To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had concerning the funding of Cheshire's business innovation centre; and if he will make a statement.

I have had several representations, including my hon. Friend's, asking for grants from the European regional development fund to be made available to the Cheshire business innovation centre. The centre is eligible to apply.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are moneys available at the European level for the business innovation centre? Will he encourage the local authorities to apply for that money, and give the application fair wind?

It is not a matter for me to adjudicate upon, but moneys are available and I hope that an application will be made. My hon. Friend's urging is of great significance and will be taken into account by those who ultimately make the decision.

If an application is made now that moneys are available, will the Minister give it his support in the right quarters in Brussels?

The application will be considered by the programme monitoring committee. Clearly, the application must satisfy the usual criteria—notably, that it represents good value for money and that there is no duplication. I am sure that those making the application will apply their minds to satisfying precisely those criteria.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from engineering companies in Norfolk about the single European market.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while Norfolk firms are gearing up for 1992 they are also helping the disabled and handicapped? Perhaps he will join me in paying particular tribute to Bead Engineering, which recently won a Fit for Work award for employing disabled people? Is my hon. Friend further aware that while Norfolk firms will definitely benefit from the Department of Transport's recent commitment to dual the main trunk roads into King's Lynn, they will have to compete on a level playing field in Europe? What steps will my hon. Friend take to ensure that a level playing field exists?

My hon. Friend played an important part in having the roads of King's Lynn improved and I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his success in that. I have no doubt that he also played a part in ensuring that unemployment rates have fallen by 14 percentage points in the last 12 months. As to the broader issue of a level playing field, my hon. Friend is right to say that the removal of state aids and the provision of level playing fields is an important policy objective.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that right hon. and hon. Members should ask only one supplementary question, not more.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of local authority trading standards officers to discuss consumer affairs.

I met representatives of local authority trading standards officers on three occasions in 1989 to discuss consumer matters, and my officials have frequent meetings with trading standards officers.

Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in trading standards offices and in British industry that the harmonisation of safety laws throughout Europe will mean the dumping of dangerous foreign goods on an unsuspecting British public?

If there is such concern, it is misplaced. Authorities will still have powers to identify any items that are proved to be unsafe and to remove them from the market. That will be against the background of creating the single market and a single, verifiable and viable product safety standard so that consumers throughout Europe can be equally assured of the safety of products on the market place. We shall continue to strive for that objective.

When the Minister met the trading standards officers, did he discuss with them the compulsory annual recording of car mileages? If he did, does he agree with them that it is an essential means of cutting down on fraud in the car markets? If so, when will he introduce legislation to carry it out?

The answers are no, no and I do not have it in mind.

When my hon. Friend next meets the trading standards officers, will he discuss with them a serious problem which has arisen for small petrol retailers? The trading standards officers have said that pumps must be changed to allow for unleaded petrol by the end of the month, but the manufacturers and installers of the new pumps are unable to meet the demand, largely because they are overworked by the big oil companies. Will the Minister tell the trading standards officers to take things calmly in view of the backlog?

I am slightly surprised that the matter has not been brought to my attention other than by my hon. Friend now. He suggests that I have some powers over trading standards officers. I am sure that the House will be reassured to know that I have no such powers and that the trading standards officers do their excellent work totally independently from the Government. However, I acknowledge the problem that my hon. Friend has described and I will find out what can be done to alleviate it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from Britain being a dumping ground, the stringent laws that have been introduced in Britain for the furniture industry make us unique in Europe so that no European manufacturer can sell in Britain without attaining our standards and we are leading the world?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I should like it to be more widely understood in Britain that throughout the furniture industry enormous efforts have been made to comply with our high furniture safety standards. I very much welcome that, and I believe that people in Britain can be reassured that they will enjoy the highest standards of furniture fire safety in Europe if not the world.

Is the Minister aware of the public concern over his failure to reappoint Esther Rantzen to the National Consumer Council—[Laughter.]

