I welcome this opportunity to debate a national strategy for the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry, and I thank Madam Speaker for recognising its importance by allowing us to discuss this. I know that we were in competition with some of my colleagues from the east midlands, who sought an Adjournment debate on the economy of that region. Given that textiles and clothing are the region's second largest manufacturing industry, today's debate will go some way towards meeting their request.

I was privileged to succeed by hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) as chair of the all-party parliamentary clothing, textile, footwear and carpet group. In November 1998, he initiated a debate on the industry, and there have been several since then, including a memorable one in which we paraded in hats of the finest quality, which were made in Luton. That was most enjoyable, and generated considerable publicity for the industry. Such publicity is one of the aims of today's debate.

Those all-party group members who tabled an early-day motion last week and sought today's debate did so because the industry has reached a watershed—it is make or break time. As I speak, 200 more workers in my constituency are being made redundant in a Courtaulds factory that is closing down. The industry and its employees are experiencing difficult times. Marks and Spencer, of which we will no doubt hear more in this debate, has even killed off St. Michael.

On a more positive note, an industry report produced over the past year now offers a strategic way forward by providing the opportunity to retain a strong, though changing, clothing and textile industry. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers gave a lead by encouraging industry partners to produce that report, and I applaud them and the DTI staff who helped to produce it. Once consultation on the report is complete, all parts of the industry must work together and act urgently on its recommendations. We cannot afford to let those recommendations rest. The Government must provide support so that the industry can move forward, and I hope that today's debate will help that process. We must grasp the future now, or accept continuing decline in the industry as inevitable and unstoppable.

The report's executive summary says that:

the industry is currently facing the biggest challenge in its history. Low labour-cost suppliers are securing an increasingly large share of world markets, state aids are distorting competition and sourcing patterns on the UK High Street are changing.

The industry must respond quickly to the changing circumstances. If it does so, it will slow the pace and scale of its contraction and increase the chances of maintaining critical mass.

The consequences of failing to respond quickly are obvious: continuing job losses, continuing decline and no future for an industry that, in my view, ought to have one.

I shall return to the document's details in due course, but the main message of today's debate is that the textiles industry is important to the UK economy and can remain important, even though it may change. The industry itself, its commentators and all levels of Government must stop writing off the industry. They must accept and believe that it is not just a sunset industry and that action can be taken. This morning, I took part in a programme on Radio Derby. It tried to concentrate on doom and gloom, but fortunately some of the other people taking part, who were involved in preparing the report, are looking for a way forward although they face job losses in their own companies and unions. We should not talk down the industry, but accept that while it has problems, it also has a future. That has implications not only for the industry, but for government at all levels.

I should like to make a few comments about the importance of the textile and clothing industry and the problems that it faces. I shall then say more about the strategy document and highlight a few of its recommendations, including the action and support that are being requested from Government and public agencies. I can only touch on the issues involved, which are highly complex and cover a wide range of areas. No doubt others will want to discuss some of those issues in more detail. Several other hon. Members would have liked to have been here today, but unfortunately had other commitments. I am sure that they will take part in the continuing debate in the months ahead.

My main point concerns the importance of the industry. It is still the eighth largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, and we should not just ignore it on the assumption that it is going down the Swanee. It has a future. The entire sector of clothing, textiles and footwear has sales of more than £17 billion and employs about 306,000 people. It employs more people than agriculture, motor vehicle manufacture and the chemical industry, and is bigger than the coke and nuclear fuel sector and the rubber and plastics sector. Although people in the industry do not necessarily begrudge the help that is given to farmers and aerospace, they point out that they need help as well. Generally—although not always—they are hoping not just for a handout, but for assistance, on the basis that other industries with fewer employees are receiving it. The document's recommendations are a starting point in enabling that to happen.

Of the 306,000 employees in the industry, 160,000 work in the textiles sector and 119,000 in the clothing sector. The industry is of particular significance in certain regions. A quarter of its jobs are in the east midlands, and it is vital to the local economies of towns and cities such as Leicester, Mansfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield and those in the Amber Valley area. It accounts for a quarter of all manufacturing jobs in Nottinghamshire and Leicester. I am sure that other hon. Members will refer to sectors of the industry that have a proud history in their regions.

Nobody can have failed to hear the screams of anguish in recent months and years as jobs continue to disappear. Import penetration is high. Although many imports come from countries with very low labour costs, many come from those with high investment. When the mayor of my local council—who was himself recently made redundant from Stevenson's dyeing works—visited China to look at the textiles industry, he was amazed by the level of investment and the capital equipment, which is often way ahead of ours. However, one of the Japanese companies that he visited was considering moving to Indonesia, where it would benefit from high capital investment and low labour costs. Both are significant.

Pressure also comes from high street retailers. By seeking ever lower prices, they encourage bigger manufacturers into cheap offshore supply strategies, while smaller companies are left to flounder. Courtaulds, which has just closed its factory in my area, mainly supplies Marks and Spencer, and said that the problem is caused by overseas competition—although some of that arises from its own overseas production. It is a complex matter.

Between September 1998 and September 1999, more than 36,000 textiles and clothing workers lost their jobs—more than 690 workers for every week of the year. Other hon. Members will, rightly, want to discuss in this debate the strong pound, international trade, tariff barriers, and what should be done in the various trade talks that are to take place. While those are important elements of the problem, it is of longer standing than that. Since 1994, more than 1,300 clothing companies and 468 textiles companies have ceased to exist, and the problem predates that by a long way.

Facing up to the challenge of cheap imports and a shrinking market has not been easy. Under-investment in technology, innovation and training has made closure the only feasible outcome for several companies, including some of those that I mentioned. This is a traditional sector, but it has to adapt to today's knowledge-led economy. That is possible; the opportunities exist. We can have a clothing and textiles industry in the future. It may be different, but the industry can adapt. However, many of the companies are small and medium-sized enterprises, and they need help to develop and access the resources that exist.

The textile and clothing strategy group is a mixture of the British Apparel and Textile Confederation, industrialists, retailers, academics and union representatives; that is a broad range. Its report is now being consulted on, and I understand that the group has received a number of suggestions for fleshing out its recommendations. The report makes 51 recommendations and aims to find a way forward. The prime aim is substantially to improve the industry's ability to compete successfully in the global marketplace, and the report puts great emphasis on the need for the industry to adapt. Innovation, diversification, training, marketing, exporting and networking are all cruical to competitiveness.

The report says that it does not

seek to protect the domestic industry from the winds of change.

It recognises that there are some aspects of textile and clothing manufacturing in which the UK will never be competitive, but it also recognises that the industry has tremendous strengths and that there are great opportunities in areas such as technical textiles, designer wear, dyeing and finishing, branded clothing, capital intensive manufacturing and high-value niche markets. The trick is to try to find the sectors in which we can compete and to build on them. Forward-looking companies have been able to do that. One of the companies in my constituency, Guilford Europe, realised some years ago that it would not be able to compete in high production, high turnover, very low-cost manufacturing of clothes, so it decided to diversify. It studied the market, changed its production line and moved to producing fabric for cars. It is now doing well; it is a successful company. It is possible to achieve that, although other companies will not find it so easy. We have to consider how we can assist them.

The report contains recommendations aimed at manufacturers, training providers, support agencies, employers' federations and others, including the Department of Trade and Industry. The main focus is on what the industry should do, but it also needs strong leadership and support from all levels of government. Most companies operating in the sector are small and medium-sized enterprises. Many simply do not have the personnel and resources to implement such changes on their own, and several of the employers' federations are in a similar position. The report contains a range of recommendations but puts a fairly heavy onus on the federations and other parts of the industry. That needs to be combined with Government support.

I will give an example. One recommendation is that the British Clothing Industry Association and other trade associations should introduce proposals to strengthen their marketing skills. The sector needs to work collectively, but many small and medium-sized enterprises do not know where to start, as they are not used to working collaboratively. We are always told that one advantage of the Italian industry—one European industry that seems to have flourished—is that its members are more prepared to work collaboratively. That may or may not be true, but we should investigate it and learn from it. To be effective, companies will need marketing help from public agencies, as well as the trade organisations. An individual company cannot necessarily employ its own marketing manager; it will need assistance to be able to do that.

Again, there are positive examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) is sorry that he cannot be here today. As he represents Kidderminister, he is the carpets Member, and we have added carpets to the name of our group, I need to mention the carpet industry. He wanted to celebrate the success of some of his local companies, such as Tompkinsons, Brintons and Victoria. The companies that have invested in new plant and considered niche marketing have been successful. Unusually for the industry, they have collaborated on a marketing strategy, bringing in marketing advice. They have been able to do that themselves and have even won marketing awards for their work. Other companies are likely to need more help. Once the recommendations have been fleshed out and the report is final, everyone in the industry must pay attention to the detail.

Assistance will be needed to implement some of the recommendations. The Department of Trade and Industry has a role to play in the transfer of technology. Too many companies can fall by the wayside because they do not know how to diversify or how to begin to find the expertise. I do not know enough about how DTI industry funding works to know what assistance can be given, but I know that it will be given only if it raises the industry's standing. It is no good a company coming along and saying, "Gives us a handout—but we won't work with anybody else."

The report highlights the fact that in 1998 403 United Kingdom firms received small firms merit awards for research and technology—SMART awards—and only 12 were in the textile and clothing industry. We must discover whether that was because they did not apply, whether, as some companies say, the barriers are too fierce or whether there is a prejudice against the textile industry because it is considered to be an industry of the past. Because of the industry's regional nature a number of the recommendations will need local implementation. Government must play a part in ensuring that Departments, officials in regional government offices and regional development agencies get the message that we believe that the industry has a future, albeit a changing one.

There are too many stories of companies not necessarily getting the help to which they are entitled. I have only just heard from business link about one such company in my constituency, so I have not yet been able to investigate the report fully. It is D&E Textiles, a computer-aided cutting company—at the cutting edge, one might say—which is seeking to expand. It is an area that is entitled to receive regional selective assistance. Business link was giving the firm assistance to do that, but it was turned down. The company wants to expand, but it was told that this was not viable. It is viable. The firm is seeking to expand and it needs more equipment. It is now trying to get another type of grant and has been told that, because it was turned down the first time, it is clearly not eligible the second time. There may be reasons for that and I intend to investigate, but there are too many tales of insufficient enthusiasm for taking up the industry's needs, and that message must be taken down the line.

We know from companies that have taken steps themselves how the report's recommendations can be implemented. I have mentioned some. There was also an example in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). At the Knowledge 2000 conference a couple of weeks ago, addressed by the Prime Minister, delegates heard at first hand of a success story from Eric Newton of Heathcoats at Tiverton. He said that, by implementing the points in the report, he has maintained employment levels, trebled output and added value to his product.

The recommendations cover a range of areas, including capital investment, training and skills—the Department for Education and Employment may need to consider that. E-commerce and supply chain issues are also increasingly important, and not simply in relation to shopping on the internet. I understand that 80 per cent. of transactions would be business to business. Present mechanisms in the industry that bring suppliers and retailers together do so face to face. E-commerce should be able to speed up that process and make the supply chains work better, as has happened in, for instance, the automobile industry. There is a role not only for the industry but for Government agencies to help in the development.

There is a great deal of work to do. The industry needs a major culture change. The report clearly says:

The textile and clothing industry recognises that ultimately its destiny is in its own hands.

Nevertheless, other organisations have an important role to play, including Government organisations, both nationally and regionally, academic organisations, trade associations, unions and others. The industry will call for additional financial assistance in some of those areas and, at the very least, we must ensure that sufficient information and assistance is available to enable companies to access any funds to which they are entitled.

Other recommendations in the report include the setting up of a fund specifically to assist innovation within the industry. As the SMART programme does not seem to have been very effective, perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry will consider imaginatively whether a special programme for the industry could be tied in with its innovation fund to assist with technological innovations.

