even the two major players to which he referred operating cable television companies. Indeed, BT has the licence for Westminster.

Mr. Jones

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. BT has said that it wishes to invest £15 billion of its own money in constructing an information super-highway, but it cannot do so if it is prevented from earning revenue from conveying television on such a network. Mercury backs BT on that. Sir Bryan Carlsberg, the Director General of Fair Trading, has warned of the dangers of new cable monopolies owned by overseas interests. BT and Mercury should be allowed to compete on level terms with those American companies to ensure the deployment of a broad-band, multi-media network throughout the United Kingdom.

Other countries are beginning to see the potential of the information revolution—for example, Vice-President Al Gore plans an information super-highway that reaches into every home and business in the United States. But the British Government are content to leave the infrastructure's installation—the cables under the pavements—to market forces. The result will be a second-rate system cobbled together by companies, most of which are not British, and the network will cover only the most densely populated areas of Britain. A map of the franchises that have already been granted shows that 80 per cent. of Britain is not covered.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about broad-band highways, will he be kind enough to comment on SuperJanet and the work that has been done in that area?

Mr. Jones

I do not know much about SuperJanet, so I cannot comment on it. But I know that much of the system currently being installed is not even consist fibre optics, which were invented here. So those people who are now being inconvenienced by having their pavements dug up will have to have the job done again if we are to have a proper super-highway throughout Britain. Remote areas, including most of Wales and Scotland and parts of England such as the south-west, East Anglia and the north, will be locked out of new services that will provide not just entertainment and video on demand but distance learning, shopping from home, information exchange—perhaps with doctors, local councils and Government Departments—and even, in the future, local referendums.

The United Kingdom supply industry is already being damaged by the lack of a United Kingdom platform from which to export its skills. It is extremely ironic, for example, that the Germans are installing the latest telecommunications technology in the former east Germany with a state-of-the-art fibre network. The network that it is installing is based on United Kingdom thinking, as trialled and demonstrated by BT and United Kingdom manufacturers in a specially localised dispensation from the regulatory rules at Bishops Stortford. United Kingdom technology was proven and copied, yet the suppliers in east Germany are all German and American because United Kingdom companies are prevented from benefiting from a domestic market in the United Kingdom.

Let me refer briefly to some other industries. We must support British scientists and companies in new technological industries such as biotechnology and environmental technology. British companies complain that they cannot find adequate finance for biotechnology, yet it is a hugely expanding field which opens up exciting possibilities for the future. Research and development are being carried out in connection with disease and drought-resistant crops. Properly developed and deployed throughout the world, biotechnology would eradicate hunger and starvation from planet Earth for ever. I can think of no more laudable aim for mankind than to end starvation. If Britain fails to develop solutions to that most pressing of all global problems, other countries will—and they, not we, will reap the benefits both financially and through greater influence throughout the world.

We are also missing out on environmental technology. We currently have 1 per cent. of the world market in environmental technology. Germany enjoys the world lead with 36 per cent. and the USA has 15 per cent. The market is expected to treble by the year 2000. As understanding grows about the seriousness of the threats posed by pollution, global warming and ozone layer depletion, every country will need technological solutions to save the planet's environment.

An example is the Coal Research Establishment. At Stoke Orchard in Gloucestershire, British scientists have developed a world lead in clean coal technology, yet the Government have shown little recent interest. I tabled questions asking what plans the Government have for the future of the CRE and received the reply that it was a matter for British Coal, not the Government. The Government are handing over to Japan, Sweden and others the market for fitting clean-up technology to the world's coal-fired power stations when Britain had established a technological lead that could and should create jobs and wealth for the future.

The phenomenon of Britain inventing something and other countries making money out of it has arisen occurred too often. It must not happen in the future. Many people call it "the hovercraft syndrome". We must have a vision for the future. We invest too little in education; we plan short term rather than long term; and we undervalue our scientists and inventors. Other countries with which Britain competes invest more in education. They are making breakthroughs and their companies are benefiting.

Another problem is language. In many new markets, particularly eastern Europe, the ability to speak the customer's language helps to win business. That is where the Foreign Office can help. It is important that schools start to teach languages as early as possible, certainly before the age of 11. In Sweden, where I have worked, children are bilingual by the age of 11 and go on to learn a third and sometimes a fourth language during the remainder of their school career.

We must invest more in education; plan for the longer term; encourage innovation; and have a strategy. We may then be able to turn the opportunities for United Kingdom exporters into real jobs and wealth for our people.

7.17 pm

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)

Whenever the House debates trade, industry and exporting, I feel that there is a tinge of regret and that we are looking over our shoulder at our history. Centuries ago, we had organisations such as the East India Company. Later, we were in the forefront of the industrial revolution. We took the fruits of our inventions, and made ourselves the leading trading and exporting nation of the world.

But then the pendulum started to swing away. Although trade and industry did not exactly become dirty words, it was certainly not the career for the socially mobile. We heard apocryphal stories such as that of the teacher who took her charges round a factory and, as she loaded them into the coach afterwards, said, "And there you are. If you don't pass your exams, that's where you'll end up." It became a career that was moving down market.

In the 1960s and 1970s, we began to realise that our share in world trade was slipping away, and we faced determined and efficient foreign competition. So the Governments of the day, particularly the Labour Government, started to think that it was up to the state to reverse that trend and save the day. Nationalisation and state intervention became the norm, and politicians had the conceit to believe that they could run industries better at third hand than the people who had spent a lifetime in those activities.

Perhaps the classic example is the setting up of the National Enterprise Board, which put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money into various ventures. It collapsed, and I do not know of a single example of its activities that returned a profit at the end of the day.

To be fair, in the 1980s, the pendulum swung violently the other way, and Government reacted dramatically by removing themselves from the industrial scene wherever possible. I strongly support the privatisation process. That has been essential in introducing a new vigour and a new strength into British industry. However, at the same time, industrialists found themselves with a lead Department, in the shape of the Trade and Industry Department, which was starting to operate at arm's length.

The Department became a transitory post for Secretaries of State. I defy most Members of the House to name the Secretaries of State who headed that Department between 1979 and 1991. The average stay was slightly more than a year and a half. At those times of abandonment of trade and industry, I called for tax allowances to compensate for that lack of Government interest, because Government help does not have to be in the shape of money and handouts, but should more properly be in the shape of co-operation and smoothing the way.

Today I believe that, with the present departmental approach, due to the direction and influence of the Ministers who are currently in that Department, industry does not need those blanket taxes. It does not need those allowances. Governments should consider now only a selective approach for specific targets, such as the Japanese use for their machine tool industry.

That change is due to the Ministers. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I congratulate him on his recent appointment, which is well deserved. He has done a magnificent job in promoting Britain throughout the world. For that, this country owes him a debt of gratitude.

I do not feel the same sense of regret in the debate today, because, for the first time in all the years that I have been in the House, I have the feeling, contrary to what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said, that we are starting to achieve something that approaches a coherent plan—a plan that starts to tackle the subject of manufacturing and exports.

The recent White Paper on competitiveness is an important part of that overall strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South-West (Mr. Butcher) said that that plan was music to his ears and I endorse that. After much work on its preparation, at long last we have a reasonably accurate appraisal of where we stand in the world vis-a-vis the competition. Anyone who operates in the real world might find it amazing that we have not carried out such an appraisal for decades. At long last, we have done it.

I am afraid that it is a characteristic of politicians that they think of the grand, sweeping design and forget all the little nitty-gritty details. People who live in the real world know that the nitty-gritty details make the difference between profit and loss, success and failure.

As an illustration of the importance of the nitty-gritty details, I shall lift a story that was told by the President of the Board of Trade to a group of industrialists in Birmingham slightly more than a year ago. He told a story about a Japanese mission from a steel firm in Japan, which visited a similarly equipped British firm that was not making as much money.

When the Japanese left, they presented a list of 50 items that they suggested could be considered for introduction into that British plant. There were such items as, "When you test the metal quality, do you have to swing the glass door open wide? Why do you not simply open it enough to insert the sampling rod? When you take a sample, you take a nine-inch sample. Why cannot you simply take a couple of inches? That is all you need." The attention to the nitty-gritty will make the difference between success and failure.

It is tempting to quote whole sections of the competitiveness White Paper to illustrate what is being done to help exports. However, I sum it up by saying that there have been great, beneficial changes, which will help our exporters to export more, and that the DTI is to be congratulated.