Order. I do not think that it is really a laughing matter.

I agree entirely, Mr. Speaker. It is far from a laughing matter. Is not the truth simply that the Minister cannot face the criticism that that consumer champion articulates on behalf of millions of people in Britain? Is not she paying the penalty for supporting the Consumer Guarantees Bill which the country and people overwhelmingly want and the Minister implacably opposes? Will he consider reappointing Esther Rantzen to the NCC as part of a Government contribution to world consumer day tomorrow?

I am not aware of the source or the nature of the public concern claimed by the hon. Gentleman. Ester Rantzen has served three terms on the National Consumer Council. That is exceptional in itself and I felt that it was time for new blood and new ideas. Despite the fact that on her programme some three or four weeks ago Ester Rantzen invited people to write to Members of Parliament and to me expressing their public concern about the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as of a few days ago I had received only one letter in reply.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many overseas-based companies have now established manufacturing facilities in the Birmingham area.

To date, some 50 companies have established manufacturing operations in Birmingham. Recent announcements include projects from two West German companies, Kirsten Automotive Ltd and Keiper Recaro, which will be located on the Woodgate business park in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing tide of foreign companies investing in Britain, certainly in Birmingham and the west midlands, is evidence of a strong resurgence of manufacturing capability in the region? Does he further agree that the role of the West Midlands development agency has been a spur to encourage much of that investment and that it is the wish of businesses in the region that that work should continue and increase?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the West Midlands development agency, and he will know that I have been able substantially to increase the money that goes to that organisation. It must be said that my hon. Friend has also made a considerable contribution to attracting industry to his area. I was extremely grateful to him for his support of the Keiper Recaro project. I greatly valued my hon. Friend's representations, which enabled me to form a clear view of the matter, following which I was able to give the project a grant.

The Minister will know that, even with the inward investment in the west midlands, which we all welcome, manufacturing investment in the area is lower today than it was in 1979 and that even in high-tech industries, as defined by the Department of Trade and Industry, 10,000 jobs have gone since 1981. What will the Minister tell industrialists and workers in Lichfield in Mid-Staffordshire about Conservative economic policy?

I will tell them the truth, and they will be mightily impressed by it. Between 1984 and 1988, more than 260 inward investment projects in the west midlands created or safeguarded about 36,500 jobs. While we are talking about investment, I should point out that manufacturing investment in 1989 was 5 per cent. higher than in 1988 and 34 per cent. higher than five years ago. That is the fastest rate of growth in any three-year period since the war. That is what I shall tell them and they will find it very persuasive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much is to be provided by his Department in the form of grant for research into civil aircraft avionics under the first phase of the control technology programme.

I am pleased to say that the Department has offered a grant of £3·88 million for the programme under the civil aircraft and aeroengine research demonstration budget.

I welcome that reply. Is not that just the pump primer that we need to develop digital avionics bearing in mind how necessary that is for the next generation of civil aircraft? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just what business and the Government should be doing so that we can develop our industry and rebut the Opposition's claims that we do not have an interest in the future redevelopment of our aerospace industry?

Absolutely—I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is a particular champion of the British aerospace industry and I am grateful to him for that. On the substantive question, pre-competitive collaborative projects are extremely important to the Government and we put a lot of money into them. That is one reason why the aerospace industry is so successful.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that that excellent news is transmitted to the engineering unions, which so recently sponsored a strike in the aerospace industry which damaged the prospects of Airbus Industrie and the future potential for the research that my hon. Friend's Department is funding?

I shall certainly point out that the Government are showing a commitment to the engineering and aerospace industries which is not always apparent among Opposition Members or in the trade unions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions he has taken to remove the regulatory obstacles to business.