One recommendation in the report that should be considered very seriously and carefully is the proposal that the Government should make funds available on a sectoral basis. People in the industry get upset when they see other industries apparently receiving funds that they cannot access. It is not clear to me that they receive those funds on any different basis but, at the very least, the matter should be examined. We hear many stories of how the industry in other European countries is able to access different taxation regimes and different methods of applying the rules. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that it is difficult to make funds available on a sectoral basis outside the areas covered by current programmes, and I know that there are problems, but there must be methods by which we could be more innovative in ensuring that funds are available to help the industry to operate better and to move forward.

If all the recommendations are to be implemented, a culture change is necessary in the industry, with a partnership between all sectors. The industry has not always been good at that and we should examine the record of other countries that seem to have had more success to see how they have achieved it.

The textile and clothing industry can have an important future. There would be more of a public outcry if any other industry as large and as important to the economy as the textile industry were losing so many jobs and so quickly. The report lists many things that can be done and its production is greatly to the credit of the industry and the Government. It will encourage the industry to look forward to a period of social partnership in which those recommendations can be implemented. That will be painful for some companies that are unable to compete. They will suffer continuing job losses, which will be horrible for some of our constituents, many of whom have been made redundant from one firm after another and have had to trail around different companies. However, the future can be positive. We must acknowledge past job losses and do what we can to stem them, but we must also be positive and talk up the industry.

UNESCO has agreed that the area on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) should be a tentative site for world heritage status and that is likely to be confirmed within the next few years. It is based on the Derwent valley and the pioneer development of the textile factory system through harnessing water power from the River Derwent. The area was the cradle of the industrial revolution. Our tourism industry is now based as much on our industrial heritage and the magnificent mills built by the Arkwrights and the Strutts as on our beautiful countryside. It is wonderful to celebrate the innovation and brillance of those pioneers who started the textile industry.

However, that should be seen as not only our industrial heritage but an example of how progress can be made and how the textile and clothing industry can flourish into the future. It will not remain the same and there will be much pain along the way—indeed, that is happening now—but we must do what we can to ensure that the industry has a future and is not written off as a sunset industry. We should act on the report's recommendations and work together at all levels to enable the industry to have a future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this important debate. Many hon. Members wish to contribute, so I shall not detain the Chamber long.

In the previous Parliament, I spent the best part of a year in this Room—which was then the Grand Committee Room—as I was a member of the Committee that sat for three days a week discussing the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. In mapping the route through Kent, we examined the fate of endangered species. We considered whether deer could jump railway lines and whether mice could get beneath them. At the risk of being accused of flippancy, I suggest that the textile, hosiery and knitwear industry may be another endangered species. May I remind the Chamber that since the Government came to power, 25 per cent. of the industry has disappeared? That is a ghastly position. Last year, on behalf of workers in my constituency, I presented Parliament with a petition, which the Government did not even acknowledge. I raised the petition again at Question Time, when a Minister apologised for the Government's failure to give a response and promised to examine the matter, but nothing has happened, so my confidence in the Government's ability to solve or reduce the problem is not great.

That is one of the fundamental problems with the Government: they put too much emphasis on presentation and spin and not enough on substance. I spoke to the hon. Lady earlier and she suggested that I might be sceptical about the report. Indeed, I am. One Minister described it as a task force. A task force went to the Falklands, but I do not think that many ships will be sunk on the industry's behalf. Rover at Longbridge gets all the perks. I do not begrudge it that, as many workers in my constituency are employed by the motor industry. However, the Government seem to have forgotten the hosiery and knitwear industry which, unlike Rover, does not get tax breaks or rate reductions, as I discovered from personal research.

The Government must show that they take the matter seriously in their repsonse to the report. We do not want words and spin or a Mandelson version of the matter: we want the Government to take action and tackle specific areas.

I shall not summarise the report, as I wish to give other hon. Members an opportunity to contribute. Indeed, I know how frustrating it is to attend these short debates and not be called to speak. In 1987, I made my maiden speech on the problems created by the importation of cheap Chinese underwear. That was not an easy speech to make, but it attracted the atttention of "Yesterday in Parliament": indeed, that thought crossed my mind before I made the speech.

A key issue in the report is the importation of cheap foreign clothing. The Government are not enforcing the law, but they should, as many such products are coming in illegally. I agree with Paul Gates of the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades—KFAT—who told me that it was essential to clamp down on illlegal imports. Many companies in my constituency that have gone to the wall as a result of cheap imports would not have done so if we had taken a more robust attitude. We should not ignore obvious solutions in our search for new strategic solutions.

The report does not cover dye works in great detail and does not examine the problems that they have had to put up with as a result of new environmental standards. Several dye works in my constituency have gone to the wall as a result of new regulations imposed by the National Rivers Authority. At least two of them have gone to the wall because Severn Trent Water would not invest in new equipment to get phosphorescent and other complex modern dyes out of the water. The Government should examine the water companies' treatment of such companies.

The hon. Lady referred to the importance of niche markets. Bodycotes is a wonderful company in my constituency making high-quality underwear. "More underwear," hon. Members may say. I am not obsessed with underwear, but we make a lot of it in Hinckley—that is a fact.

One of the first things that I did when I was selected as a candidate in 1986 was to go to Hinckley Makes It. It was amazing to see the factory girls modelling all the underwear made in my constituency. It was a great credit to them that they were prepared to go on the stage at the Concordia theatre once a year to show the town what was made there. It was a great show, which I commend to my colleagues.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is offering a few tips to Marks and Spencer, which might become more profitable if it followed the example of the company that he has mentioned.

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. The Marks and Spencer black hand has cast its shadow across my constituency too.

I am concerned that the complaints made to Marks and Spencer at its annual general meeting came from a lady of about my age. I must say that, despite the fact that I purchase underwear from Marks and Spencer, it may not be a selling feature for women of my age to model underwear for that shop.

My hon. Friend is ever charming. However, we had better not get into an old-fashioned sexist style of debate, because with new Labour in the room that may not be appropriate, and I do not want to be drawn into speaking for too long.

Marks and Spencer is a major problem. Another problem that we have had in my constituency is that an Italian managing director stripped out and moved an old-established company, Pex, to Romania. I had to support the workers at a sit-in at the plant—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that gives me some old Labour credentials, although I am a Tory. I do not want anyone to mistake my political allegiances, and especially not the Minister. I went down to the picket line because there was a lot of yarn in the factory. The Pex workers knew it was there, and they were owed some money. All credit to them that they held out against the bogus managing director, and protested against what he had done to their company. They got some recompense, and jolly good luck to them.

The Chancellor should help the industry; there should be support for high-tech machinery investment. Rate relief is also important, but there is much that companies can do for themselves. They say that God helps those who help themselves, and I sincerely believe that. Companies have much to learn from modern technology. Computer-aided design is coming down in cost and increasing in capability all the time. Companies must keep their eye on that. We now have e-commerce and the new development of selling on the internet, to which the hon. Lady alluded in her speech. I have said to many companies in my constituency, "For goodness sake, think about selling direct. You can get a website up and running for £500." That area is developing at such a pace—one's friends and one's children's friends are spending a lot of time on the internet—and it is a great way of adding to market sales without a lot of extra cost.

This is an important debate, and I welcome it. I hope that the Government will take some action. The great danger is that they will merely put a spin on the matter.

I have relatively little claim to speak on behalf of the clothing and textiles industry, because in my constituency it is not large. None the less, during my first year in the House a small hat-making company closed there. It was not a traditional hatting company, but one that had invested in modern machinery; a high-tech hat producer. However, it still closed. That was a harbinger of harder times, because other companies in the textile and clothing industry in Luton have closed since then, although none of them was in my constituency.

Textiles are an example of a problem in manufacturing in general. I refer to manufacturing in general because I am a member of the all-party manufacturing group and want to promote the interests of manufacturing to ensure that Britain retains a substantial manufacturing sector. I do not have time to go into the arguments now, but manufacturing is vital to our future.

The problems in our manufacturing industries stem essentially from overseas competition. We have a substantial trade deficit in manufactured goods. In 1999, we had a £6 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods with the European Union alone, a substantial component of which was in textiles. The United Kingdom textiles and clothing industry is a special case even within the manufacturing trade deficit. Between 1990 and 1998, the growth rate of all United Kingdom industries was smaller than the overall economic growth rate, but at least industry in general grew by 1.9 per cent. However, the textile industry reduced by 2.5 per cent. each year during that period. Indeed, in 1998, textile output fell by 7.6 per cent., which contrasts with an increase of 2.3 per cent. in 1994. Those years are significant and are reflected in the trade statistics. There has been a massive deterioration in the trade balance in textiles and clothing.

I shall consider specifically the textile industry because it probably provides the best example of the two groups in Government statistics. Between 1994 and 1998, the total trade deficit in textiles increased by a staggering 35 per cent.; it increased by 53 per cent. with the EU alone, and by 25 per cent. with the rest of the world. Those statistics are very significant and show the effects of dramatic changes in the exchange rate.

Sterling appreciated by 27 per cent. relative to the deutschmark between 1995 and 1998. There was a 33 per cent. appreciation in the euro-ecu-sterling exchange rate between 1995 and this January. Textile and clothing manufacturers have to face such extremely difficult competition. Interestingly, the pound appreciated by only 4 per cent. against the dollar and by 17 per cent. against the yen in that period, and Japan has had its problems. It is significant that the trade balance has deteriorated more in relation to the EU than with the rest of the world. That is directly related to the differences in exchange rates. The exchange rate with Europe has deteriorated significantly more than that with the rest of the world.

Exports are constantly emphasised in the trade debate. Of course, exports are important. There was a surprising 2.8 per cent. increase in textile exports between 1995 and 1998. However, imports are the problem; they increased by 22 per cent. during those three years. Imports are seriously damaging domestic markets. The problem is one of price competition and exchange rates. The Government must address the exchange rate problem for the sake of the textile and clothing industries as much as for the rest of manufacturing. Indeed, the statistics show that those industries are much more sensitive to price competition than other areas of manufacturing.

We have a so-called strong pound. I do not like the term "strong"; I think that "inappropriately overvalued" is more appropriate. The pound has not changed very much compared to the dollar, but there is an incredibly shrinking euro, and the evidence hits us between the eyes. I am not a great enthusiast of the euro project, but I was astonished at the depreciation in the euro after its foundation. There will be a serious exchange rate problem for the foreseeable future, and the Government must address it.

As I have said, we had a £6 billion trade deficit with the EU last year, but a few years ago we were in balance. That must be a result of exchange rates. Following the exit from the exchange rate mechanism, we witnessed a substantial fall in our exchange rate relative to that of the euro zone, and a dramatic improvement in trade and manufacturing. I return to the fact that even textile production expanded in 1993–94, although it later fell catastrophically.

Will the Minister ask his colleagues, including his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to examine the exchange rate problem? It is serious, and cannot be solved without addressing the macroeconomic difficulties facing the industry. This is a fine report on national strategy, but it does not draw sufficient attention to the exchange rate problem or to the macroeconomic problem. I hope that the Government will look at those matters in the near future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. I also congratulate the authors of the report. This strategy document on the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry is a consultation document, and I am sure that the contents of this debate will be fed into that consultation.

I congratulate the authors on producing an example of social partnership working at its best. It involves employers from across the sector, as well as the trade unions. We should thank the three trade unions involved for their positive and progressive input into this debate. The secretariat of the report is the Department of Trade and Industry. We should not be too critical of the DTI, but recognise its important leadership role. However—[Laughter.] I shall come to the howevers in a moment. I have a few brief points to make.

Many myths surround the industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted a few of them. However, she was wrong in one crucial historical respect. The cradle of the industrial revolution was not Derbyshire but Oldham, where the textile industry was very important. That industry has declined over not only the past three years but the past 100 years, with the shift to overseas production.