I shall discuss one or two aspects and make a couple of observations. They will be predicated on the basis that if one does not show, one does not sell. The idea that we merely have to make a product and the world will beat a pathway to our door has long gone. I was, therefore, delighted to hear about the use of those private sector export promoters—last time I heard, it was 70; now I understand that it is 90—who will help to strengthen the promotion work in our 80 major markets.

I also feel that those private sector export promoters will achieve a couple of extra pluses. The first concerns additionality, which has been, in my view, inexplicably ignored by the Overseas Development Administration in the past in assessing overseas aid projects. I say, "inexplicably", because UK manufacturers have produced well-documented examples of how, having got an aid project, they have done further work and obtained further orders that have commercially stood on their own feet.

The second plus is that, although those private sector export promoters come from large companies and will be working with the Overseas Projects Board to target overseas ventures, the small business men—the small UK supplier and subcontractor—will be able to ride in on the back of that main contractor, and thus gain an opportunity to enter markets that they would not have been able to afford to enter if they had been left to themselves.

That leads me to my next argument, about the conspicuous failure by the majority of our trade associations effectively to serve their members in the manner of their overseas counterparts. Opposition Members have briefly mentioned that. I know that they are hard words, but in the tough international market of today, the time for niceties has long gone. Some trade associations provide effective liaison with Government and support for overseas activities, but they are in the minority. We must create a position in which those aims of effective Government liaison, of dissemination of information to the members and support for export activities are the norm and not the exception.

Lord Devlin, as long ago as the 1970s, carried out an appraisal of trade associations, and reached an opinion on three counts. First, he decided that a trade association that did not have an income of about £500,000 in today's terms could not effectively carry out its task. Secondly, he said that there should be one trade association per industrial sector. Thirdly, he said that industry would probably have to take the lead in rationalising a sprawling and often incoherent structure.

The position has not seriously changed since. There have been a few mergers. I pay tribute to what has happened in the chemical and electrical industries. They are progressive and encouraging examples. In far too many sectors, I regret to say, the reverse has occurred—there has been a proliferation of trade associations, bringing with them an inverse proportion of effectiveness in achieving the three aims that I mentioned.

In addressing myself to the reform of trade associations, I make an argument of sheer practicality. If Government are to listen effectively to industry, it is impossible for each of the DTI's industrial units and the Ministers involved to communicate and liaise with every trade association that operates in any specific sector. It is simply physically not possible, partly because there are not enough hours in the day.

Moreover, how do the Government—the Ministers, the departmental officials—know the coherent message issuing from that sector? They may visit and speak to 20 industrial trade associations and receive 20 different messages. If the Government, in the shape of the DTI, are listening, as they are now listening, it is essential that an amalgamation takes place or that umbrella organisations for each sector are set up, so that one coherent voice may speak.

The present position is not only unfair: it is inefficient and is damaging our national interest. The advantages of a coherent voice are obvious. I shall not explain how better liaison can be promoted, and overseas campaigns, trade fairs and projects can be helped. A greater role must be taken in promoting that industrial competitiveness, which must go wider than the usual provision of legal services, economic data and lobbying. If trade associations do not put their own houses in order, I appeal to trade association members to say that they want one coherent voice per sector.

At the beginning of my speech, I commented on the shape and form of Government help, and I shall give a specific example involving the nuclear review. I shall not rehearse the advantages of nuclear energy, except to say that it is cleaner, does not produce acid rain or CO₂ and is very safe—tempting as it would be to list all its advantages.

Government help can be given in a positive and effective way with a time-constrained report to reinforce the exports that already flow from nuclear-related companies. Two years ago, those exports were just £230 million; last year, they were £300 million. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, there is a chance of our selling a nuclear power station to Taiwan.

Our safety features have great international attraction. The export potential for our nuclear industry is huge. There are about 427 plants throughout the world, and 50 plants under construction. As time goes by, each plant will want to extend its life cycle. This country has the greatest experience in the world in extending the life cycles of nuclear plants, which will eventually be shut down and decommissioned. I shall not go into detail about the importance of encouraging British Nuclear Fuels. A long-drawn-out review will be damaging, especially to our nuclear exports.

At long last, we have a plan for manufacturing at a better quality and with better unit costs, so that we can export more. It suggests how we can draw together all the components of this country to compete. On that, the Department of Trade and Industry is to be congratulated.

7.32 pm

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

The subject of today's debate is one of the most important, if not the most important, that we ever discuss in the House. It is nothing more or less than the question of how Britain is to earn its living in the world, not only for the rest of this decade, but well into the 21st century. It deals with how we are to generate the wealth with which to pay pensions, educate our children, finance the health service and provide all the other essential public and private services that we have come to expect in a modern, civilised country.

Gone are the days when we could export simple manufactured goods with ease. The competition from the newly industrialised world is too strong. Many of those countries are now capable of making the goods at least as well as, and much cheaper than, we can. I nevertheless pay tribute to those British companies that continue to survive in that market by sheer skill and determination.

Our future lies in exporting the high-technology goods and services at which we excel. There is one sphere in which excel over most other countries, and that is nuclear power generation. I wish to concentrate my remarks on that subject. I am surprised and pleased that the matter has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), for all of whom I have much respect.

I have no nuclear power stations in my constituency, and I have no financial interest in the nuclear industry, but I believe that it is in the national interest that we release the export potential of our nuclear industry. There are companies in the nuclear industry in Britain that are at the leading edge of world technology.

Last year, I visited the site in Suffolk where Nuclear Electric is building the Sizewell B power station, which is nearly completed, and which will be Britain's first pressurised water reactor. I was impressed by the immense technical skill and knowledge of all the people engaged in the project and the world-beating quality of the project management team.

Nuclear Electric has built at Sizewell the world's safest and most technically advanced nuclear power station and it has been built to British safety standards, which are the highest in the world. Perhaps just as remarkable, it has been built well ahead of time and well within the budget. That remarkable achievement has not gone unnoticed around the world.

As the House has already been told, Nuclear Electric has been invited to tender for a nuclear power station in Taiwan, in co-operation with the American Westinghouse company. If successful, that will be good, not only for the growing trade relationship between this country and Taiwan—which I welcome in itself—but for manufacturing industry in Britain.

It will create 5,000 jobs for British engineers for at least five years and will be good news for Britain's hard-pressed engineering industry. It will generate export orders of about £700 million. It will also provide a shop window for the skill and expertise, not only of Nuclear Electric, but of the hundreds of British subcontractors and suppliers, and the professional consultants engaged.

Other possibilities exist; a technical agreement has already been signed with Korea—South Korea, I hasten to add. Many countries of the Pacific rim are interested. The annual growth in energy demand in that part of the world is, I understand, about 10 per cent. and many of those countries are looking to the nuclear industry to satisfy their future demand, not only because it is an effective way of generating electricity, but because they, like us, are conscious of the need to reduce the carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions that we are told are so damaging to the environment of our planet.

If we are to release the export potential of Britain's nuclear industry, we must do two things. First, we must grant companies the commercial freedom they need. Secondly, we must do our best to establish a solid home base and a viable home market to support the export efforts of that industry.

With regard to commercial freedom, Nuclear Electric, BNFL and Scottish Nuclear are nationalised industries and it was not easy for Nuclear Electric to reach the point where it could even bid for the Taiwan contract. Protracted negotiations had to take place with the politicians and civil servants who control the destiny of any nationalised industry, and that has added to Nuclear Electric's burdens and increased the disadvantages to which its commercial competitors from other countries have not been subject.

Such problems are inevitable with nationalised industries, because, in any commercial project, there will always be risk, and Governments have to underwrite the risks if the company involved is nationalised. As we all know, public resources are scarce and any Treasury, be it Conservative or Labour, would be reluctant to take those risks. To succeed in a highly competitive market such as nuclear technology, one must be able to offer speed and flexibility, not only in financing, but in the contractual terms that one is able to offer. That cannot be done by a nationalised industry. We must therefore set our nuclear industry companies free from the restrictions of nationalisation as soon as possible.

There will be difficulties, because, while in public ownership, the industry has accumulated large decommissioning obligations, but the difficulties are not insuperable and, if satisfactory arrangements can be made, a significant sum of money could be obtained from the sale of those companies—money which can then be used for hospitals, schools, roads and the like.

The family silver would still exist, working for us better than ever before; the industry would pay taxes on its earnings, employ British workers, efficiently generate electricity and earn foreign currency for Britain. We have seen how denationalisation has transformed British Airways, turning it, it is said, into the world's favourite airline—and it probably is. It is certainly much more efficient and profitable, and a better managed company, than it ever was when nationalised. Much the same can be said of British Telecom, British Gas, British Steel and many others.