The Department of Trade and Industry has a co-ordinating role around Whitehall in deregulation matters. In addition, each of the major Departments has a Minister and officials responsible for deregulation in their own areas. They are charged with the task of reviewing existing regulations to establish whether they can be simplified and reduced and for ensuring that new regulations meet the right standards so that they do not impose an unreasonable burden on business.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I applaud his will to do something about the over-regulation of the business community, but is he aware that the DTI still administers 48 quangos with esoteric functions such as the "persons hearing estate agents' appeals" body, and so on? Is he also aware that the section of the Civil Service guide dealing with the ramifications of the Department's interventionist bodies runs to 70 columns? When will those bodies be curtailed?

My hon. Friend may rest assured that the DTI is extremely keen to reduce unreasonable regulation. We are busy in many areas—for example. in the financial services. Tomorrow we shall take up the powers under the Companies Act 1989 to simplify the financial services regulations, without in any way endangering investor protection. We are also announcing the removal of the need for company seals under the Companies Act. We have set out arrangements for simplified financial statements and we have introduced a great deal of simplification in export licences.

As the Minister has referred to so many people involved in trying to help businesses to avoid the problems imposed on them by the Government, has he had any representations about—and is he planning to take action on—the problems caused to small businesses by plans to force them to administer and enforce attachment orders related to poll tax? There is considerable anxiety about the personnel problems as well as the administrative problems that they could cause.

If I receive representations I will forward them to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment. The burdens on business that the Government impose are modest compared with those that would be imposed by the policies of the Opposition parties. I was interested to see a recent study by Public Policy Consultants, an independent body, which said that if Labour policies were adopted the burdens on business would rise substantially, which would be deleterious to the conduct of business in this country.

Does my hon. Friend accept that despite his positive answer about the review of the work of the deregulation unit, which is certainly encouraging, there is a need to reduce the considerable hurdles that firms have to overcome when they start up and to prevent new hurdles from being placed in their way? My hon. Friend's Department may be good at preventing such hurdles, but not all the other Departments are so good. Will he therefore keep a vigilant eye on them because that is also part of his task?

As I explained earlier, the main responsibility lies with each Department and its deregulation Minister to see that its regulations are responsible and reasonable and that the burdens on business are not insupportable. That is what they are doing. Of course my Department will remain vigilant through its co-ordination role, and my hon. Friend is right that particular problems affect small businesses and new businesses. That is why the deregulation unit at the DTI, in conjunction with other Departments, is making a special study of a group of small business start-ups problems to see whether we can cut through still more red tape.

Will the Minister explain in what conditions he would use the existing regulatory structure applying to businesses under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986? We should be interested to know under what conditions he would operate the phrase "public interest" if not in the case of the Fayed brothers and the House of Fraser.

I have nothing to add to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on that subject last week, or to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's remarks at Question Time. It was made quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had taken into account all necessary matters and had decided that it was not in the public interest to pursue that case.

My hon. Friend has referred to the Companies Act 1989 and financial services. Is he satisfied that the whole approach of self-regulation, with its plethora of self-regulatory organisations, continues to operate in the interests of the investor and as expected when the legislation went through the House?

I think that the 1986 legislation is a major advance on what preceded it. A statutory framework operates through the Securities and Investments Board. I also welcome the fact that the SIB is currently keen to see regulation reduced to the minimum required to meet the necessary standards of investor protection and is working hard on the rule books with the self-regulatory organisations to ensure that that is so. I am also pleased that in the Companies Act 1989 the House passed the provision ensuring that the cost of compliance must be taken into account when forming regulations for financial services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters he intends to discuss.

I look forward to a continuation of constructive dialogue with the president of the CBI on matters relevant to the well-being of British business.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to have a word with that dodo of a Secretary of State so that when he meets the CBI he appreciates the CBI's concern about investment in our manufacturing industry? The Government should be forced to help so that industry is competitive. Will he also have a word with the Secretary of State about the serious situation arising out of high interest rates which help to make our industry uncompetitive? The Minister should get his right hon. Friend up off his backside and let us have some industry working in the interests of the nation.