One of the myths being perpetuated is that overseas competitors have the advantage over us only because of unit labour costs. That is not so. There is a disparity in labour costs across the world, but some of the highest investment value, the best technology and the best matching of design with knowledge of markets and production techniques comes from what we patronisingly call the third world. In fact, there is a shift of production from India to Mauritius, just as there is from the United Kingdom to Morocco. This is a global industry, and if we base our strategy on the belief that our only disadvantage is labour cost, we cannot succeed. We cannot dismiss labour costs as an issue, but nobody should base a strategy on that alone. Thankfully, this document does not do so, and marks a turning point in that respect.

The second problem in the industry, which relates to the supply chain, is outlined on pages 20 to 22 of the report. The supply chain in this country is upside down.

Our manufacturers do not have customer knowledge, market research skills or the ability to match design and customer demand. That knowledge lies in the retail sector, and the retailers wield the big stick in the United Kingdom. I refer especially to Marks and Spencer. There is no doubt that the UK industry requires Marks and Spencer to succeed, because 16 per cent. of the retail industry goes through it.

M&S has traditionally been criticised for reducing its UK supplies, although it should get some credit, because no one has focused on British Home Stores and other companies that use nothing like the same amount from UK sources. Nevertheless, M&S carries the most clout and it does not and has not worked in partnership with manufacturing suppliers. It has used its market position to dominate them, so at the stroke of a buyer's pen or a telephone call to Morocco, it can move production, and hundreds of UK workers lose their jobs.

I underline the strength and power of my hon. Friend's case by saying that, in my constituency, three factories are closing as a result of such decisions.

That is a sadly familiar story and I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond to it. There is a section in the document on M&S.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley mentioned the lack of take-up of regional selective assistance. The document states that there has been a lack of take-up of RSA by textile and clothing companies and that there is anecdotal evidence that some officials administering RSA are not convinced of the merit of supporting investments in the sector. That is within my right hon. Friend's power to change.

On public procurement, the document recommends a partnership, and we should consider it. We do not need unfair competition; what is needed is a partnership of suppliers and purchasers to take advantage of UK products and our excellent skills in a sector in which we are world leaders.

I, too, welcome the national strategy for the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry. The consultation document has much to offer the industry. Most importantly, it recognises that the industry holds its destiny in its own hands. Although trade associations, unions, universities, colleges and the Government have vital roles to play, the industry realises that to survive it must make itself globally competitive.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, the textile and clothing industry is still a significant employer. However, the industry is clearly approaching a watershed and there is a danger that further contraction will lead to the loss of a critical mass. The industry must and will take initiatives to put it on a more competitive footing, but that must be underpinned by more Government support if the industry is to survive this critical period of adjustment.

My constituency is typical of many textile industry areas. Most of its textile and clothing firms are suffering badly from the strength of the pound, although none would blame the pound for all their ills. For example, Leek Dyeing and Finishing, which has been operating successfully for 16 years, last week announced that it is going into receivership. The combination of having to move premises, the lost orders resulting from a flood, and the strength of the pound make its products uncompetitive compared with imports from the far east. That was enough to push it under. However, it had invested in good equipment and premises, so with luck the business will be sold as a going concern, with the loss of only a few jobs.

Those firms that are busy have played to their strengths. Marling of Leek, with nearly 200 employees, is the biggest supplier of webbing in Europe. It makes safety harnesses, straps to secure lorry loads, climbing equipment and so on. It sells its webbing products at half the price that they could command a year and a half ago. At the same time, the price of yarn has risen. It is being stung at both ends. The firm has protected itself by becoming part of a bigger group, through which it markets its products. The company also recognises the value of investing in its work force. Under the Japanese-style Kaizen system, employees are rewarded for their ideas. If their innovations are introduced into the production system, the employee reaps some of the benefits. Thus, staff are empowered to involve themselves in the productivity and long-term viability of the company.

Selectus in Biddulph employs 230 people. It used to control the Velcro brand name in the UK, but now merely manufactures Velcro under contract from the company. Instead, Selectus is concentrating on its traditional ribbons business. Traditional outlets for its products have declined, so it has to find new outlets and ways of adding value to its output. As a Marks and Spencer accredited company, it still supplies stores, but instead of clothing, it is focusing on good design for packaging. As the far east catches up on design and quality, Selectus sees its future in developing new products and keeping ahead of the game through constant innovation and attention to the demands of the market and its customers. Like other companies, it has been hit by the strength of the pound. However, it protects its production volume by trading in foreign currencies. That may hit short-term profitability, but surviving this transitional period will protect its markets.

What does the experience of such local companies tell us about the future of the textile industry? In most areas of the textile industry, constant investment is required to remain internationally competitive. Such investment not only allows manufacturers to produce goods at lower unit costs but enables them to innovate through the development of new products and new processing techniques, so it is vital that the industry is fully aware of the funding streams to support innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry has an important role in ensuring that the industry is properly informed.

The UK textiles and clothing industry needs strong and relevant skills to compete successfully. However, there is a widely held perception that the industry is in decline—that it is low-tech, and does not offer good career prospects or good pay. If companies are to be successful, they must recognise training as an investment, rather than a cost. My local further education college in Leek is demonstrating the way forward. It has developed a high-tech textile design centre offering training, design packages, and technology to improve cutting techniques and overall efficiency and effectiveness. As many FE colleges are suffering the effects of long-term underfunding, financial backing is necessary to ensure the viability of such centres. If textile companies are to attract the bright recruits that are needed to develop the industry, there is no alternative to projecting a new image of the industry within schools and colleges. That must be backed by the relevant local skills councils and by regional development agencies.

There is a small window of opportunity to empower and invest in the industry. The industry has a bright future, but only if we face the challenges ahead and create the necessary partnerships to succeed. The creation of a national strategy for the UK textile and clothing industry is an excellent start.

It is a pleasure to speak again in an Adjournment debate on the textile industry. It is the sixth such debate since I have been a Member of Parliament, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing it.

I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who referred to tax relief, rate relief, financial assistance and support, sit-ins and picket lines. If we had heard that during the first 10 years that he was in Parliament, the industry might be more grateful.

As I come from Bradford, I am steeped in the textile industry. I must have lanolin in my skin. My family has given 90-odd years' service to the textile industry and, sadly, suffered 25 redundancies. My family's history is the history of the textile industry. There have been some famous names in Bradford, but some of them have gone. Dawson, Pringle, Hields, Parkland, Listers, Woolcombers, Salts and Illingworth Morris were giants of the textile industry, but they are no longer, for reasons that are many and varied.

The textile industry is worth £27 billion, but 40,000 jobs have been lost in the past 12 months. That sounds bad, and it is, but in the 1981 recession 50,000 textile jobs were lost in West Yorkshire alone. That recession ripped the heart out of the industry, which reeled for a long time. Over the decades, the industry had many knockbacks and troughs but, unfortunately, very few peaks. Governments have had a role in all that. If at certain times in the past three or four decades the textile industry had been given any support at all, it would not be in the mess that it is in now.

A great deal has been said about support overseas. It is true that the money that is still being poured into the textile industry in Germany, Belgium and Italy has a direct impact on what is happening in this country. In Germany and Belgium, money is funnelled in through regional and state governments. Perhaps there is a lesson for us there. If we had elected regional assemblies, we might be able to indulge in the same practice. In Italy, support has gone primarily to the industry's design and marketing side, which is a major weakness of the British industry. It can make superb products but its design and marketing have never been what they should be.

The textile industry is not looking for handouts. It wants fairness, not favours; but, in fairness to it, the Government delivered body blows to it in the 1990s. Being a low-paid industry, it has always mirrored closely the assisted area status map and the objective 2 map. In the mid-1990s, large areas of the industry were removed from the objective 2 map. In 1993, assisted area status was removed from Bradford and given to Hastings, a decision that only compounded the felony. The industry does not want the Government to tie one hand behind its back. However, by way of a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I must say that Bradford is delighted to be on the assisted areas map once again. It will put that to good use.

In addition to losing assisted area status and being removed from the objective 2 map, there was the fiasco of the sell-out by the previous Government on the multifibre agreement. That was another body blow to the wool industry in particular. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who concluded the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1994, famously sold out the textile industry to obtain a deal on agriculture by signing an agreement that meant that British textile exports to the United States started with a 37 per cent. tariff, which decreased by 1 per cent. each year for 10 years. So when it is next reviewed in 2004, there will still be a 27 per cent. tariff—and these are supposed to be two free-trade nations. It is a joke.

The industry is wondering what to do next. Only this week the Government announced that they would give BAe £500 million. Previously they gave money to Jaguar, Rover and Ford. What the textile industry wants first and foremost is political support from around the world. Secondly, it wants support for its design and marketing sector. Thirdly, it needs support for trade fairs and other operations abroad. The industry needs to get its own act together. Last November, I visited the trade high commission in New York. I was told that last year its trade office received only 192 inquiries from the United Kingdom about access to the biggest market in the world. I find that frightening.

Regional development agencies have a role. An economic package is being put together in Yorkshire to identify deficiencies in the industry and help to reverse them. Much is said about the training requirements of the work force, but the greatest training requirement in the textile industry is, frankly, for management, in order to provide more foresight into where markets are and how to deliver them.

In the northwest, 60,000 jobs are still dependent on the textile industry. I come from Bolton, which is synonymous with textiles, as both Crompton and Arkwright lived, worked and invented in the town. There are now three textile industries in the north-west. Everybody knows about the traditional cotton industry and there is also the clothing sector, on which 500 companies in the Greater Manchester area alone are dependent. There is also a growing third sector, called the technical textiles sector, about which I want to be upbeat.

The European market for technical textiles is around 21 per cent. of the entire textile market and it is growing at 5 per cent. per annum. That is true all over the world. The technical textile sector needs investment, and I plead with the Minister to support it. Traditional industrial textiles represent 43 per cent. of the sector; transportation, including automotive uses, 23 per cent.; civil engineering textiles, 10 per cent.; medical textiles, 10 per cent,; and protective clothing, 2 per cent.

The north-west is probably the UK centre of the industry. The aerospace industry is concentrated in the north-west. It uses many lightweight materials, including carbon, aramid and glass-fibre reinforced composites, which are all structured using textiles produced in the north-west. Some of our oldest companies—such as Andrews Textile Industries of Bury, which started out making laundry blankets in the previous century are now some of the world leaders in the sector. That company now makes filtration fabrics, also a growing market. Medical textiles are also important. Smith and Nephew, Johnson and Johnson, Setons and Vernon Carus are all leading health care companies, relying more and more on the development of technical textiles in the medical context.

It may surprise right hon. and hon. Members to know that the modern motor car contains 20 per cent. by weight of textiles. It is a growing feature of the automotive industry, important for lightness, fuel consumption and so forth. That all shows how many leading players there are in this growing sector in the north-west.

I also wish to be upbeat about the clothing manufacturing sector. Indeed, the largest and most modern knitting facility in the UK is in Bolton, my home town. It is called Swordward and it manufactures football strip, using the most modern technology anywhere in the world. It satisfies a performance and fashion-conscious market that changes not only between seasons but, as shown by top clubs such as Manchester United, mid-season.

In Yorkshire, the woollen industry has got its act together and started a centre of excellence based in Huddersfield. I am pleased to announce this morning that the cotton industry in the north-west has also got its act together and on 1 March this year, at Bolton institute in my constituency, a centre of excellence was created by Professor Dick Horrocks, dean of technology. It involves many companies and organisations throughout the north-west. It has a business plan and needs more than £141,000 to see it through the first two years of the pilot project. So far it has raised £71,000. I look at the Minister and ask for help with the pilot project. It hopes to keep going beyond the initial two-year pilot stage. It will provide a great impetus to developing the north-west textile industry. My congratulations go to the Bolton institute, to Professor Dick Horrocks and to all the people, including the unions, who played a role in establishing that centre of excellence.

I would have liked to have said much more, but I know that time is short.