Let us be clear, however, that there will be no question of compromising safety standards. The Health and Safety Executive will still have the power to require compliance with the highest safety standards and the maintenance of a good safety record is also in the commercial interests of the company, because a plant that has to be closed on safety grounds generates no electricity and no revenue.

We must also create a firm home base, from which our nuclear industry can conduct its export activities. The economic benefits of nuclear generation will have to be debated some other day—they have often been debated in the House before. Suffice it to say that we lag behind France, Japan and the United States in our appreciation of the benefits of nuclear electricity.

I fear that there is a political, and sometimes an emotional, reluctance to accept the role that nuclear generation can play. That reluctance is much more evident among Opposition Members than among Conservatives, but it spills over into the thinking of Government and of our people and it puts our nuclear industry at a competitive disadvantage.

Nuclear Electric has already shown that it can build Sizewell B and there is no reason in principle why we should not decide without further delay that we wish it to build Sizewell C. That would enable us to put to work the engineers and project managers engaged on this massive project before their teams have to be dispersed. It would also create jobs for about 10,000 people.

The measures that I have outlined will enable the nuclear industry to plan with confidence for the future and to take its place as one of Britain's most important export earners.

7.43 pm

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

I am delighted that we are holding this important debate on exports. There has already been considerable export growth, due in no small measure to Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and throughout the Government, and the missions that they have led abroad. Significantly, they take with them teams of leaders of British industry and of our great export sectors to foreign markets, prising open the doors and getting business for Britain. Export figures show what is being achieved, but much still needs to be done.

On his recent first visit to Brazil, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took with him some leaders of business. I have heard from Brazil that the visit had a great impact there. Earlier, the Minister for Trade spoke with great enthusiasm about the work that he and his teams have done in India and other countries in south-east Asia.

I should like to stress the fact that we should look to Latin America, too, and open our eyes to the fact that the continent has returned to democracy, with the one sad exception of Cuba. It has also returned to free trade. We should note, for instance, that Latin American countries have unilaterally cut their tariffs. In 1985, when the process began, they charged an average 56 per cent. import tariff. By 1992, the last year for which I have figures, those tariffs had been cut to 16 per cent. That provides terrific opportunities which we must grab ahead of our competitors from France, Italy, Germany, Japan and the United States.

Hence, I welcome the Government's recent appointment of a director general of export promotion, Ray Mingay, and the establishment and bringing together of the export promotion divisions and the department known as XEA, which covers Latin America. Above all, I welcome the appointment of export promoters of high quality. They have come to us from the private sector, and they bring with them their expertise and dynamism. I know the ones appointed for Colombia and Brazil; I know of their experience and of what they have already achieved—it is most encouraging.

We should not forget that trade is a two-way process. That is why I particularly welcome the recent GATT agreement and the fact that, for the first time, it included agriculture. That is essential for the third world and invaluable for the countries of Latin America and Africa, because now, by their own efforts, they can earn foreign exchange and with it their self-respect.

If today we were discussing overseas aid—as we did yesterday—perhaps there would be a few more Labour Members on the Opposition Benches, whining about the fact that, as they see it, we do not give enough aid to the poor unfortunates over whom our hearts should bleed. I say that if we give them a chance to export their goods to us, they will not have to come here with their begging bowls; they will come here with their self-respect, having earned an income for themselves. That is why it is so desperately important that we ensure that the GATT agreement is properly implemented.

GATT has tended to concentrate on tariffs and the blocking of non-tariff barriers. What we need is transparency that will enable us to see the obstacles to international trade and then squeeze them out of existence.

I am uneasy about the fashionable new talk, especially in left-wing circles, about so-called social dumping, about which I questioned the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). It is supposed to describe the ruining of their environment by third world countries in their effort to manufacture products, and those countries' exploitation of their workers. That, at any rate, is the claim. I would certainly welcome an examination of the despoliation of the environment and the exploitation of workers in the context of goods imported from China, produced in massive slave labour camps in that communist republic. That indeed represents a humanitarian scandal, so let us deal with Chinese products first. Likewise, let us deal with the widespread instances of child slave labour in certain countries and sectors. We need to come down hard on them. It worries me that the idea of social dumping may be used to create new tariff barriers that will destroy the third world's competitive advantages.

A few months ago, we all saw on the television what was represented as the Colombian coal industry—children wheeling barrows along rickety wooden planks. We were told that the coal produced in this way in Colombia competes with coal from our own mines. Not true. Colombian coal is produced from vast seams, stretching out in straight lines for 4 km. Massive machinery is brought in to strip out the coal seams, and the coal is carried on conveyor belts to bulk carriers. That is why the Colombian coal industry, for instance, is competitive against our own coal. It is not because they have children running around with little, rickety, wooden wheelbarrows or because of the exploitation of children. That industry is providing for Colombia a source of massive foreign exchange, which gives it a chance to turn away from the ghastly drug trade which has plagued it and brought to it death and misery.

Another example is the cellulose or softwood industry of Brazil. We hear allegations of massive destruction of the tropical rain forests. Let us understand that the overwhelming bulk of the softwood produced in Brazil comes from the south of Brazil in the states of Paraná and Santa Catarina. In those states, they have been producing softwoods for years and years. Indeed, they clear entire forests, but they had planted those forests in the first place and they replant them because they are good at the husbandry of the forests. They produce the softwood and the pulp, cellulose, which we in Britain need to import.

Of course, such states have a worrying competitive advantage because if one plants vast plantations of softwood in Scandinavia, for instance, it takes 25 years for a tree to reach maturity. However, if one plants that tree in the fertile and appropriate areas of the third world, such as those areas of Brazil to which I referred, for instance, they will be fully grown for cropping in five years. It is obvious that such areas will have a competitive price advantage, but let us not allow the people who support barriers to trade to come up with a load of twaddle that, somehow, those countries are despoiling the environment or using child slave labour and, therefore, we should have non-tariff barriers against them. Brazil and other countries that are alleged to be in the third world and which are involved in such production have addressed those important points so that they can achieve continuity of production. There are many other cases of claims of child slave labour, such as in the textiles industry.

Third world countries have difficulty when they go to the Geneva offices. Along comes the European Commission, which in so many instances is an organisation in support of barriers to trade, with vast legal teams of experts. They charge into Geneva and easily out-manoeuvre the negotiators and the defenders of trade from the third world countries, who cannot compete with the legal and technical expertise which is brought to bear in such forums. Those teams scour their export competitors in the third world for evidence of social malpractices, they artfully argue them from the specific to the general and then they create massive tariff barriers.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, made an outstanding speech in which he stressed the importance of trade for the third world and how valuable it is to create conditions in which the third world can earn its living, rather than relying, demeaningly, on the begging bowl to be filled by the countries of Europe and north America.

It is a valuable debate and it is significant that, at 7.53 pm, Conservative Member after Conservative Member of Parliament is wishing to put the case, not only for Britain's trade, but for the world's trade. I only feel sorry for, I would say, our hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough—I say that with good heart—who, for much of the debate, has been the sole Labour Member present. I note that he has been joined, somewhat belatedly, by a colleague.

Mrs. Gillan

An odd colleague.

Mr. Arnold

His hon. Friend is the Whip on duty. Perhaps he is an odd colleague, but I must be careful since our own Whip is also present.

Export success leads to jobs and to improving standards of living. That is why I back so strongly the work of my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers in their work in developing British exports.

7.53 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

It is a great privilege to take part in the debate. It is quite a hard act to follow some of the hon. Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) spoke about the recycling of material, especially iron, which is not to be referred to as waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) talked about nuclear energy and boasts—perhaps he does not know this—in Shoreham the prototype power station for the power station subsequently built in Battersea. Also, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke so eloquently about south America. Of course, he was born and brought up in Brazil.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

Not born in Brazil.

Mr. Fabricant

Not born there, but brought up there, nevertheless. I believe that he speaks fluent Brazilian Spanish.

Mr. Arnold

Portuguese.

Mr. Fabricant

Brazilian Portuguese. Such ignorance! Having heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Labour party has few credentials on which to speak about the subject, I was going to set out—and I shall set out—my own credentials.

Some years ago, when I started off in business, I founded a company which subsequently set up radio stations in some 50 countries worldwide; one of those countries that purchased equipment from me was Brazil, so I hasten to add that it was a slip of the tongue when I said Spanish instead of Portuguese.

