§ 11. Mr. SalmondTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Enterprise to discuss defence diversification in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. StewartOn my right hon. Friend's behalf, on 17 October I met Fife interests, including the chairman and chief executive of Fife Enterprise, together with representatives of Fife regional council and Dunfermline district council, to discuss the implications of defence and other industrial changes for the region. Fife Enterprise is now to put forward proposals to the Scottish Office for a task force to tackle these issues and it has been agreed that the Scottish Office will be represented on the task force.
§ Mr. SalmondHas the Minister responsible for industry had time to read Fife regional council's submission to the Rosyth consultation process, which indicates that the Government have underestimated by 500 the job losses as a result of the proposals and that the total impact of job losses in the defence industry since 1991 in Fife alone will be no fewer than 7,000? Does the Minister accept those figures? Does he accept that job losses on that scale strengthen the argument for taking the savings in the defence budget directly into the industry and training budget in Scotland to evolve a proper defence diversification strategy as opposed to just losing the money in the Treasury morass?
§ Mr. StewartI have read the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The major difference is that the 886 Fife document refers to direct military personnel, who I do not think can reasonably be regarded as full-time residents of Fife although there is an indirect consequence to the Fife economy of a rundown involving personnel moving elsewhere.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's general point, the consequences of "Front Line First" for Scotland are much less than they are elsewhere in Britain. For example, there will be a reduction of 8.2 per cent. in those employed in Scotland compared with a reduction of 13.2 per cent. in the south-east of England and 20.7 per cent. in the south-west. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will include those figures in his speeches. I can also confirm that Scottish Enterprise has a defence initiative to ensure that the consequences of the defence rundown are widely studied; a co-ordinated strategy, involving £25 million over three years, is in place and I believe that it will be highly effective.
§ Mr. KynochIn discussions with Scottish Enterprise, has my hon. Friend had any feedback from Scottish industry about the implications for Scottish industry of a Scottish Parliament as proposed by the Labour party? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is extreme concern in my part of Scotland about the fact that we shall become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom which will be detrimental to existing industry and inward investment?
§ Mr. StewartMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand from the press that the Labour party is likely to finance its plans by an increased tax on business in Scotland—[Interruption.] If that is not the intention, let us have it confirmed in writing. Let us have confirmed in writing the 20 answers to the 20 questions from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The trouble with the Labour party is that it is apparently committed to a body on which no Labour Members are prepared to serve and—[Interruption.] Well, there are three. How many more? It appears that there are four or five. Is that all? There are only five. What about the rest of them? Labour Members will not answer any detailed questions on how a Scottish Parliament would work or how it would be financed.
§ Mr. ConnartyWhen the Minister meets Scottish Enterprise, will he try to get down to some facts about the level of employment in Scotland? In research that I carried out over the summer, Government statistics reveal that there are 55,000 fewer people working in the Scottish work force in 1994 than there were in 1992 at the last peak of employment. Will the Minister discuss with Scottish Enterprise the fantasy of what happens to the young people on Government-related work training schemes? On average, there were 48,000 young people on such schemes last year. When the Department of Employment carried out its survey, after six months only 10 per cent. of survey forms were returned. That means that 43,000 young people have been lost; we do not know what has happened to them.
Will the Minister discuss with Scottish Enterprise, which I believe has now taken on the responsibility, how we can get round the table and design a survey which will follow every young person and discover whether that 887 person obtains employment as we suspect that the vast majority do not get employment after wasting time on Government training schemes?
§ Mr. StewartThe hon. Gentleman has not sent me details of his researches over the summer, but, broadly, there are 155,000 more people in the work force than there were 10 years ago. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the proportion of those on youth training schemes going on to full-time employment is steadily rising.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellDo not the examples of Fife and Rosyth demonstrate how unrealistic it is to rely on the market to achieve defence diversification, not least because the market has only one customer, the Ministry of Defence? Is it not time for a properly co-ordinated Government strategy to manage the industrial change which has necessarily come about as a result of the ending of the cold war?
§ Mr. StewartThe hon. and learned Member was not listening to what I said—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would benefit from listening to my responses. I said very clearly that we are not relying in any sense on the market alone and that we have a clear and co-ordinated defence initiative run by Scottish Enterprise to assist in a variety of ways, through the local enterprise company network, with companies in Scotland to meet their needs, and to have a more diversified customer base.