We have had an important and timely debate this morning. Some hon. Members have tried to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and some have succeeded and kept their comments brief, which shows how important our debate is and how many different interests there are around the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary clothing and textiles group. I should also like to highlight the importance of the document that we are discussing this morning.

Textiles are very important in the area that I represent, but the sector has been badly bruised over the past couple of years. Thousands of jobs have been lost at household names like Pringle, Laidlaw and Fairgrieve and at many other smaller operators. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) contain three of the five travel-to-work areas in the Scottish borders. They feature in the top 10 travel-to-work areas in the UK in terms of dependency on the textile industry. We therefore keep a careful eye on the sector.

Few industries know the blast of global competition quite like textiles, whether it is importing yarn, competing with imported goods or exporting the finished goods around the world. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley pointed out, the report recognises that ultimately the industry's destiny lies in its own hands and the authors do

not seek to protect the domestic industry from the winds of change.

Those comments would find an echo in the Scottish borders. Changing ownership is one aspect of the current world situation that causes a great deal of concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire recently visited Hong Kong where he met the Fang brothers, who have just taken over Pringle, one of the most significant employers in Hawick and the Scottish borders. That is a substantial change of ownership from the previous ownership under Dawson international. The announcement has generated a great deal of optimism, but until we know the final details, there is still uncertainty. I hope that the Government will make it their job to monitor how ownership of the whole sector is changing in a fast-paced world.

I should like to focus briefly on the cashmere industry, which is particularly significant to the area I represent, to the Scottish economy and, indeed, to the UK economy as a whole. A constant theme throughout this morning's debate has been the success of the textiles industry, and I wish to echo that. Cashmere is a good example: it is a huge export earner and one of the high value niche products highlighted by the report. A year ago the cashmere sector was in the middle of the so-called banana war, with thousands of jobs at risk from the unilateral action of the United States Government on tariffs. We got through that. There were difficult times but most businesses have recovered.

One key recommendation in the report that will be welcomed throughout the area is the need for a level playing field. Manufacturers in my part of the world desire that above all else. I draw specific attention to the recommendation that

priorities for trade liberalisation should be prepared by the leading trade associations…Effective mechanisms should be established for ensuring an ongoing dialogue between trade officials and industry representatives to agree how these priorities should be pursued.

There is a great deal of anxiety in the cashmere sector about the multi-fibre arrangement. Local cashmere producers believed that cashmere products would see the end of quotas only at the final stage of the multi-fibre arrangement in January 2005. They have become extremely alarmed about the possibility that quotas might end as soon as 1 January 2002. With businesses planning investment and product development over a long period, that shortened time scale would be extremely damaging for the sector. Mr. George Peden, the chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association, has been in correspondence with the Department and was told on 22 February that there can be

no cast iron guarantee on the final exclusion of cashmere from the stage three re-integration list.

In other words, cashmere could be back in full competition as soon as 2002.

Could the Minister confirm that that is the case or perhaps give us a basis for optimism? The letter acknowledged that the Department would fight a hard case to ensure that the United Kingdom strongly opposes any proposal that category 5—cashmere jerseys—should be one of the categories that are reintegrated. What steps are the Commission and the DTI taking to ensure that reintegration, and therefore the lifting of quota limits, does not take place until 2005?

The most important thing that the Government can bring to the debate is a level playing field, not least with a prospect of an end to quotas at some point. We must be confident that the policing of the World Trade Organisation rules will be rigorous. As has already been said, we must remember that China has not always been the best at sticking to existing rules.

Uncertainty is a killer for business. Cashmere survived the massive blight of the banana war. It cannot afford the uncertainty created by the prospect of the early lifting of quotas. I hope that the Minister will not only pay tribute to the sector and recognise its strengths, but take steps to remove that uncertainty.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on securing this debate. Just over a year ago, on 27 January 1999, I introduced a one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate on the textile industry on the Floor of the House. Many of the concerns that hon. Members expressed then have been exacerbated by the number of factory closures in the UK textile industry and by the trend to move offshore, which continues apace. We are all worried about that.

It is interesting to note that not only retailers are now purchasing abroad; the manufacturers who supply those retailers, who are often in partnership with their key retailing customers, are relocating as part of a bilateral agreement between two sectors and two companies. That is worrying. It is not simply a matter of UK retailers shopping the world, as they are entitled to do; there seems to be a trend towards moving the manufacturing source in conjunction with the retailer. Marks and Spencer, which has been mentioned many times this morning, is a classic example of that.

In the debate on 27 January 1999, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), told me:

the bottom is not falling out of the industry. We are stabilising the industry.—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 277.]

Clearly that is not the case. The industry has not stabilised. We should welcome any advance information that the Minister can give us ahead of the Government's response to this important and timely document about the role that they can play in ensuring the industry's stability, a year on.

I want to draw hon. Members' attention to one or two issues raised in the document, which makes it clear that this is not a complacent industry. The industry is not sitting back at a time of crisis for many of those concerned, saying that somebody must do something. It is engaged—hence the document—with others in looking for solutions and does not look to others to solve the problems. The hon. Member for Amber Valley and others have flagged up areas such as innovation and marketing, in which the industry has recognised that it has a role to play. Perhaps the Minister will give us an idea of the Government's thinking on how they can contribute, particularly in relation to the World Trade Organisation talks.

One section of the document refers to exports going to markets outside the European Union. It says that such markets often face tariff barriers, but duties and other barriers remain high in many markets, including in the south American countries, which have been opened up, the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere in Asia. The World Trade Organisation must be involved in that. In the debate on the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that, despite the debacle in Seattle, the Government would be a key player in the EU to bring the talks back on course and make progress.

It was interesting to note that the industry wants the Government to help to initiate bilateral agreements. Some time ago, I suggested to the Minister—I cannot remember whether the suggestion took the form of a parliamentary question or a letter—that the Government could advance bilateral agreements not only in this but in other sectors. I received a rather negative response. He must realise that we cannot sit back and wait until the American elections have finished and World Trade Organisation talks are cranked up again; the Government must take the initiative. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the problem with cashmere, which was debated in January of last year, was resolved through a Government initiative. Although cashmere is important, it is not unique in the textile industry, and others would like to see progress made through such Government input. I hope that the Minister can reassure us in that regard.

The report raises other issues that affect the Government, including regulation, which is dealt with in paragraph 9.4. All manufacturing sectors are subject to additional regulatory burdens. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, regulations cost business nearly £10 billion in just under three years and recurring costs amount to £2.4 billion a year. However, there are further costs that will affect this sector. I have received representations about one particular cost, which prompted me to debate the textile industry on the Floor of the House last year. John Heathcoat, a successful company in my constituency, is extremely concerned, as are others, about the proposed climate change tax to which it will be subject. There are other, smaller manufacturers in my constituency, but John Heathcoat is a global player.

Parliament has been lobbied many times in respect of that tax, and the Government have modified the Chancellor's original formula. However, it is clear that, having invested capital in more energy-efficient plant, the industry will not reap the benefit because the formula will impose additional costs through the tax. I flag up the matter because clothing manufacturers such as John Heathcoat, which incorporates a dyeing facility, use a lot of energy. Energy is a significant component of manufacturing costs. Responsible companies that have invested money in consuming energy in as lean and efficient a manner as possible deserve that the Government rethink the climate change tax, particularly now, when the industry is under great pressure.

The document refers to a disparity in how regulation is implemented in the UK and in other European Union countries. The Dutch have implemented their version of the tax in a flexible way, so that their core industries, which are high energy users, are not damaged. The Dutch are not unique. We all accept that the environment is an important component in considering costs and raising taxes. None the less, it is extraordinary to note that, having reached our Kyoto target many years ahead of the target date, the Government intend to place additional punitive burdens on industries. Those industries are seeking the Government's help and support, and many of them can demonstrate that they have met their environmental responsibilities.

The Minister should not be complacent about paragraph 9.4 of the document, which identifies the burden of regulatory costs, or about the fact that the UK implements them disproportionately. It refers to the impact assessment—which is usually carried out before the implementation of secondary legislation—in terms of the cost to business, and suggests that it has resulted in legislation being modified. Can the Minister say where the impact assessment has taken into account the cost to business and cite specific examples of how the sector has been assisted by that?

The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) was consistent with the representations that he has made on behalf of the industry throughout his parliamentary career. Having not been in the House when he made his maiden speech, I was somewhat surprised to discover that it was on the subject of Chinese underwear. No doubt that was an important threat to the UK market at the time.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on securing the debate. All hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and clarity.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on giving us the opportunity to debate the industry again. We have had such debates on many occasions. I remind hon. Members that had it not been for a meeting in November 1998 between representatives of the industry and the then Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the debate would not be taking place against the background of the report.

Some of the comments of Conservative Members were a bit rich, given that during their 18 years in power they did nothing for the industry. In respect of the contribution of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), if there had been a strategy for wiring up the industry, e-commerce and other information technology equipment could easily have been used. As it is, it is probably one of the worst sectors in terms of the development of communications and information technology systems. He was right to say that e-commerce and business to business communication are vital. The industry will find progress difficult, because the foundation was not laid in the past, but we are determined to ensure that it takes place.

The underlying theme of the debate was that partnership and consensus are emerging against the background of the report, which is a well-informed piece of work. That is pleasing, and is a far cry from the days of adversarial industrial relations. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to paragraph 9.4 of the report. That paragraph also states:

An example of good practice in this area was the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.

That is telling in respect of the progress that the industry has made in developing on a consensual basis. If a little consensus had emerged in previous years, when Governments of her party were in power, the industry's structural weaknesses could have been addressed more effectively.

I shall begin by clarifying the status of the document. It is currently being circulated in draft form as a consultation document. It contains the initial views of the textile and clothing strategy group, which has circulated it in order to seek the views of a wide range of interested parties who could be affected. So far, about 40 reponses have been received from individuals, companies, university representative bodies and other interested parties. I understand that the textile and clothing strategy group intends to revise and amend the report in the light of those comments, and will publish the final version later in the spring.

As the group is still at the consultation stage, it would not be wise for me to give a detailed response now, but I can give an assurance that Ministers from my Department will respond to the finalised recommendations. Indeed, we have kept in close contact with the group in the course of our work. As has been said, the DTI has been involved in the secretariat. All parties will welcome the professional job that it has done, for which I am grateful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friends the Ministers for Small Business and E-Commerce and for Competitiveness have all attended meetings of the group. They will meet the group again to discuss the recommendations once they have been finalised. That shows how seriously the DTI ministerial team takes the report.

The textile and clothing stategy group comprises representatives of a cross-section of those who have leading roles in the textile and clothing industry. It represents a powerful parternship. Large and small manufacturers are represented on the group, as well as trade associations, universities, trade unions—whose positive role in relation to the report has been referred to today—retailers and DTI officials. The textile and clothing strategy group is an industry-led body; it is not a Government body, although DTI Ministers have actively encouraged the group's work and have provided it with a secretarial resource. I stress that the group is industry-led because, together with DTI colleagues, the industry must identify the issues that face it, and take the lead in addressing those issues. That does not mean that the Government do not have an important role to play.

To put the report aside for a moment, DTI Ministers have been impressed by the spirit of partnership displayed by the various participants—the industry, trade associations, retailers, unions and academics—in trying to resolve difficult problems. The report stated, as I have, that it would be premature to respond to individual recommendations, because they are currently only provisional, but I want to make some general observations against the background of the report.

I hope that industry will be receptive, and that bodies such as the regional development agencies, to which reference has been made, will be influenced. Those business-led boards, in English regions where the textile industry resides, have given serious consideration to that sector of the industry to ensure that it is part of the regional industrial strategy and wealth-creating base. Once the report is finalised between the various parties and the Government, hon. Members who have a vested interest should ensure that such concerns are factored into regional development agency strategies to maximum effect. Higher education, the development of regional selective assistance—in which RDAs have a major input—and the development of training and skills councils, for which RDAs have the major strategic responsibility, are relevant in that regard. Innovation is also relevant, and our policy on clusters of innovation will unfold during the next few weeks. The report can inform the debate on the development of economic strategies and wealth creation.