I was involved with manufacturing in Cornwall and the pre-installation of equipment in Sussex. In my last few years with the company, I was deputy chairman with special responsibility for overseas sales. As I said, we established radio station equipment in more than 50 countries worldwide, from Radio 4 and Capital Radio in London to radio stations as far afield as Rikisutvarpid in Iceland, Radio Botswana in Gabarone and Radio Moscow. They all have radio stations which I helped to set up.

It frustrates me when I visit exciting British companies that have not considered exporting their products and services. I must confess that I visited a firm in Lichfield last Friday that manufactures—I will not name the company—and designs computer control equipment for use in brewing and in the pharmaceutical industry.

Mrs. Gillan

Name it.

Mr. Fabricant

I will not name the company, as my hon. Friend urges me to do, because it would embarrass the management of that company. I was impressed with their technology, but I was equally disappointed that they had made no attempt to export any of it.

When I was in the United States, both as a doctoral student and later as a salesman for Britain, I was impressed by a comment of Woodrow Wilson, although he made it in 1912, some years before I was there: Business underlies everything in our national life, including our spiritual life. Wilson's comments are as true today as they were when he said them. As a small island, we clearly cannot afford not to focus on sales abroad. For the past four elections, the British people have chosen a Government who recognise and value wealth creation through the success of British business.

My purpose today is twofold. First, it is important that we acknowledge our success over the past 15 years in boosting our exports, and pull apart the myths and fallacies expounded by those who oppose simply for the sake of opposition. Secondly, I wish to focus on ways in which we can increase our exports still further, especially by opening up a new frontier in Russia and eastern Europe. We must not allow the Germans to make all the running.

I well recall taking part in a trade and industry debate at a Conservative party conference in Brighton some five or six years ago, and saying to a highly sceptical audience that cracks were appearing in the Soviet empire and that I could foresee a time when a Russia, unbridled by socialism, might even join the European Economic Community, as it was then known. Oh, happy days.

It is so important to remember all the tremendous export achievements of British industry over the past few years. Who would have thought that we would become a net exporter of television sets? Who would have thought 15 years ago that we would rise to the top of the G7 league table for manufacturing productivity? Who would have foreseen that, since the early 1980s, our manufacturing exports would increase by more than two thirds and that output would rise by 30 per cent. over the past 10 years? Who would have believed, given the years of ruin by Labour in the seventies—the years of Red Robbo, of lame duck, bankrupt and strike-ridden motor manufacturers—that we are on course to become a net exporter of cars by the mid-1990s? That is all despite the fact that the Labour party still tacitly supports the rail strike, which damages not only commuters, but our exports. We must not forget that it affects freight transportation, too.

Who on earth would have considered, even in his wildest dreams, that we would be so successful in exporting our political policies? From Angola to New Zealand, Governments are following the example of sound Conservative policies such as privatisation, deregulation, lower taxes and value for money. Despite its jealousy of the purity of its own language, I have even seen the headline in Le Figaro: "Le Privatisation." Even that favourite social democratic golden calf, Sweden, has seen the light at last and is adopting the British approach, the Conservative approach. What a remarkable contrast with the Opposition's policies.

The Liberal Democrats' only big policy export is proportional misrepresentation, which overseas Governments are trying to cast off even quicker than the president of the Liberal Democrats can run to a betting shop. As for Labour, what can we say? Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the sea, Beckett's "Jaws" returns. In the scramble for the top of the greasy Labour pole, we know that the leadership contenders want to export only that old British disease—industrial strife, union rule, subsidies and taxpayers' money down the plughole.

I want to return to a more important matter—the success of British industry. Over the past few years, the efforts of the Board of Trade have been instrumental in securing British success overseas. I well recall, only a few years ago, being in Kampala and witnessing the machinations of French, German and Japanese exporters. Hand in glove with their own Governments, they were able to bend GATT rules and offer loans on capital projects on far more preferable terms than those available from the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) alluded to that earlier today. Even if a contract could be secured, German firms enjoyed advantageous terms from HERMES, while our own ECGD provided inadequate cover for British exporters. That has changed. Since the last Budget, the President of the Board of Trade has ensured that British firms can compete on an equal footing with France, Germany and Japan.

The DTI campaign to help businesses make more of the single market provides vital information and practical advice—I received some before I was elected to the House—to British companies striving to take up the opportunities that the single market offers. Given that so many member countries of the EU flout single market rules—the French subsidies for Air France and Italy's aid for its steel industry being prime examples—the establishment of the single market compliance unit is an excellent and necessary step.

Too often, EC countries, in their zeal for federalism and the social chapter, seem to forget that single market rules are to be obeyed. We can no longer tolerate a Community in which many members shriek, "Do as I say, don't do as I do."

The Government deserve credit for preventing further EC steel restructuring grants for a number of European companies. I have the privilege of serving on European Standing Committee B, which has been considering that very problem. Other measures have also been beneficial, such as the overseas visits of Ministers. We heard earlier of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. His visits with key business men are an excellent step forward and will do much to promote good will.

No longer must British business men be subjected, as I have been, to namby-pamby diplomats in our high commissions and embassies overseas, unwilling to get their hands dirty by discussing trade. There is a new ethos. More than 80—perhaps 90, as we heard today—business men have been seconded to the DTI to provide expert advice, and there is a growing cross-fertilisation between the DTI and the Foreign Office. As with the first Elizabethan era, our diplomatic stations overseas are now more aware than ever that their role is to promote trade first and practise diplomacy second—and about time, too.

I want to discuss how we can boost our exports still further. So far, I have concentrated on the success of our British exports. We should be proud that Marks and Spencer shirts are worn all over the world and that Cadbury-Schweppes is a global household name. Are hon. Members aware that Marks and Spencer is building a second store in Paris because demand has outstripped its first? Are hon. Members aware that it is not just good value clothing that Parisiennes seek? The quality and freshness of the food available at Marks and Spencer outstrip that available from comparable French stores. So let them not mock the English cuisine. There are also things we should not do.

We should not fall into the trap of comparing ourselves with Japan and Germany and demand subsidies, as the Opposition always do. The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry had a smaller budget in 1990 than the pro rata budget of the DTI. Most of German industry is no longer subsidised, either. Our research and development programmes are first-class, and it is no wonder that the pharmaceutical industry had a trade surplus of £1.3 billion in 1993—a great success story Nor must we forget the trade surplus of £4.2 billion that the chemical industry earned, or the fact that 70 per cent. of the turnover from the aerospace industry is exported.

We should not allow industrial taxation to climb. We now have a favourable climate for industry that must not be allowed to slip. Taxes and other costs on businesses must be reduced at every opportunity. Of course, wage costs must be kept to a minimum.

We should not allow the pound to be chained to any artificial mechanism. Every time the pound has been allowed to float freely, most notably between 1933 and 1938, and between 1981 and 1989, industry prospered. In all other periods, industry suffered. As the late Lord Ridley stated in his memoirs: During all these periods, the pound was managed in some way or another—the Gold Standard, the Bretton Woods agreement, and later shadowing the deutschmark and finally the exchange rate mechanism. All these devices were designed to keep the pound higher than the market would otherwise have it. As a result, our companies' ability to sell profitably was markedly reduced. As a great Baroness once said, "You can't buck the market." We should all be aware of that.

An over-valued pound gives the opportunity for high-cost economies such as Japan and Germany to import a huge quantity of goods into Britain and to weaken our industry by eating into our markets. Benjamin Franklin said: No nation was ever ruined by trade. We should take that into account when we consider how to boost our exports.

Quite rightly, the Government focus on the European Community and the Pacific, but I believe that the next great frontier for British trade must be Russia and its neighbouring states. Russia alone has a market of 150 million people, many of whom are highly educated. In our quest to open up markets in Japan, we must not neglect the markets in eastern Europe, in central Asia, in the Caucasus and in the Russian Federation. Why should we allow Germany to use her proximity to the Czech Republic and Hungary to make all the running and turn those countries into its own economic fiefdoms?

British Petroleum has made significant inroads into Azerbaijan. We need to encourage our motor manufacturers, our pharmaceutical companies and our service industries to look at trade in eastern Europe and Asia. Encouragement of joint ventures with Russian or eastern European firms is one way of getting a foothold, but we can also support other, less obvious activities to encourage overseas trade. We must make sure that the single market works for not only us but the countries of eastern Europe that are struggling to free their economies from years of socialist central planning.