I look forward to the discussion, as we shall begin by discussing the fact that in the three years ending in 1989 investment increased by around 40 per cent. As I have already said, that is the largest three-year growth since the war. I shall express my pleasure at that and I shall go on to say that no doubt such investment is at least partly responsible for the fact that in the past 12 months unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 30 per cent.

When my hon. Friend next meets the president of the CBI will he ask him to congratulate his members on producing products that people want to buy, and which are of excellent quality, at competitive prices and are offered with good after-sales service and delivered on time? That is why the industrial base of our country is now outstripping the rest of Europe. We do not need any carping from the Opposition.

I entirely agree with that. One of the extraordinary things about the Labour party is its willingness to denigrate British industry. I shall certainly congratulate the president of the CBI on the fact that exports are 11 per cent. higher than they were 12 months ago. That is an extraordinary achievement and it is proper to congratulate the CBI on it.

Now that the Secretary of State has virtually abandoned his responsibilities in relation to City fraud and is also winding down his responsibilities to the regions and even to export services, will the Minister at least wake up to the damage that his 15 per cent. interest rate policy is doing, particularly the 45 per cent. rise in business liquidations reported to the Lord Chancellor? Does he agree that a do-nothing Budget for industry will simply not do and will he urge upon the Chancellor an investment budget for industry and training which will help bring interest rates down?

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, in last Tuesday's debate, I referred to the hon. Gentleman as having made a speech composed of stale jokes and ignorance—on this occasion he left out the stale jokes. The liquidations point is a good example of the hon. Gentleman's ignorance. He seems unaware that there are 60,000 more firms opening each year—that is the difference between the number closing and the number opening. In a dynamic economy there are both closures and new firms starting. At present, there are many more new firms than closures, representing a fourfould increase on the previous 10 years. That is a basic fact. The hon. Gentleman should do just a little more homework, please.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to promote increased trade links between the United Kingdom and Hungary.

My Department is taking an active interest in promoting trade with Hungary. For example, it is leading trade missions. I led one myself, and last week there was a successful industrial delegation to Hungary. The Foreign Secretary also visited Hungary recently.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that he is taking. Does he agree that Hungary represents excellent investment opportunities for British businesses and that it deserves special recognition as the first eastern bloc country to throw off the shackles of Socialism and to introduce democracy and the beginnings of a market economy?

It is certainly one of the more promising areas of central and eastern Europe where business opportunities are considerable. That is not just my view but the view of the investing companies of western Europe. Many successful joint ventures have already been created by western companies and some by British companies, which I especially welcome. The Government will, of course, extend the hand of friendship and assistance and ensure that the interests of British businesses are well represented in Hungary and in the other promising eastern European countries starting out on the process of enterprise and democratic reform.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he prefers, rather than direct investment at this stage, to support management training and the giving of technical assistance? Has he considered approaching British businesses to see whether they would second some of their younger managers to Hungary and other eastern European countries for a period? They could provide much assistance on matters such as marketing and distribution.

The purpose of the know-how fund is to encourage such links and to help in financing the transfer of know-how. Of course, I would welcome it if British businesses made talented managers available to help in that process. I believe that many will also decide to invest in countries such as Hungary where they will learn for themselves, at close quarters, of the trading conditions and opportunities in that country. British business men are already winning contracts there and I am pleased to announce that Rank Xerox signed a contract last week for £250,000 and has already done £700,000 of business in the year so far. That is a major improvement on the conditions which existed prior to the changes that we are discussing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made in reducing tariff barriers in interventional trade in the current general agreement on tariffs and trade round.

It has been agreed that participants in the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations should submit offers of tariff reductions by mid-March, to be followed by requests for improvements in others' offers by the end of April. I expect the European Community to offer a reduction of around one third in tariff levels, which is the target agreed by Ministers at the mid-term review of the round. This would be subject to review in the light of offers from others.