On cashmere and the multi-fibre agreement, we are in dialogue with the industry but a definitive position has not been reached. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) acknowledged, we are taking a robust approach. if there are interested parties in his constituency who want to raise the matter with my Department, we are more than happy to receive them. If he wants to contact me afterwards, I shall provide more detail.

In response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the World Trade Organisation set up the multi-fibre agreement, which was signed under the previous Administration. Its implementation is being discussed with regard to cashmere. The Government will take a strong brief on the matter.

I also agree with hon. Members who raised the issue of Marks and Spencer. It is crucial that the atmosphere of partnership created by this document be taken on board. M & S could be said to have been arrogant with the supply chain, instead of working in partnership to promote development in a wider context, which might have prevented some of the damage that has been done to the industry. That is the moral of the story and—

Order. Time is up.

I am delighted to have secured this debate.

Order. Would hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly? We have business to discuss.

Thank you, Mr. Cook. As I was saying, I am delighted to have secured this debate on support for bus services in the Vale of York.

The Government paid lip service to improving public transport in their White Paper on the future of transport published about two years ago, entitled "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". On page 40, the section dealing with more and better buses states:

Buses are already the workhorses of the public transport system and in many parts of the country they are the only form of public transport. Increasingly they will become the focus of an efficient transport system that gets people to where they want to be quickly and comfortably, without having to rely on cars. But people will not switch from the comfort of their cars to buses that are old, dirty, unreliable and slow. Too often, buses have been treated and seen as 'second class' transport. It doesn't have to be like this and is certainly not the case in many other European countries. As part of the New Deal for transport, we want better buses—clean, comfortable and convenient. Bus lanes and other priority measures will help to get buses running on time.

That was two years ago. One must contrast the lip service paid to the new deal for transport with what is happening on the ground in the Vale of York, where bus services are being reduced and, in some cases, withdrawn. I have corresponded with the Minister and his colleagues on these cases, and I hope that he will be able to respond in detail this morning.

The first case is the Haxby and Wigginton to York service. Routes 22 and 22A were withdrawn in spring 1999 and reinstated after constituents had expressed dismay and disappointment, and after I had expressed support for the services continuing. First York gave an assurance in February 1999 that, if the bus routes were changed again, a similar consultation exercise would take place. However, last summer, the bus routes were changed by First York without wide consultation. The services were withdrawn, having been reinstated.

There are now no direct services from Haxby and Wigginton to the hospital—which presents an acute problem for older people visiting relatives—or to the Theatre Royal or the station. That causes great inconvenience and, in some cases, distress to my constituents. First York made the point that journeys to the hospital and the theatre may be made via Fulford, which is an expanding community—as are Haxby and Wigginton. However, that service avoids the traffic problems and congestion on the Haxby road by bypassing it completely, which means that the journey time from Haxby is much greater, and in one case involves a change of buses. My constituents have expressed serious consternation about that.

I turn to the Linton-on-Ouse to York service. In January 2000, bus services from Linton to York were drastically reduced. The number of journeys to York was slashed from 13 a day to five, with only one bus running during the main part of the working day between 7.30 am and 5.30 pm. Local residents are now even more dependent on access to a car to get into York from Linton. The cuts highlight the fact that the Government have failed to deliver on the pledge that they gave as recently as two years ago to improve public transport services in rural areas. Linton is especially important because it is a Royal Air Force base. One constituent wrote to me saying that he is about to serve a four-month term in Kuwait, leaving his wife without access to a car. Mothers with families and older people are having to turn more and more to cars or taxis instead of the bus services to which they, rightly, believe they are entitled.

First York made no excuses for the cuts and simply stated that the current service is uneconomical because there is not enough local demand. Thanks to North Yorkshire county council, one bus service was reinstated and departs from Linton-on-Ouse at 11.10.

In correspondence dated 28 February this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), admitted that

there is need for improvement in local bus services in many areas.

He went on to promise to introduce measures to secure greater stability in bus services, primarily through quality partnerships, and to ensure that local authorities had more influence over the provision of public transport. He also promised to provide powers to enable local authorities to introduce bus quality contracts to give greater control over delivery of local bus services. Will the Minister verify which, if any, of the initiatives promised me by the Under-Secretary have been implemented in north Yorkshire?

I turn to the park-and-ride scheme at Rawcliffe. Despite severe opposition from residents—I also opposed it—the scheme was moved from the excellent, practical site at Clifton Moor to a greenbelt location. The opposition arose because it is one of the few remaining greenbelt sites at Rawcliffe. I said at the time that congestion on the A19 would increase, and there are record tailbacks beyond the roundabout at the Rawcliffe interchange with the bypass to York. At busy times, it can take 40 minutes for constituents to cross the roundabout. I and many hon. Members would like more park-and-ride schemes and more parking facilities to enable people to use the buses, but they should not be put in silly places where they cause increased congestion.

I pay tribute to North Yorkshire county council's wide consultation on public transport services. It demonstrates that the key to successful delivery of service in a rural area is through consultation, particularly with the parish councils, to ensure that the right bus arrives in the right place at the right time. North Yorkshire county council has an excellent record on spending public money responsibly. It is currently spending £1.68 million each year on public transport. Some of that fund has been allocated to an additional service from Linton-on-Ouse to York. The Government offered £1.38 million to North Yorkshire county council in April 1998. However, the spending guidelines were withheld by the Department until June 1998, so the money could not be spent on sustained initiatives within the financial year and the grant was returned and reallocated in 1999. One good reason for that was that it would have been impossible for North Yorkshire county council to have spent more than 50 per cent. on services, which would have required continued funding in the following year. There would have been no continuity of service and it would have been unfair to my constituents to introduce a new service one year and to discontinue it the following year when they may have come to depend on it. North Yorkshire county council spends a lot of time consulting with local bodies and, primarily parish councils, to ensure that such grants are used in the best way possible. As a result, services to Easingwold in my constituency and Stokesley in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have been extended, while services for Thirsk railway station have been developed greatly and the Bedale to Northallerton route has been greatly improved.

As a result of that efficiency, the Government have allocated to North Yorkshire county council a further grant over three years of £4.14 million at the rate of £1.38 million a year. In the financial year 2000–01 a community transport scheme will be developed in the Wixley area of the Vale of York, which is most welcome.

Consultation does pay, but I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the rural bus fund brings less to rural bus services than the amount that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Reigons takes away from shire counties' transport budgets. I ask the Minister and the Government to extend the rural bus grant to community transport schemes, which would help the disabled, the elderly, volunteers and local residents, especially in rural areas. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to encourage the provision of bus services in rural areas, particularly those from Vale of York to the urban parts of York, some of which fall within my constituency.

City of York council gave a disappointing response to the reduction of services from Haxby to Wigginton. No alterations have been made to the reduced service and there are no plans to use any part of the council's budget to reinstate the service. Minor alterations are being made to ensure that existing services are more efficient during peak traffic congestion. I wish to put on record my disappointment at City of York council's poor reaction to the reduced service.

Will the Minister consider investment in vehicles through the introduction of a bus grant? Rural bus usage is not yet high enough to encourage operators to invest in high quality vehicles. Services provided in rural urban areas contrast hugely and action is required to enable the quality of service in rural areas to keep pace with developments in urban areas. Will the Government see fit to make a bus grant available to bus operators who provide rural services? That would ensure that rural services kept pace with those expanding in urban areas.

I invite the Government to take other measures to improve bus services and to encourge greater use of buses by passengers—for example, by maintaining or perhaps increasing fuel duty rebate or by making community transport schemes eligible for such rebates. Rural bus grants could also be used to support existing services rather than just new schemes. It would be sensible to use the money to support existing services.

In conclusion, the Government are all promises and no delivery; all mouth and no action. Far from their improving public transport prior to the introduction of congestion and workplace charging, services in the Vale of York are being withdrawn, run down and reduced. If the Government are serious about delivering better bus services and a more integrated transport system, they must address the real problem of declining bus use. Through-ticketing and multi-journey tickets would help, as would greater integration with rail services or the prospect of a rural transport grant to integrate bus and rail services.

The Vale of York has a highly developed rail connection service—through Thirsk, to Northallerton and York, by the east-coast and cross-pennine routes. It would make great sense for passengers to interconnect between buses and railways. Denmark provides the model: with one ticket, people can travel for an hour on buses, or electric or ordinary trains. We should be working to achieve that in this country. Motorists face higher punitive fuel taxes and vehicle excise duty, but only a small part of such moneys is reinvested in the roads or public transport. I urge the Government to put more money raised in that way into public transport to encourage motorists to leave their cars at home and take the bus. Indeed, my proposal is just the ticket to get people to do that. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reassure my constituents that there will be a better bus service in the Vale of York in future.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised an important matter and made several sensible suggestions. However, she was rather cheeky: no one would guess from her speech that investment in rural bus services is at its highest level for many years. I shall do my best to address her points and shall say a word or two about the Government's overall policy.

We accept the importance of supporting public transport in rural areas. In the Budget of March 1998, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional £50 million a year to increase accessibility and mobility in the countryside. England's share was £41.7 million, of which £32.5 million was allocated to local authorities to support new rural bus services—that is the rural bus subsidy grant to which the hon. Lady referred. The allocation was based on the size of the rural population and the number of people living in settlements with a population of 3,000 or lower.

Benefits of that new money are already becoming apparent. A careful study of the hon. Lady's speech would reveal that she referred to some of those benefits. In 1998–99, the first year of the scheme, 1,800 new or improved services were introduced nationally. The Government have recently announced that the rural bus subsidy grant will continue beyond 2000–01 for a further three years at its current level at least. As a result, a further £100 million will be available to improve rural bus services.

The grant is for local scheduled services. Funds have also been set aside for the rural bus challenge competition, aimed at encouraging innovative and cost-effective bus-related schemes that provide and promote new rural transport ideas. Following the 1999 Budget, the challenge total was increased to a minimum of £15 million for at least the next two competitions. In the first two years of the competition, 104 schemes totalling about £28 million have been supported: 46 received a total of £11.4 million in 1998, and 58 a total of £16.8 million in 1999.

The remaining £4.2 million of the £32.5 million funding was allocated to the rural transport partnership, whose overall objective is to reduce social exclusion through enhanced accessibility to jobs and services. The Countryside Agency is responsible for that grant.

The rural bus challenge and the rural transport partnership funds can be used flexibly—for example to improve bus and rail integration. However, they are not intended to support rural rail services, for which funding is available through the rail passenger partnership funds.

In 1998–99, North Yorkshire county council received a rural bus subsidy grant of £1.38 million, and will receive a similar amount for each of the two subsequent years of the funding scheme. As the hon. Lady said, in 1998–99, the council spent only £326,000 of its grant, less than 25 per cent. of the available funding and a shortfall that has been highlighted on previous occasions. As the hon. Lady said, there were mitigating circumstances, but many authorities—unlike North Yorkshire county council—managed to spend their full allocation. We recognised all along that it might not be possible for every authority to spend its full allocation in the first year because of the need to consult and to seek the necessary powers to make the grant payments. However, North Yorkshire's underspend was the largest of any authority. In the circumstances, it is a bit rich of the hon. Lady to complain about the lack of Government support for buses in her constituency. However, that was in the past; we are concerned about the future so I shall not dwell on the matter.

The key issue, as the hon. Lady rightly says, is improvement in local bus services in consultation with rural communities. In the current year, the grant allocation for North Yorkshire is again £1.38 million, and I am pleased that the county council has confirmed that it will spend the full allocation this time round. Among the services to benefit will be those in the hon. Lady's constituency between York and Easingwold and Easingwold and Thirsk. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomed that, although she did so rather quietly.