Franco Racca, executive director of LICA Development Capital Ltd, and a former strategic adviser to Fiat, made a good point when he said: It is in the West's interests to help Russia …the preferred approach must involve barter, and most projects must find western joint ventures and managers. Rather than western Government and agencies lending money, they should underwrite private sector joint ventures and set the industrial priorities, by sector and region. The West must realise that the Common Market goes all the way to the Urals as an essential fact; it is that barter replaces currency in Russia as the principal medium of exchange". We could supply Russia with food, manufacturing machinery, management and distribution systems in return for minerals—which Russia has in abundance—oil, diamonds, gold and titanium.

We have a model for that barter approach. The largest ever export order was the Al-Yamamah project in Saudi Arabia, headed by British Aerospace. In return for the Saudis supplying 500,000 barrels of oil a day, with some money as well, BAe supplies Tornados, Hawks, ground facilities and training, as well as minefield clearers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Britain could gain from increased trade and increased military security.

Back in Azerbaijan, British Petroleum is involved in a joint venture with the British Council for Management and with English-language training of personnel. The British Council is targeting the East Asia and Pacific region and Latin America for special attention, and the council is active in 108 countries worldwide.

Germany spends three and a half times as much as Britain, and France spends seven times as much on their cultural equivalents. That is not altruism. In my experience, buyers who have been culturally exposed to Britain like what they see and their purchasing decisions nearly always reflect that.

It would be a false economy to cut back on the British Council, just as it would be a false economy to cut back on the BBC World Service or on the number of our embassies.

The prospects for British exports have never been brighter. We are moving back towards the realities of the first Elizabethan era, when we made use of every trading opportunity. GATT—as noted in a recent debate—will increase our trading opportunities still further.

I have no doubt that eventually, and with a glorious inevitability, GATT will establish a global free market, so that we do not have to be dependent on Europe alone and will have the chance to embrace other trading blocs. Provided that the Government continue on their present path, provided that the European Community looks outward not inward, provided that we maintain our hard-won opt-outs from a single currency and the crippling social chapter, and provided that British industry continues to offer value for money, the scope for British business and economic success of the nation is unlimited.

The high wage-cost, interventionist and regressive trade union policies of the Labour party would spell disaster, resulting in just one export—the brain drain of talent that we experienced in the 1970s—and economic ruin. We cannot allow that to happen.

8.13 pm

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I am sure that we all agree that he is a salesman not just for his constituency but, as he said, for Britain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on securing this debate.

On examining Hansard, I discovered that we last debated this subject on 21 May 1993. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) complained that he did not have the support of the four civil servants in the Box, now down to three. I felt sad for the hon. Gentleman during this debate because he has not even been supported by four of his party colleagues. The debate on 21 May 1993 proved a similar occasion. Then, only one Front Bencher spoke for the main Opposition party, and no Back Benchers spoke.

It is difficult to take Labour seriously when it cannot muster support on a debate on a subject that is so important for British industry and the wealth and health of our nation. In fact, I could not find on the parliamentary on-line information service a single supply day on which exports were chosen by Labour as the subject for debate. That is a bad record, and I hope that people outside the House will take note of it.

Earlier, I referred to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough as a friend, and I would not withdraw that remark. He spent most of his speech defending the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). It was phrased in such a way as to suggest that there will be no contest and that the hon. Member for Sedgefield is already the leader of the Labour party. Again, many people in the House and outside it will note that assumption.

I tried to intervene on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister to pick up on his remarks about exporting education. I should like to draw attention to the only independent and excellent university of Buckingham in my county, which recently won the Queen's award for exports. That first-class establishment offers special, different and excellent education, and I thought that I should mark its contribution in this debate on exports.

Over the past two years, I have visited several companies in my constituency that make a great contribution to British exports. Blease Medical exports anaesthetic delivery equipment. That excellent company produces reliable equipment that is used throughout the world, and particularly in third world countries because of its reliability. Securon Ltd. in Winchmore Hill produces seat belts. In this country, direct demand for seat belts is low because they are installed as part of the car's manufacturing process. The seat belts that Securon manufacture are installed in many cars in foreign countries that were manufactured before seat belts as original equipment were a matter of course.

Boughton Engineering produces a wide range of engineering equipment and has a successful record of trading abroad. The last time that I visited Boughton, it was preparing certain vehicles for use in Bosnia by the United Nations and our armed forces. Finally, to link with remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) about the nuclear industry, it would be remiss of me to contribute to a debate on exports without mentioning Amersham International, which is a success in terms of both our privatisation policies and exporting.

The other nuclear company that I visited recently was AEA Technology. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is in his place on the Front Bench. Yesterday, he was good enough to answer my question on when a statement would be made about the privatisation of AEA Technology, to set it free. He replied that we hope to be able to make an announcement…shortly."—[Official Report, 22 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 222.] It is worth repeating that the strides being made by that company in terms of environmental science, neural networks and environmental safety mean that it is ready to be set free. I hope that he hears my remark that the sooner it is set free, the better.

We are the fifth largest exporter in the world, and I believe that, at last, the Government seem to be getting their act together with a policy on trade and industry which is benefiting our industry. Coupled with the excellent work now being done by the Office of Science and Technology, particularly on research and development, our businesses are beginning to find that the Government can create the environment in which they can be allowed to build their share of the world market.

With what I can only describe as renewed commercial aggression, set against a background of low interest rates and lean production, British business is in a position to compete against the Americas and the Pacific rim countries.

No debate on exports could take place without reference to the White Paper on competitiveness, which was issued recently by the President of the Board of Trade. Competitiveness is at the heart of ensuring our industrial success. I particularly welcome the emphasis that my right hon. Friend has placed on the dialogue with industry. That affects not only our present position but future policies, which will now be properly influenced by the wealth creators who run our industrial concerns.

I do not believe that anyone would disagree that the Tory Government had a great deal to do in the early 1980s. They had to move from subsidising inefficient nationalised industries to creating efficient, contributing organisations. They also had to reduce the unreasonable influence of the unions. We had a reminder of such influence—it has been spoken about at length in the Chamber today—by the RMT strike. Yesterday's strike shows that eternal vigilance is still necessary from Conservative Members. I must mention that, during that strike, the Chiltern line, which serves my constituency of Chesham and Amersham, kept on running. It took three signalmen and the millions of pounds that we invested in that signalling system. My constituents were extremely pleased that they could get to work.

It is difficult to understand how my colleagues on the Opposition Benches can talk about the success of our businesses at home and abroad while supporting industrial action that sends appalling messages to foreign investors and buyers alike that the unions still have a grip and a force, which is ultimately damaging to trade and business. Success in world markets and strikes do not go together.

London is undoubtedly the leading financial city in Europe and, together with centres in different time zones such as New York and Tokyo, it stands out as one of the commercial centres of the world. It is vital that its infrastructure and facilities reflect its position. Therefore, it was with great sorrow that I attended the meeting to announce the failure of the Crossrail Bill at Committee stage. That project is of great significance not only to my constituency but to the business and financial community, which is, after all, responsible for one of the largest contributors to our wealth through the invisibles sector of our economy.

The Opposition always pay lip service to the need to get people out of cars and on the railways, but the two Opposition Members who served on that Committee voted down the crossrail project. I believe that that decision will greatly hinder the City's development. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Benches to continue to seek a way in which that project can be revived, as it would provide the necessary infrastructure for the success of our City in the next century.

I am a consultant to the Chartered Institute of Marketing and I am proud to speak for it in the House. While I declare my interest, I must also declare my disappointment with the White Paper, because it made so little direct reference to marketing per se. The fortunes of some of our most successful exporters are based on marketing. Yes, their products were high-quality ones, but those products were refined chiefly from the sales and marketing forces, which identified customers' needs and the way in which to satisfy them profitably. Two great weaknesses of the past are still apparent today—lack of middle management training and lack of education in marketing.

I make no apology for emphasising the importance of marketing training in a debate on exports and highlighting the wide choice of course and education available through the Chartered Institute of Marketing. This is a commercial, because the institute's facilities at Moor Hall are excellent. It tailors its courses to suit busy managers who may only be able to take a limited time off from their employment to further their knowledge. Yes, this is a commercial because I am a marketing person, but so are our competitors.

Last year, while I was in Taiwan, it did not surprise me to learn of the emphasis that businesses and business leaders placed on marketing. The head of the trade centre in Taipei took a great deal of trouble to explain to me the efforts and expenditure that were being put into marketing training.

I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will register this small protest at the apparent exclusion of specific reference to marketing in the White Paper. Now that measurements of marketing effectiveness are becoming more widespread, I hope that the DTI will join me and those business men who already have a greater appreciation of the role and value of this discipline to our industries. Understanding a product or a service is not enough; one must also understand marketing and marketing techniques to exploit that product or service.

One of the things that the DTI seems to have lacked for many years is continuity. In common with many of my hon. Friends, I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues at the DTI on the progress that they have made with an impressive team. If it is not too late, I should like to put in a plea for relatively minor, if any, changes at the DTI. Whatever the motives that may be attached to the media reports about my right hon. Friend's own career preferences, I believe that the exporting community fully endorses the view that there have been too many ministerial changes at the Department since 1979. I believe that the trade team should stay where it is.

There has been a transformation in the Government's input to the trade scene and they have been extremely receptive to the views of exporters. The Government have been keen to find solutions and imaginative in the way that they have collected information and set about resolving key issues. We now have a situation in which for the most important markets for British exporters, the Export Credits Guarantee Department's premiums are at a realistic and competitive level. I realise that the ECGD premiums may be out of line with the competition in some markets, but they cannot all be tackled at once.

Perhaps the most challenging issue that presents itself to the ECGD is how to address cover for privatised projects. The central features of such a project, as opposed to a conventional one, is that the project is looked at by the underwriter in the ECGD on its own merits and viability and the returns that it will generate, and not on the basis of a guarantee from an overseas Government. Such projects are off a Government's balance sheet and the ECGD and Ministers should consider those projects with substantive private sector input.

The American export credit agency, Exim, has hired three outside specialists to cover such underwriting, which is different from current underwriting. Coface, the French agency, has also hired a specialist for between the next six to 12 months. Even if it is a costly exercise, I believe that it would be a worthwhile investment. We would be able to look in depth at the ways in which the ECGD should respond to the underwriting needs of such privatised projects.

I am grateful for advice and information from Banque Paribas in London, which is supporting the activities of many British companies in their exporting endeavours. More importantly, it has given me up-to-date information on the success of travelling with a British Minister in a trade delegation which, it said brings the market into sharp focus. Journalists writing about the Minister in Export Today said: when accompanying with him one should not expect a holiday. It is hard work all the way even when it is social. However, one can expect to bring back the orders and that is what the Minister's travels have been about. We should congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in visiting the far east no fewer than 10 times in the past 18 months. As Latin America is his next target, I fully expect further good results from his travels there. I believe that he is visiting Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, and we wish him and our businesses good fortune.

I do not wish to refer just to the Minister leading the trade delegations. I want to say a word of praise about DTI officials who staff some of our embassies and consulates. Businesses in my constituency have noticed a marked improvement in the services being provided from our embassies, not by Foreign Office officials but by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry.

One of our most successful exports—indeed, our leading export—in recent years has been privatisation, which has been touched upon in a different context. British companies such as Ernst and Young are selling their experience abroad following successfully advising on the privatisation of British Telecom, Jaguar, Royal Ordnance, British Gas and many others. That expertise is opening up the economies of central and eastern Europe to home and overseas investors. As has been said, extensive knowledge and experience of the former Soviet Union are needed, but when coupled with privatisation expertise, the combination is bringing home contracts from virtually all the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Ernst and Young is just one of a series of companies involved in the exporting of Conservative privatisation principles. It has successfully advised on the first offers for sale in Poland and Romania and has pioneered mass privatisation in the Czech and Slovak republics and in St Petersburg in Russia. More and more Governments and more and more countries are adopting privatisation programmes. For example, such programmes are beginning in Argentina, Hungary, Latvia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and, nearer to home, Denmark.

There has been a sea change in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the services that the Department is providing to British business to help it export successfully. It is up to Government to create the framework and it is up to our businesses to go out there and sell the goods.

We have an excellent Minister leading the team. I should like to end by quoting from Export Today, an excellent magazine, which said, in article written by Carol Debell: There's nothing random about where he goes or when he goes. It is part, he says, of a carefully planned strategy to use his Ministerial clout where it can make most impact. I am proud to be on the Benches of a Government who use their ministerial clout to make our exporting businesses more successful.

8.33 pm

Mr. Bell

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). It is my first opportunity to follow her in a debate. I appreciated her remarks and her knowledge and lucidity in the various subjects she covered. We have heard a number of quotations. Oscar Wilde was mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). I managed to mention Benjamin Disraeli and Winston Churchill and the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) got Benjamin Franklin in on the act. Years ago, Lloyd George used to say that one can make a good name for oneself in Friday speeches; the tradition has now moved to Thursday evening.

We have heard some quite good speeches. I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) on nuclear energy. I shall read it with interest tomorrow. After the effervescence and turbulence of the opening speeches, it has been a good and constructive debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire pleased me enormously, not that he got "privatisation" right, but he got the gender right. It is masculine, not feminine.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to various privatisations throughout the world. Her mention of Hungary reminded me of a little joke I heard in Hungary recently. They are saying, "What has capitalism done that 40 years of communism could not do?" The answer is to make socialism popular. There may be lessons in all this for us.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to competitiveness; indeed, she made more references to it than the Minister, but no doubt the Under-Secretary's homologue in closing will rectify that. She referred also to the rail strike. It is a little desperate of the Government to blame a future Labour Government for the rail strike and to come back to it time and again.

The Minister showed his disregard—or should I say "contempt"—for European networks, whether they be rail or road. He dismissed them out of hand and said that all that would happen would be that taxpayers' money would be used to build such networks. In fact, the money comes from the European investment bank and, if Mr. Delors has his way, from a new European bond. So the British taxpayer will not have to pay for the European networks when they get going.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West referred to recycling. I shall not go down that road. I found his remarks interesting, but not in my particular bailiwick. He took me up on the lack of formulation of Labour party policy. He will be happy to know that at 8.36 pm, with a good hour before me, I am able to deal with more Labour party policy than I could earlier.

The Minister made great play of comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), touching upon output and productivity. The Minister referred to our document, "Winning for Britain". He made great play of the fact that we had not covered Northern Ireland. Of course, it is part of the United Kingdom and we have a separate document to cover that. It is a fact—and it is in the document—that, until 1980, investment in manufacturing never fell below 3 per cent. of GDP. Since 1980, it has always been below 3 per cent. and is now barely over 2 per cent. Even in the best year of the 1980s, manufacturing investment was still below the percentage of GDP invested in the worst year of the 1970s or 1960s.

Mr. Stephen

Is not there a problem of definition in seeking to draw a distinction between manufacturing and services? For example, in the computer industry, we might say that manufacturing is making the hardware. But is making the software manufacturing as well? Sometimes the software is of higher value than the hardware.

Mr. Bell

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We make that point in our document. The Minister touched on the fact that software can be involved in both services and manufacturing. The point that we were trying to make in our document, which was dismissed by the Minister, is that the distinction between services and manufacturing should no longer exist. We have a way of creating wealth in our country. If it comes from services, so be it and if it comes from manufacturing, so be it. The two are not, as we lawyers say, mutually exclusive.

Our document says that manufacturing output in Britain is barely above its 1979 level. I referred to the Minister's speech and his two so-called revolutions, which we call recessions. In the recent recession, more than 80,000 companies went into liquidation. The fact to remember is that that is a permanent loss to our economy. One of the most valuable contributions that the Government can make to sustained industrial recovery is to maintain policies of macro-economic management which promote sustainable demand growth with low inflation. I tried to point out earlier that the Government's policies would not lead us to sustained growth or low inflation.

Britain now invests less of its GDP in manufacturing than all bar two of the 24 nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire made several references to the OECD, but did not cite that fact. Under the Conservatives, the proportion of profits taken out of business in dividends has increased from about half of net profit to almost three quarters, a fact which concerns the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as well as my colleagues. British companies now invest in their business about half the proportion of profits retained by their German and Japanese competitors. We believe that the loss in price competitiveness against nations with newer machine tools, better-designed factories and more advanced transport and communications systems will inevitably mean that, in the long run, there will be a failure to invest in innovation.

In reply to the Minister's earlier statement, I have to say that the first objective of any serious industrial strategy must be to raise the proportion of the economy invested in industry. Why has not the success of Britain's financial sector been expressed in better performance in industrial Investment? I am trying to put on the record some of our refutations of the Minister's arguments.

Britain has accumulated the world's second largest portfolio of overseas equity while running the second poorest level of investment in manufacturing among OECD countries. With reference to the European network, which I mentioned earlier, an important part of competitiveness is the provision of an efficient transport system that eliminates delay in the movement of goods and provides reliable travel for the work force, a point touched on by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.