North Yorkshire county council was also successful in the rural bus challenge awards. In 1999 it received £43,200 for the Wixley area community transport project in the hon. Lady's constituency. The scheme provides for a fully accessible vehicle for community groups in Wixley and adjacent villages. I hope that the county council will learn from the success of other councils elsewhere by introducing future innovative schemes for rural bus challenge funding. The county council has not been as successful as other authorities in securing funds under the challenge scheme, which rewards innovation in providing rural transport.

I spoke about the rural transport partnership funds, five of which have been established in North Yorkshire since the introduction of the scheme by the Countryside Agency in 1998: the Craven, Ryedale, Selby and Richmond partnerships and the Harrogate and Hambleton partnerships. Nine awards have so far been made, and a total of £145,000 has been put into rural transport partnerships and rural transport development funds in the county. The hon. Lady will note that that is in addition to the £2.8 million allocated to date in rural bus subsidy grant and rural bus challenge schemes in North Yorkshire. I stress that it is new money that was not available under the previous Government, of whom the hon. Lady was a supporter.

It may be of interest to the hon. Lady and her constituents that North Yorkshire county council has launched a new telephone inquiry service that provides information on public transport journeys starting or finishing in the county.

the Minister is replying to the part of my speech that related to the North Yorkshire county council services. I called the debate in order to ask about the reduction of services in the city of York, especially those from Haxby and Wigginton to York and from Linton-on-Ouse. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions.

By coincidence, I was coming to that matter. I shall start with Linton-on-Ouse. The majority of bus services outside London—85 per cent.—are commercially provided by private operators, and decisions on the extent and frequency of those services are primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of bus operators. The Linton-on-Ouse to York service was a commercial service, which the operator decided to withdraw. As the hon. Lady said, North Yorkshire county council arranged for replacement, subsidised services and will no doubt keep the situation under review. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), wrote to the hon. Lady about the matter; his letter was slightly more upbeat than she suggested, as she quoted from it rather selectively.

The hon. Lady referred to Haxby and Wigginton on Second Reading of the Transport Bill last December. These services are provided commercially—that is, without local authority subsidy—by First York, a subsidiary of the First Group plc. Following a review last September, the company altered services to the hospital and railway station so that they run directly from Haxby village centre to York without deviation to the housing estate in the Wheatfield lane-Oaktree lane area that it served previously. I believe that the aim was to reduce journey times and encourage greater use of the service, in which respect, it has been successful. I understand that after discussions with residents, the company has again modified the route so that services come with a 300 m walking distance of the area. The local authority thinks that it would not be appropriate to subsidise a service to the area, given that there is a commercial service within reasonable walking distance.

Local authorities have a crucial role in delivering integrated local transport and in improving rural bus services. The Transport Bill now wending its way through the House will give local authorities, including North Yorkshire, the necessary tools to develop effective bus services. Among other things, the Bill introduces a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes, guaranteeing all pensioners at least half fare on buses, or payment of not more than £5 a year for a pass—something that some of the hon. Lady's older constituents will welcome.

National targets have been agreed with the bus industry on reducing the age of the bus fleet and improving the reliability of services. We are also introducing new customer satisfaction surveys this year, and we shall publish the results. We have removed the previous Administration's freeze on the bus fuel duty rebate paid to bus operators. This rebate totals £100 million—more than it was two years ago—and it has helped the industry to keep fares down. Investment by the bus industry is £400 million a year, its highest for many years after some years of decline under the previous Administration.

We are committed to ensuring further improvements to bus services. The hon. Lady made some sensible suggestions. She also called for a bus grant. I am always a little nervous when Tory Members of Parliament start demanding more public spending because I know that their colleagues—and sometimes themselves—will jump up and down to talk about stealth taxes to raise the money. However, with that caveat in mind, I shall pass on the hon. Lady's suggestion. I have described our commitment to rural bus services, some of which have benefited the hon. Lady's constituency. We have a reasonably good story to tell, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a chance to tell it.

This is the first time that I have had an Adjournment debate, and spoken in, the new Chamber at Westminster Hall. I am delighted to raise a subject dear to my heart. Thousands of people, including the Minister, share my love of the Pennine hills and other upland areas, where the landscape is traced with walls that climb up to the horizon, fringed with foxgloves in the spring and harebells in the summer.

The walls vary hugely. Some are white in limestone areas, others are grey gritstone in the southern Pennines and others are blue slate. Depending on which side the wind blows, lichen and mosses cover them. They were built with great skill many years ago, to mark a boundary, to clear stones from the fields, or to shelter new-born lambs and livestock and keep livestock safe and within a field's parameter. Some walls are very old—pre-Romano-British. As the Government acknowledge in their response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions, there is little data on exactly how old and dilapidated they are, but they are important. They are home not only to lichen, mosses and wild flowers, but to insects and many species of birds. Wrens and little owls nest in them. The centres of dry stone walls are very warm, so they are also home to hibernating reptiles. The great crested newt likes to spend the winter there. They are intersected by many other important stone features: big stone posts at gateways, step stiles, squeeze stiles and sheep creeps—an expression I did not know until I started to research the subject. I can enlighten hon. Members later if they are interested.

For years, dry stone walls have been mapped. They are used on Ordnance Survey maps for guidance. They are an integral feature of the upland countryside, and are loved by local farmers as well as walkers, riders and the urban population of the north of England who, in the words of the song, may be wageslaves on Mondays, but are free men on Sundays. At present, dry stone walls have no statutory protection. They are disappearing and crumbling at an alarming rate.

The House has been concerned about hedgerows for many years. A private Member's Bill is proceeding, but we are waiting for firm proposals from the Government on how to respond. Of all traditional field boundaries, dry stone walls are especially vulnerable because they have a market value. There is a price on their heads, so to speak. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill receives its Second Reading on Monday, but the Government have missed the opportunity to include a clause about field boundaries and possible protection for dry stone walls.

The Countryside Commission survey of May 1995 showed that 50 per cent. of the 112,000 km of dry stone walls in the country are derelict or not stock-proofed. South Yorkshire has the fifth highest density of dry stone walls in the country: only 5.4 per cent. of its walls are classed A or B which means sound; 54 per cent. are classed C, which means semi-derelict and in need of restoration; and 44 per cent. are so derelict that they consist only of remnants.

Dry stone walls crumble for many reasons, some of them perfectly natural. Rabbits burrow around and underneath them so that they collapse. They need constant repair. Road works often damage dry stone walls along the highways. They are often demolished to improve access for farmers to fields or even woodlands and forests. Bodies that should know better, such as the Forestry Commission and Severn Trent Water, have demolished walls to gain access to woodlands. Stones are also taken by members of the public, who go along in cars on Sundays and think that putting a few stones in the boot to improve their gardens and rockeries will not do much harm.

More worrying is the damage done when larger topping stones or copes are taken in a fairly systematic commercial way to garden centres, possibly all over the country, for their market value. Once a wall loses its heavy topping stone, deterioration is more rapid. They also crumble away, as farmers use other barriers such as electric fences or netting to keep livestock in. Most worryingly, in my area they are often simply sold—and that it why I have asked for this debate. One week a wall is there, the next week it has been taken away to be sold. The current cost of local stone is about £40 per tonne, and it is going up. That adds up to £6,200 for 100 m of stone wall. Hill farmers in my constituency have had a rough time over the BSE crisis and the general crisis in stock farming, and there is a huge temptation for them to sell off a wall to bridge a short-term crisis or financial problem.

Farmers are also put under pressure by planning rules which, in areas such as mine to the north of Sheffield, increasingly and rightly insist that any rebuilding ought to be done in local stone. The frequent transformation of farm buildings into residential accommodation puts up demand for local stone, which puts up the price—the vicious circle that puts pressure on the farmers. The increasingly common transfer of agricultural property to residential or holiday home use often means that walls lose their purpose as stock boundaries, fall into disrepair and crumble, because the people living there are not keeping sheep or cattle. As the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee said in the excellent, thorough inquiry that it carried out two years ago, the situation is worrying.

The answer is twofold—there should be incentives and disincentives. There must be not only an extension of the incentives to protect dry stone walls, but a clear disincentive, backed by legislation if possible, to prevent the removal of the whole or part of any dry stone wall without good reason. That is especially necessary in areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas and national parks.

The disincentives could include a requirement to get permission from a national park or a local authority, or consult a local conservation body. The Minister might consider that that work could come within the remit of the local access forums, when they are established. I am not calling for a rigid ban on the removal of the whole or part of any stone wall; such removals are part of the evolutionary process in the countryside. However, the key phrase in the new legislation, which is central to the Government's policy, is "good countryside management". The laissez-faire attitude cannot continue.

Moves by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put countryside management and stewardship schemes at the heart of its grant regime are to be wholeheartedly welcomed, as is the recent announcement that the money going into the schemes will be increased. Local farmers in my constituency often talk to me through the NFU, the Dry Stone Walling Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. They say that, although they are committed to restoring and maintaining walls on their land, the countryside stewardship grant schemes insist on their being part of an integrated countryside management structure, while farmers are often looking for something simpler. They want to be able to say, "I want a programme of restoration for the walls on my land, which would take three or four years, and some grant aid would help me do the work over one or two years." The proposal is supported by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Dry Stone Walling Association and was included in their briefings on the Countryside Bill and their response to the Select Committee's report. I understand that the Yorkshire dales, which I am sure the Minister knows well, runs a programme of countryside protection in which barns and walls are given extra European money. That category in the grant regime has stemmed the deterioration of the limestone walls and miles of walling have been renewed and restored. That is an example of how the grant regime can be improved.

I am discussing not just walls, but the traditional skill of walling and the people with that skill. The inhabitants of Dungworth in my constituency always know that walling is taking place when they hear the beautiful baritone voice of a farmer called Hector, who sings hymns as he mends walls.

In that context I pay tribute to the efforts of the Dry Stone Walling Association, which has pressed wallers' arguments strongly. I agree with the officers of that association that it is not good enough to allow grant schemes to go forward without any check on whether the work is being done by skilled or expert wallers. If it is not, walls will continue to crumble, which would not be good value for money.

As well as the wallers' skills, voluntary conservation groups play a key role. In another part of my constituency a volunteer group goes out on Sunday mornings under the guidance of a trained wailer to tidy up and strengthen walls around woodland areas. The volunteers learn a skill, increase the community's appreciation of the environment and improve the look of the woodlands and the strength of the walls.

If the House is serious about looking after the countryside in our overcrowded islands, action is needed. The public will not forgive us if we simply watch in the hope that our country's heritage remains. Without action, it will be too late. I urge the Minister to talk seriously to his colleagues. A major Bill is passing through the House with the protection of the countryside at its heart, and I support its principles. Today, I want to raise awareness of one small element of the countryside field boundaries, which are a crucial part of our upland countryside. The public and those who love the countryside would not forgive us if we missed this opportunity to prevent deterioration in dry stone walls, which will inevitably occur if we do not take steps to prevent it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) has raised an important issue, and I thank her for initiating this debate with great distinction and charm. The way in which she presented her case demonstrated that she cares about this subject, but I have a small quibble. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who has left the Chamber, advises me that newts are amphibians, not reptiles.

The Minister is of course correct. Frogs, toads and great crested newts are amphibians, but I am informed that reptiles such as the grass snake also enjoy hibernating in the central areas of dry stone walls, which provide warmth.

I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path, because I would quickly be out of my depth. As she probably knows, I am walking in four stages from Holy Island to the Lake district—a journey of about 250 miles, much of which passes through the Pennines. So far, I have reached Barnard castle. I passed many stone walls along the way and, as she said, they are in varying states of repair and neglect.

Since taking on this post, I have noticed that differing forms of boundary can excite many, often mixed emotions. Some people are keen to do away with boundaries such as the dreaded leylandii hedge, a subject on which we receive more letters than any other. However, there are other boundaries to which we want to give tender loving care, and dry stone walls fit firmly into that category.

My hon. Friend vividly described the various reasons why we want to save and nurture such features of the landscape, and said that they help to define the character of the countryside. There are often local differences in stone type and building techniques, and such visual variations are appreciated by passing ramblers in particular and the public in general. As she said, dry stone walls are important to a wide range of wildlife, and they remain functional. As well as controlling and sheltering livestock, they may help to prevent soil erosion and water run-off.

As has been said, dry stone walls are at risk. Although the countryside has never remained static, changes in recent decades have given rise to concern about the rate at which walls are disappearing. According to the countryside survey of 1990, there were about 86,000 km of dry walls in England—a dramatic decrease of about 15 per cent. in six, which was particularly serious in marginal upland andpastoral landscapes.

After this intervention, I shall let the Minister get on, but I want to emphasise a point that is relevant to my constituency and many others. Does he agree that there is a particular problem for countryside that abuts major urban conurbations?

I am sure that that is right.

Only about 4 per cent. of walls were described as being in excellent condition. Where the stones of walls fall down, the wall can be put up again, but in the vicinity of some urban areas, the walls are disappearing. Some of the instant makeover gardening programmes may have a little to answer for in that respect. Against that background, my hon. Friend has called for the Government to give statutory protection to walls, which the Select Committee recommended. As the figures suggest, much of our knowledge about dry stone walls is five or 10 years old. We are updating ourselves on the countryside survey 2000, which will provide reliable estimates on the number and condition of walls, and an improved base line for detecting changes to those features in future. We consider further legislation when the survey becomes available.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. As I am sure she will appreciate, we are not short of suggestions for additions to that Bill, or to nearly every major Bill. Someone, somewhere, at a slightly higher level than me, has to make the harsh decisons on what will be included. I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect that the matter will be dealt with in that Bill. We do not rule out the possibility of legislation, although the survey results will not be available until the end of the year, which would be too late for incorporation into the Bill.

My hon. Friend suggested that protection might come within the remit of the proposed local access forums. Those non-statutory bodies will have an important advisory role in helping to ensure that new opportunities for recreational access are implemented sensibly and sensitively on the ground. Their focus will be on promoting responsible public access to the countryside rather than on conservation. Although we must await the results of the survey before making final decisions on legislation, I note the general view among experts who gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry—for instance, the Dry Stone Walling Association—that the biggest threat to walls was posed by neglect rather than deliberate destruction. I accept my hon. Friend's point about what happens in the vicinity of human habitation. No amount of legislation can deal effectively with walls falling into disrepair and becoming derelict. Sound management of walls is a long-term activity that requires the continued commitment and enthusiasm of land managers. It is a question of winning hearts and minds, which is best achieved through advice and incentives.

My hon. Friend mentioned the incentive schemes administrated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which offer funds for the restoration of stone walls in England. Under country stewardship, payments are available for major rebuilding if a wall has collapsed, become unstable, is in danger of collapse or has slumped—I have never thought of stone walls as slumping, but apparently they do—or is no longer stock-proof. To maintain the historic value of the walls, the scheme requires that the work should retain as much fabric as possible. Traditional materials, in keeping with existing walls, should be used. The source of all stone has to be identified and agreed. The stewardship scheme has led to the restoration of more than 1,000 km of stone wall since 1991. The trend is not entirely downhill.

Similar arrangements apply in environmentally sensitive areas, such as my hon. Friend's doorstep in the Pennine dales. MAFF will pay farmers up to 80 per cent. of the cost of repairing and maintaining dry stone walls. In the Pennine dales, 5.3 km of stone wall have so far been restored with funding from the scheme. That does not include work done on stock-proof walls, which must be maintained as a requirement of the ESA scheme. My hon. Friend believes that more walls could be saved if there were a separate grant scheme that focused on maintaining and repairing walls and other field boundaries. That point was also raised in the Select Committee report. As our response indicated, experts have advised that the best value for money, and the most benefits for landscapes and biodiversity, will be achieved through an integrated approach to conservation. We do not consider it right to divert funding from existing agrienvironment schemes to separate grants for ad hoc boundary restoration.

The point made to me is a call not for the diversion of funds from agri-environment schemes, but for a simpler subsection within those schemes that would focus on walls and field boundaries.

I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who work on such matters will note that point.

Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that more than £1 billion would be available over the next seven years for countryside stewardship, environmentally sensitive areas, organic farming and farm woodland premium schemes. We hope that that will mean that more walls can be restored in future.

As my hon. Friend acknowledged, MAFF is not alone in supporting the active management of dry stone walls. National park authorities operate local grant schemes in recognition of the important contribution that walls make to natural beauty and heritage. For example, restoring walls is a high priority for the Peak district park authority, which restored 13,260 m of wall in the 10 years up to 1999, and has in recent years given grant aid for more than 10,000 m of wall a year. That is a good record. The North Yorkshire moors national park offers land managers 70 per cent. grants for the restoration and repair of dry stone walls. Since July 1997, more than 22 km of wall have been repaired under that scheme, at a total cost of about £109,000, and several jobs have been created.

That leads me to another point that has arisen during the debate. We have heard about the importance of ensuring that traditional wall-building skills are passed on to future generations. I am aware that there is a problem in some areas with a shortage of skilled labour able to carry out restoration work. Local intelligence suggests that, but for that, more Pennine wall could be restored. However, the training opportunities that are available should help to increase the pool of skilled workers. For example, Lantra—the national training organisation for industries that make a living, directly and indirectly, from the land has developed a series of courses on landscape boundaries within its environmental training portfolio, including units that specialise in dry stone walling skills. All Lantra's training courses can be counted towards national vocational qualifications. I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend, to the part played by the Dry Stone Walling Association and voluntary bodies such as the National Trust and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

MAFF hopes to be able to provide help with training in the near future. The European Union's rural development regulation will provide aid for vocational training for farmers and others involved in agricultural and forestry activities. Several priority areas have been identified, including countryside and environmental skills such as dry stone walling. MAFF is planning to make available a total of £22 million over seven years for its training scheme, subject to the European Commission's approval. It is a case of "watch this space".

My hon. Friend paid tribute to the key role played by voluntary groups. She may like to pass on to them the news about a new national grant scheme that helps local groups to investigate, explain and care for local landscapes, landmarks and traditions. The local heritage initiative launched in February is planned to run for 10 years at a cost of £45 million, and is expected to support about 300 projects each year. It is administered by the Countryside Agency, with funding from the heritage lottery fund and the Nationwide building society.

This has been a good debate about an important issue. Given what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the picture is not entirely bleak. A great deal of progress is being made, and we must ensure that that continues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that a debate of such importance should be shuffled sideways to this parliamentary annexe. It may suit the Government, who do not seem to be as interested in—

Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this annexe, as he calls it, is the House of Commons.

I understand that; it is perhaps convenient for the Government, but it belittles the House as a whole. However, I hope that my brief remarks will be a useful postscript to the much fuller debate in the House of Lords on Latin American trade, admirably initiated by Baroness Hooper on 8 February, which itself complemented the debate on Latin America on 9 June 1999, led by Lord Montgomery, who has made such a notable contribution to the promotion of trade and good relations with Latin America. The loss to Parliament of his expertise and that of Lord Dundonald, the honorary consul for Chile, will be a sad side effect of the so-called reform of the other place.

As secretary of the British Latin American all-party group, officer of the Colombian and Chilean groups and a member of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group—as well as of Canning House for purely educational reasons—I have a personal but not a commercial interest in Latin America, which is strongly inspired by a love of Chile, the land of my wife's birth. I hope that the Minister will understand where I am coming from.

Distance and lack of contact deepen British business pre-conceptions of Latin America, often deterring many small companies from exporting which, with more knowledge and support, could find significant niche markets there. Big firms need less assistance to identify, analyse, develop, exploit and sustain export opportunities. Yet in Latin America, local understanding and personal contact are essential, and small and medium-sized enterprises need all the help that they can get.

A few major economies dominate the region, but even Brazil ranks 29th in a list of countries to which the United Kingdom exports, and Argentina 39th. Of the nations from which the United Kingdom imports, Brazil ranks 31st, Mexico 40th and Chile 44th. I know the great interest that the Minister for Trade takes in these matters from a meeting that we both attended on Brazil not long ago. Nevertheless, the potential is immense, not just for British investment. In this regard, the United Kingdom does well. I believe that we are the third biggest investor in the region, after the United States of America and Japan. However, potential exists for burgeoning British export trade in carefully selected markets.

The resurgence from recession of the Brazilian, Mexican, Chilean and Argentine economies is impressive. Bolivia has been a model of good economic managment. Bolivia and Peru offer more optimistic prospects than the other Andean community countries—Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela—but, with rising oil prices and a resolute effort to tackle political and social difficulties, their time will come. Expert guidance to exporters to such markets is essential. I was pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry organised an excellent seminar on the Andean community, which I had the privilege of attending only a few days ago.

The formation of British Trade International as a consequence of the Wilson report, to bring together the trade promotional functions of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is laudable, but its benefits could be vitiated in Latin America. The idea of a single committee for the Americas in British Trade International may appear to be a grand rational strategy on an organogram, but if it subsumes the work of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group in a single in-house operation, I fear that the loss of LATAG's wide, practical business experience of Latin America's exceptionally diverse, sensitive and sophisticated markets would soon be deeply regretted by British exporters, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. For example, the chairman of the British Argentine chamber of commerce, Mr. Peter Edbrooke, wrote to me on 10 March stating:

In all its bilateral activities the—

British Argentine chamber of commerce—

works closely with a number of other bodies, prominent amongst which is the Latin American Trade Advisory Group … Bilateral relations with Argentina have developed and strengthened after the significant problems of 1982 in the South Atlantic. They nonetheless remain delicate. In this context. the BACC views with great concern recent considerations to abolish Area Advisory Groups.

We believe that such a move, in addition to considerably weakening Britain's resources and its effectiveness in its trade relations with Latin America would be interpreted by most Latin American countries, including Argentina, as a retrograde and even slightly insulting move.

I trust that you will able to make known and support our views.

The attitude of unjustifiable British condescension must always be vigorously resisted. Damage was done, if we are candid, to the United Kingdom's commercial relations with Chile by the British detention of Senator Pinochet. The Government failed to understand that General Pinochet secured as high a percentage of the popular vote—44 per cent.—in the plebiscite that caused him to relinquish power as the Prime Minister received in the 1997 general election. Chile has a sophisticated economy and is a stable democracy. It is not the cold war cockpit of the early 1970s.

I am pleased that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office went to President Lagos's recent inauguration. Ministerial visits are important and the Minister is diligent in making such visits, but they should be carefully focused. Perhaps too many Ministers have been to Cuba, which receives only £25 million of British exports a year, and not enough have been to Chile, which takes almost 10 times as much. The official visits to the United Kingdom of President Frei of Chile, President Menem of Argentina and President Cardoso of Brazil in recent years have opened doors to British exporters. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should spend less time at European Union meetings and more time in Latin America and other global markets. Diplomatic missions in Latin America should be beefed up, not reduced, and where there are opportunities for British defence sales, the number of attaches, including service attaches, should be maintained, not diminished.

In the meantime, full opportunity should be taken of the reform of export promotion by Sir David Wright, head of British Trade International. He brings impeccable personal credentials to the task, not least from his long diplomatic experience in Japan—a tough market for British exporters if ever there were one. The key must be to build on the strengths of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group and Canning House. LATAG's committee of business people to provide strategic advice should still advise British Trade International on British exports and investment in Latin America. LATAG's secretariat is ideally qualified to maintain awareness of business opportunities in the region for small and medium-sized enterprises. LATAG's assistance with trade missions and seminars is' invaluable and its co-operation with trade associations and chambers of commerce is exceedingly effective. We must build on its strengths. Its location in Canning House offers the key.