It is remarkable that, during the 1980s, the Government said that manufacturing and the balance of payments did not really matter. In an earlier debate on this topic, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) took me to task, but I was able to refer him to a number of statements made by Ministers in the 1980s. The Select Committee on Overseas Trade in another place produced a famous report in 1985. It made it clear that, unless the climate is changed so that steps could be taken to enlarge the manufacturing base, combat import penetration and stimulate exports of manufactured goods, as oil revenues diminish the country will experience adverse effects which include…an adverse balance of payments of such proportions that severely deflationary measures would be needed". That was exactly what happened.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to social dumping both in an intervention and in his speech, giving me the opportunity to put on record the Opposition's views on what he describes as social dumping. It is right and proper that the wealthier trading nations of the world should accept competition from those that are less wealthy, but not on the backs of impoverished people who will stay impoverished in order to maintain their competitiveness. There should be economic growth in the world as well as human development so that, as internal markets expand and wealth increases, there can be more trade with industrialised nations both in imports and exports. The hon. Gentleman also referred to a speech made yesterday by a Foreign Office Minister.

We believe that there should be a balance between those who are working and the sale of goods for export. There could be mechanisms to assist development so that, as a country ceases to be one of the very poorest and acquires higher living standards, it would be expected to meet a new set of obligations on workers' rights under a new social chapter for the WTO. I want it clearly on the record that we are talking not about social dumping but about raising the living standards of exporting countries.

I referred earlier to a document from the Institute of Export and NCM Credit Insurance Ltd. It mentioned the fact that the banks were not as helpful as they might be in our export drive. It might help to put on record two or three other points made in that document. It stated that 53 per cent. of exporters use credit insurance and only one in four respondents realised that it can be used for purposes other than credit protection. Its summary states: Unfortunately, too many British exporters still feel that they can invoice in sterling, insist on letters of credit and ignore the crucial need to train staff to respond to international cultures. Although there has been a marginal improvement since the 1993 Survey, many areas of support for exporters still fall below what is needed. I appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). He and I tramped the wrong side of the streets together in Workington back in 1976, but he had a remarkable by-election victory. When he looks back on that and compares it with the Conservatives' present by-election defeats, he will realise that every coin has two sides. He mentioned a variety of measures that were taken in the 1960s. He referred to the National Enterprise Board which, of course, saved Leyland and Rover and made it possible for Rover ultimately to be taken over by BMW.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) said that the competitiveness document was music to his ears. However, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham admitted that it did not place enough emphasis on marketing. We would also claim that it does not place enough emphasis on quality and high technology rather than low technology. It seems that the Government believe that price is the only element in competitiveness—keeping wages down and being competitive in that way. That will not work in low-technology goods because there will always be other countries that can produce the same goods more cheaply than we can.

The hon. Member for Gravesham made an interesting and erudite speech. His knowledge of Portuguese is equal to my knowledge of French. We could have a debate in two different languages if the House would allow—we would probably have more of a meeting of minds than we do in English. He referred to GATT and the poorer countries and used phrases such as " the begging bowl". One thing that is clear is that GATT is incomplete at present. It needs a social chapter, an enhanced platform for the environment and a better relationship with the third world. They could be arranged over time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if there were proper trade with third-world countries, they could improve their standard of living and not be a burden on the industrialised world as we know it.

The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire knows that I have a great affection for him. He mentioned Red Robbo and Lame Duck. I can remember Red Robbo but not Lame Duck—perhaps I missed that particular cartoon. In the 1970s, the trade unions were supposedly rampant—at least that was the impression that the Conservatives like to give—but the Minister and the hon. Gentleman failed to ask, "Where was the management? What were they doing?" It was a Labour Government who brought in Michael Edwardes to manage the British Motor Corporation or British Leyland as it became, because we saw the difficulties. We saw that management was not managing.

Mr. McLoughlin

Will the hon. Gentleman remind me whom the Labour Government brought in as vice-chairman of British Leyland?

Mr. Bell

I should likes to be reminded by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McLoughlin

It was Sir Ian MacGregor.

Mr. Bell

I am glad to have brought Mr. MacGregor into the debate. I listened to the diaries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on the radio and he was talking about the day when Mr. MacGregor asked Mr. McGahey to play golf. One can imagine the conversation between Mr. McGahey the Scotsman and Mr. MacGregor the Canadian, with Mr. McGahey saying, "I have never played golf in my life," and the other gentlemen saying, "It is a wonderful game and we can do business on the golf course.".

It is nice to hear mention of Mr. MacGregor and to know that he is not entirely forgotten. The Conservatives brought him into the mining industry for a specific task, which was unworthy of them and did our coal industry no good. We will reach the ultimate conclusion on that on Tuesday night. I shall not go too far down that road, but on Tuesday night we shall see the culmination of 50 years of vendetta by Conservative Administrations against a specific industry which they consider to be the vanguard of socialism. But that is another debate.

The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire mentioned Radio Moscow. I remember how, when I was the candidate at Hexham, travelling over the hills and dales at night, I was able to listen to Radio Moscow and be appraised of the latest production of pig iron in the various Soviet states.

I shall end on the point raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the number of debates on subjects such as exports. They are our better debates, because knowledge can be brought forward and put on the record.

We all agree that Britain as a nation state must export. We are an island economy, part of the European Union and full-time, fully paid-up members of GATT and we consider the expansion of world trade and our part in that as important to us, but we have to get away from the ideology and develop a strategy. We have to get away from believing that, simply by producing a document on competitiveness, we have changed the world; we have not and we have a difficult role to play.

I said earlier that the French are increasing their share of the world market. Ours has stabilised following years of decline. That may be good enough in the short term; it is not good enough in the long term. The Opposition will be vigilant—though the serried ranks behind me may not demonstrate that at the moment—in holding the Government to account and seeing where the export drive actually goes.

8.51 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

Perhaps I should start by congratulating the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). It is fair to say that today, the Labour party has spoken with one voice. I can honestly say that we have not had the divergence of opinion that we sometimes hear from the Labour party. I suppose it might have something to do with the fact that we have heard only one voice from the Labour Benches, apart from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). However, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has made up for it by the length of his speeches, and I do not intend to follow his example.

After speaking for some 20 minutes, the hon. Gentleman said, "I am just about coming to my speech." Perhaps he was so surprised by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade that he had to rewrite his own. That is why, after speaking for 20 minutes, he told us that he was coming to his speech.

I am not quite sure what happened in those first 20 minutes, but the hon. Gentleman made some interesting justifications, because he talked about the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the education policy that he may wish to follow for his own children. I say to the hon. Gentleman here and now that nobody objects, or has any intention of objecting, to whatever school the hon. Member for Sedgefield wishes to send his children to, but we welcome the fact that he has chosen a grant-maintained school. The Government pursued that policy because we believed it to be right, and that point was made earlier.

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West)

Why do Ministers not send their children to grant-maintained schools?

Mr. McLoughlin

The Labour Whip asks why Ministers do not send our children to grant-maintained schools. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I do, and I am proud of it. William Gilbert is an excellent school, yet Derbyshire county council tried to stop it becoming grant-maintained. I will not take lectures from the hon. Member. Perhaps he should be more careful about choosing his targets before he lets off.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough also said a number of other interesting things. When I tried to intervene on him, and he would not give way, he was saying that the Labour party would look at the effects of the minimum wage and carefully consider how to implement it so as not to put people out of work. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head in agreement.

It is fascinating to remind him that the Labour party fought the last general election on the introduction of a minimum wage. One would have thought that they might have worked out the policies they were pursuing then. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He accused my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade of not turning sufficient attention to the competitiveness White Paper, which has been broadly welcomed by John Monk, the TEC leaders and a number of other bodies.

Yesterday, we had questions to the Department of Trade and Industry, and we heard Opposition Member after Opposition Member attacking the Government on their trade and industry policy, yet today, when the House is given the opportunity of a full-scale debate on the whole subject, only the hon. Member for Linlithgow has taken part. The score sheet shows that there were nine speakers from the Conservative party, two from the Labour party and one from the Liberal party.

My hon. Friends covered a number of interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred to the problems that he feels have been faced by the scrap metal industry. He told us that it is not waste, and he is absolutely right; it is an important component. He is also right about the importance of recycling those materials. They are not waste; they are materials.

The Government recognise the valuable contribution that recycling industries make to the economy and the environment. The Department of the Environment is working with my Department, and we will continue to monitor the new legislation to ensure that it imposes minimum burdens on the industry.

My hon. Friend referred to the meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside. He was pleased there had been a postponement in part of the implementation of the regulations—a longer delay in registering. I certainly take on board what he said and, in the light of his speech, I will carefully consider the calls that he made on the Government. I will examine the matter closely and see whether we can help him in some way. I cannot give him a commitment at this stage, but I will certainly look into the matter.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised six items; the fact that this is an Adjournment debate allowed him to range fairly widely. Local government reform in Scotland, which he raised, is an issue which has been fully dealt with. There is a valid point to make, but it has been fully dealt with in debates at various times.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned Motorola, which based in his constituency, or on the edge of it. Not long ago, I was there, and I agree with him about the investment there, and the confidence of the workers both in the jobs that they were doing and in the expansion taking place there.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that more should be done for the quarrying industry, and suggested that import substitution could take place. When he talks about the quarrying industry, he hits on a raw nerve in some areas of the country, because quarrying is not usually welcomed by local people—but his points were valid.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of markets ouverts with me in Committee on the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill. Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, responded to the hon. Gentleman on 17 June and dealt with some of the points that he made then. The hon. Gentleman also asked about Iran, Iraq and Libya, and the Minister for Trade will respond to his questions in more detail in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) made an interesting contribution which will make interesting reading in the record of our proceedings. I will certainly consider the points that he made.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) spoke about telecommunications, but I disagreed with quite a lot of what he said. We must acknowledge that the cable television companies are making huge investments in this country, and I do not believe that that would have happened if they had believed that BT or Mercury could enter the entertainment market. There is nothing to stop either BT or Mercury providing cable television companies, but that has to be done in the same way as the cable television companies act. That is important.

BT still has 97 or 98 per cent. of the domestic market for telephones. It is important to bring about competition, and the White Paper that set out our policies in 1991 has led to huge investment in this country by cable television companies. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman said that the cable television companies would serve only about 10 per cent. of the population, but he is wrong. The current cable licences will serve about 60 per cent. of the population—a substantial percentage. Of course, there are greater problems with rural areas and some of the more remote areas, but that is true even now of some terrestrial transmissions in certain parts of the country. The situation is not exactly as the hon. Gentleman painted it, and I am convinced that the investment would not have come about without the policies set out in the White Paper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) made a speech which mirrored several of the objectives for which the President of the Board of Trade called. I wholly agree with what he said about trade associations, and the need for them to combine in certain areas so as to speak for their trade with one concerted voice. My hon. Friend gave examples of trade associations that do an effective job.

That follows a speech that my right hon. Friend gave last year—to a CBI dinner, I believe—in which he urged trade associations to get their act together. He said that some of them should combine so as to speak with a more united voice. What my hon. Friend has said on that subject tonight is absolutely correct.

My hon. Friend also talked about changes taking place at the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not want to comment on that subject at this stage in the parliamentary year, but my hon. Friend will have heard from various other people more important than I that they may share his view about continuity being a good thing for the Department.

My hon. Friend also described how we have pushed the export promoters and brought them in. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) talked about that, too. That is a welcome change, and has brought a dramatic new input on exports into the Department, which has produced the important line on that subject taken under the leadership of the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Trade.

My hon. Friend also referred to the nuclear review, and when I deal with the nuclear issue I shall deal with what he said and also with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said. That subject took up a major part of my hon. Friend's speech, and I listened with great interest to what both my hon. Friends said about it. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Energy to their remarks and to the matters that they raised. They were both thoughtful and interesting speeches, and I will ask the Minister for Energy to respond to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—it seems odd to refer only to Conservative Members, but, as no other Opposition Member has spoken, all I can do is to respond to my hon. Friends—made some important points about the importance of south American markets. I was in Brazil last year. I am glad that we have managed to restore some Export Credits Guarantee Department cover in relation to Brazil, which is important. He referred to the visit by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Brazil, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade intends to go there.

Comments were made about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In recent years, the Foreign Office has been working increasingly closely in partnership with the DTI to help exporters. That is a key priority of the Foreign Office, which devotes more resources to supporting exporters than to any other activity. Industry often compliments it on the valuable help that it provides—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant).

Our embassies are helping our industries, which is essential. Time and again, we receive the message from industry that it is grateful to our embassies around the world for the help they give in getting them to understand and capture markets. Some of the slight criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire were perhaps out of date and not relevant, because there has been a substantial change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire reviewed some of the changes that have taken place and have allowed British industry to become successful and profitable and to look for export markets. Exporting is difficult, but its rewards are important. It involves finding new and challenging markets.

I know my hon. Friend's constituency well. I served on a district council in that constituency for quite some time before I entered the House. His constituency is spread across a large distance, and the middle part of it is an industrial heartland. It is essential that companies always have their eye on exporting and the way in which exports can be won.

My hon. Friend the Member Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly paid tribute to the achievements of the university of Buckingham's export drive. She made a point about AEA Technology, which she raised yesterday during oral questions. That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, and I will draw his attention to her strong feelings on the subject.

I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham who said that privatisation was one of our most successful exports, which is partly true. Without doubt, privatised companies are winning world markets. Time and again, they were constrained from doing so because of Treasury rules and the fact that they were in the public sector and taxpayers had to underwrite commitments.

The BT/MCI deal is important in relation to winning world markets. The hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about world markets, British Telecom and the technology and software industry. I agree with him on most of those matters, although I disagree about domestic BT policy. It is essential that our companies win world markets and privatisation of companies has achieved that. They have started to export some of their technologies and knowledge to other countries.

More than ever, the Government are committed to helping United Kingdom companies win overseas markets. To achieve that, we are developing a long-term export strategy involving increased partnership between Government and industry. The United Kingdom has always been a great trading nation. We export 25 per cent. of what we produce and, per head of population, we export more than the United States of America and even Japan.

In the three months to April 1994, the volume of non-EC exports rose by 11 per cent. Since 1981, the volume of UK exports has grown faster than that of France, Germany, Italy and Japan, yet all the Opposition do is carp, complain and bemoan our achievements. On a subject such as this, I should have thought that they could give British industry a little credit for what it has achieved, instead of talking it down.

We have recently seen dramatic increases in exports to markets as diverse as Hong Kong, South Korea and the United States. In 1993, the value of our visible exports exceeded £121 billion and our visible earnings passed £114 billion—an increase of more than 10 per cent. on 1992, despite the recession hitting hard in many overseas markets.

Our competitive advantage lies in the quality of our products, delivered at the right price and with quality service, but in this ever more competitive world we must fight even harder merely to keep our share of the market. Foreign markets provide a stern test of our products and services. World trade is set to grow between 5 and 10 per cent., helped by the successful completion of the GATT round.

Everyone is keen to get a piece of the action. There are many great opportunities, but threats are posed by industries abroad. To meet those challenges, it is crucial that more firms treat exporting as an integral part of their business strategy, meeting and beating the world's best in overseas markets.

Competitiveness is a continuing challenge. The Government have a key role to play in increasing our competitive edge by providing good-quality information, advice and support for exporters. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, along with the Prime Minister, is leading the most important export drive that this country has seen for decades.

The Government are harnessing and driving this export initiative across the private and public sectors, involving all Government Departments. As many of my hon. Friends have said, exporting is not merely a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office; all Departments with a sponsor role have a part to play.

Mr. Stephen

Does my hon. Friend recognise the tremendous effort that the royal family make in promoting British exports?

Mr. McLoughlin

That is absolutely true. The royal family play an important part in our export drive.

The DTI and the Foreign Office jointly provide a first-class information and advice service for the United Kingdom's exporters under the banner of overseas trade services. Overall, the Government spend about £170 million on overseas trade services, and that amount becomes larger when all the help offered by Government Departments is taken into account.

Business plays a vital part in our strategy. The Government's principal adviser on trade promotion and activity is British business, in the form of the British Overseas Trade Board. Under the chairmanship of Sir Derek Hornby, the BOTB is made up of a dozen senior business people, who freely give their time and experience to help and determine the best use of our export promotion funds. DTI and Foreign Office Ministers attach much weight to the board's advice.

In addition to the board, there is a network of more than 200 business people with experience of markets around the world who help through 14 geographical area advisory groups. They ensure that the needs of business are reflected in the overseas trade services operation and help to formulate specific initiatives to increase trade, such as the "North America Now Campaign" and the "Indo-British Partnership".

Our business faces great challenges in a fiercely competitive world, but there are also great opportunities, not least in the fast-growing markets of the far east and elsewhere. We have made significant improvements to our export services to enhance the export drive. We will continue to work in partnership with business to ensure that the United Kingdom's firms continue to win in world markets.

A number of my hon. Friends paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry. There is no doubt about the gusto that he has brought to his role and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, his leadership is helping to drive British trade higher and higher, and we should all be grateful to him.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.