Canning House is the centre for Latin America in London. It is a prestigious, internationally recognised centre for informed discussion and study of Latin American politics, business, literature and culture. It has the support of political bodies, finance, business, the British Government and the European Union. The benefits of merging the Latin American trade advisory group and Canning House have been compellingly spelt out in a memorandum of 21 February from Sally Unwin, chairman of Canning House, and Alexander Kennedy, who is chairman of LATAG. Hon. Members who participate in events organised by the British and Latin American parliamentary group will have gained a first-hand appreciation of the wonderful work done by Canning House in the annual parliamentary seminar that it organises for hon. Members and members of the House of Lords.

The memorandum of 21 February, from which I shall briefly quote, spells out the benefits of a merger. It states:

By merging the two entities, the delivery and cost effectiveness of the services now provided separately to UK businesses and to government can be improved, as well as providing a platform for their further development.

The single entity would reinforce the complementary link between the UK's cultural and trade interests in the region.

It would … address admirably one of the issues highlighted in the Wilson review, by resolving the confusion, in the UK and Latin America, over the relative functions and roles of the various private bodies and government departments working on overlapping aspects of the region.

The merged organisation would provide government and British Trade International with one stop access to specialist skills in trade promotion in Latin America.

It would constitute the only source of strategic, regional advice on Latin America to SME's.

It would concentrate the existing strengths and identity of LATAG and Canning House.

As I said at the beginning of my speech,

Canning House would provide specialist, regional, private sector input to the Americas Umbrella Group of British Trade International through LATAG.

Conversely, if LATAG were to be removed from Canning House, all opportunities for synergies and savings would be lost and Canning House would have to curtail, perhaps drastically, the scope of its existing activities and we should not underestimate its negative impact in the region.

The memorandum concluded:

British Trade International is embarked upon a modern and more innovative approach to trade development and export promotion. We recommend the above proposals on the basis that they promote the same agenda and offer a genuine partnership between the public and private sectors.

So do I.

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for initiating this dabate. He and I have two subjects in common—Latin America and the aerospace industry. His contribution to both is well respected in the House, but his analysis lacked its usual objectivity. I detected a little of his party political views in his comparison of the vote for President Pinochet with that for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

This debate gives me the opportunity not only to respond to the hon. Gentleman's points but to discuss relationships and set out what the Government are doing. In doing so, I shall explain our plans for improving delivery of services and support to British companies. The main vehicle for the new approach is British Trade International, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The debate is timely, in that it coincides with this week's important visit to Brazil by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, accompanied by a strong team of business men and women. I shall return to that visit in due course.

I doubt whether any hon. Member needs to be convinced of the importance of Latin America and the role that it will play in Britain's economy in the future. I became convinced of that in 1995, when I visited the Argentine and Brazil with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. What we found is as true today as it was then, and the report at the time made several recommendations to the Government. The opportunities for trade and investment were—and are—substantial. Over the past decade, the region has been transformed. It was once a region where too many countries suffered from rampant hyperinflation, unmanageable debt, high tariff walls, low foreign investment and military Governments. The Latin Americans themselves talked about "the lost decade", which is now well and truly behind us. Throughout the region, countries have tamed inflation, slashed tariffs and opened their economies to foreign and intra-regional investment. Developments in the region have brought countries closer together, both politically and economically, and reduced historical animosities and conflicts.

Mercosur—the common market of the south—is recognised throughout the world as a growing economic force and a necessary partner. In 1995, when I was in Latin America with the Select Committee, Mercosur's development was impressive by any standard. The speed at which change has been managed has had a substantial impact on the development of Latin American economies. Mercosur and the people who put these developments in place deserve credit for that.

As has been said, the Andean community seeks a free trade area with Mercosur. That continuing integration, together with an improving economic climate, will open up vast opportunities for trade and investment. Indeed, the growing robustness of Latin American economies was amply demonstrated during the economic crisis in Japan, south-east Asia and Russia. That crisis, combined with low commodity prices and sluggish world exports, has severely tested the Latin American economies. However, most have come through in a way that has surprised many observers—none more so than that of Brazil. A little more than a year ago, following devaluation of the currency, there were dire warnings. Recession and the re-emergence of rampant inflation were predicted to follow. The picture is now very different: Brazil has achieved a remarkable out-turn. Growth, though small, is defying the doomsters, and inflation has been kept in single digits. Last year saw record investment, so we have a picture of a continent that is very much in business and eager to develop partnerships.

Unfortunately, Britain has been slower than many of our competitors in recognising those changes and the opportunities that have arisen from them. I think that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that to the House's attention. Latin America still does not receive the attention that it deserves in this country in the media, among the business community, or from politicians, despite the efforts of many hon. Members. On the other hand, there has been a striking growth in the teaching of Spanish in our schools and elsewhere. Indeed, two members of my private office staff are taking lessons, so it has even spread to Government Departments. I do not know why; perhaps my staff are trying to tell me something. Perhaps they are on their way.

The striking feature of Britain's involvement with Latin America—as opposed to that of many other countries—has been the prominent role of investment. That means investment in machinery, plant and fixed capital, as opposed to portfolio investment in stocks, shares and other securities. Investment has continued to grow, and has been stimulated by the right economic and political conditions. Britain has long been the leading European investor, athough other countries, such as Spain, which are generally taking a more active role in privatisation, are challenging that. We have a good record in the Argentine, and I hope that our record in Brazil is changing. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister is there—for important investment involving British Gas and the national grid.

When the Select Committee was in Brazil, British Gas—as the whole company was called in 1995—was in the Argentine, laying down a major part of the energy infrastructure. It brought much of its supply base with it. I remember a welding company from Warrington that flew out there as a supplier and sub-contractor to British Gas. The technique of welding was picked up; a good deal of work was fed back to the UK; and a totally different relationship with many of the Argentine companies developed. Many opportunities were created.

Our strength in investment has not acted as it should as a catalyst for trade in goods. Britain has a markedly lower share of Latin American imports than inward investment. It has generally been below 2 per cent., while our share of world imports is closer to 5 per cent. We have much to do to correct that imbalance and to start catching up with some of our competitors. Our task is simply stated, but will require a major effort to ensure that many more British companies seize the opportunity for trade, investment and partnership in Latin America.

In my capacity as chairman of the all-party Latin American group, may I thank my right hon. Friend and former squash partner for all the work that he has done in Latin America? Does he intend to see Michael Valdez-Scott and the Latin American trade advisory group about these problems? Is he coming on to that?

Yes, I am coming on to that. It is many years since my hon. Friend and I played squash together. Taking it up again would be no bad thing in view of my current weight.

Much has already been done, but we must look firmly to the future. We must do as much as we can to ensure that our businesses are well equipped for the task ahead. That means ensuring that the support and promotion services provided by the Government are the best available and meet the needs of the business. They must be customer-focused and we must ensure that we use our resources more effectively.

When we came to power in 1997, we began that process with the export forum. Its aim was to assess the effectiveness of existing services and we implemented its key conclusions—more refined market priorities, a greater emphasis on sectors and outward investment, and customer focus, which was to be the key. Having assessed the requirements for services, we needed to establish how best to deliver them. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, was appointed to that task in 1998. His report on export promotion resulted in the establishment of British Trade International, whose aim was a more coherent approach with an overriding customer and sector focus, an improved regional delivery service and a shift towards trade development. It helped companies, especially small companies, to develop the capacity and ability to tackle overseas markets.

Much has been achieved in a short time by bringing two major Departments of State—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry—together to drive forward the agenda on trade promotion and development. For the first time, there is a published national strategy for trade development and promotion. There is a board, of which I am co-chairman with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, consisting primarily of business people, who meet regularly to help to drive the agenda forward.

Perhaps most importantly, we intend to raise awareness of our services—essential if we are to make an impact in developing British business success overseas. Over the coming months we shall see regional events and a high profile national launch. We shall tell British business and our partners about the important changes in the means by which we provide our services. We shall focus particularly on the new electronic gateway to our services, provide a new emphasis on trade development services and new regional structures, and offer a new service brand unifying our various activities in one joined-up package.

As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood knows, and as I explained in my recent letter to him, the Wilson report also recommended that the board should review the structure and role of the business advisory groups involved in carrying out promotional activities and providing advice. I reported that those groups vary their focus, financing and role. That task has been undertaken by Sir Martin Laing, until recently the vice-chairman of the board. He has already presented his initial recommendations and I expect him to put his report and final recommendations to the board at the end of this month.

In examining the role of groups such as the Latin American trade advisory group, it is important to distinguish between two separate main functions:advising the Government on a strategic approach to the region; and promoting opportunities in the market. LATAG was set up to give private sector advice to the then British Overseas Trade Board on doing business in Latin America. In addition to serving a committee of private sector representatives, the secretariat also assisted the Department of Trade and Industry in promoting markets, advising on business inquiries and running trade missions. This promotional role supplements a much bigger initiative which the Government have in place to promote Latin America.

Private sector business advice is not confined to LATAG. Our commercial teams in both the United Kingdom and our posts in Latin America include people who have extensive business experience in the region. There are seven export promoters in the UK. They are senior executives who have been seconded from the private sector and have first-hand experience of particular markets and sectors. Staff have been recruited for their business experience and clear knowledge of their own markets. Throughout England, 80 export development counsellors have been recruited from the private sector. They operate within business link networks to assist companies with exporting. Many export development counsellors have been taken on missions to Latin America via British Trade International to familiarise themselves with the markets.

Sir Martin Laing's initial recommendations looked at four strategic multi-market groups which mirrored the internal structure of BTI. These groups could provide advice on regional priorities and spend. Sir Martin also proposed the establishment of export groups associated with these multimarket groups to provide more focus, advice and activity. The groups would be established for a defined period at the end of which their continued relevance and contribution to BTI's objectives would be reviewed. Sir Martin will present his recommendations, including options for the structures of business advisory groups, to the board of BTI at the end of the month. Meanwhile, no decision has been reached on the structure or role of existing groups such as LATAG. When a decision is reached, it will take full account of the contribution that such organisations might make to the delivery of BTI's objectives. It will also take account of other considerations such as efficiency and value for money. It is both helpful and constructive, therefore, that LATAG, in association with Canning House, has submitted proposals to Sir Martin Laing on how its relationship with BTI might evolve. We shall consider the proposals seriously when decisions are taken.

I wish to make it clear that none of that is preventing the Government from driving forward their commitment to a closer business relationship with Latin America. We are doing this on a number of fronts. But we are targeting specifically the major markets of Brazil and Mexico, by promoting trade missions to and from the region. We are supporting companies which wish to exhibit at trade fairs by supplying a range of support services and through ministerial visits. The Deputy Prime Minister is visiting Brazil this week. The brochure entitled "The Visit to Brazil by the Deputy Prime Minister" sets out the names of the people who have accompanied him and the areas that they will cover. There is an impressive array of top business people from various sectors such as banking, ports, airports, construction, water, telecommunications and energy. My right hon. Friend will meet President Cardoso, senior Ministers and other members of his Government as well as important players in the business community.

Yesterday, we announced increased export credit guarantee cover and reduced premium rates for Brazil. Rates will compete internationally and extra credit will be sufficient to cover the expected significant increase in business. This underlines our commitment to this huge important market and will be an important element in the second year of our initiative to target business opportunities in Brazil and the wider Mercosur region.

In January, I launched a three-year promotion campaign to help British companies develop their business with Mexico. The campaign will involve a range of new services and initiatives to attempt to raise awareness of Mexico among British businesses, support outward investment, especially by medium-sized companies, encourage the use of digital technology for commercial purposes and develop regional links. As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey announced in the upper House last month, we are planning a touring millennium products exhibition next year to several Latin American countries, including the Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and, possibly, other countries. It will be supported by other events promoting Britain as a country at the leading edge of technology, design and innovation. Finally, there will continue to be a full programme of support for trade fairs and trade missions throughout the region. That programme is intended to be the biggest ever, and will take many British companies to new, exciting markets.

That all adds up to a substantial effort to back our commitment. Indeed, at a recent event attended by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the Brazilian ambassador offered congratulations—

Order. We must wind up.