Does the Minister accept that for trade to be fair there must be reciprocal openings of other markets in third countries outside the EEC if the international conditions are to be stabilised and made productive for all parties? Does he recognise that the particular interests of the high-quality cashmere industry in the central and border areas of Scotland are vitally dependent on getting access to those new markets? Will he give the House an assurance that the special interests of the high-quality hosiery industry in those areas will be taken into account when negotiating the final EEC mandate for the GATT talks?

The hon. Gentleman is right. There needs to be reciprocal action by all parties to the GATT discussions so that there is progressive market opening on both sides. There is major asymmetry in current tariff levels with Japan at 2·5 per cent. and the European Community at 5·5 per cent. on average for industry, whereas India and Brazil are at 135 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively.

Is the Minister aware that there is concern in parts of the footwear industry in my constituency about the possible dumping of shoddy goods from abroad? Does he share with me a robust view about fair competition but, nevertheless, agree that where there is any evidence of unfair practices the Government will take action?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to make trade more liberal and to open it as much as we can, but there need to be GATT disciplines—as there are—if trade is unfair. One of the negotiating objectives of our partners and ourselves is to ensure that there are sensible disciplines against sudden surges m imports of sensitive products and against dumping and other malpractice.

Will the Minister make it clear that unless real safeguards are secured for international textiles within GATT the British Government remain committed to an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement? Will he say what progress is being made in persuading the Americans to abandon national quotas?

We have extensively debated the arrangements for the MFA and for the transition that would be necessary if successful negotiations were achieved in GATT. Those debates made it clear that GATT procedures and protections will need to be strengthened in several areas, such as design and intellectual property, surges of imports, dumping, subsidy and other problems of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. I reaffirm the pledge that those are matters for the GATT negotiations and that they will be handled by the EC negotiators. As we come near the end of the round—it has to be completed this year—it will be necessary for the EC as a whole to make a judgment about whether sufficient progress has been made and whether the right assurances have been achieved for the package to be in the EC's interests by giving us more free trade opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received from the group of major British exporters in respect of ECGD.

Recent representations made by the Major British Exporters Grouping were taken into account in the report submitted to the Secretary of State by the official interdepartmental working group formed at his request to advise on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by the group of major British exporters on the future of the project sector of ECGD, in that the international competition is much involved in utilising its own ECGD type of mechanisms? Is not the national interest involved? In view of the substantial contribution that the major British exporters make to our balance of payments, how does my hon. Friend view the future of the project sector?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade made it clear when they announced their proposals for the ECGD that the project sector would be kept separate from the insurance sector. The insurance sector is already profitable and is suitable for privatisation. The project group will remain under the Government's aegis. I accept that there is a role for such assistance to leading British exporters.

Will the Minister confirm that the Export Credits Guarantee Department is bankrupt? Is he aware that the ECGD is supposed to help Third world countries as a sort of insurance against the lack of money that they suffer from time to time? Is not it odd that the Government, who pride themselves on their business activities, now find their insurance department in the red? On top of that, we hear today that invisibles are also invisible.

The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round. The purpose of the ECGD is to offer cover for British exporters doing deals in those countries and to protect them against specified risks in return for certain premiums. Of course ECGD is not bust—it is supported by Her Majesty's Treasury and it has money from the Consolidated Fund to make sure that it can fulfil its role and carry out its remit. The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been generous support for ECGD in past years. That was necessary, given the risks that were covered and the important role played by that organisation in helping to finance British trade.

Will my hon. Friend say something about the review of the ECGD and that we would like to see a level playing field for European and worldwide trade? Surely other countries give better deals to their manufacturers and exporters. Unless we provide equal treatment for our traders, they will be at a great disadvantage, particularly as our trade is now suffering and needs a boost. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the ECGD will continue to back British industry?

The ECGD has to conduct its policy within the framework of the GATT disciplines and of the European Community policy against state aid. If my hon. Friend has evidence of unrealistically high levels of state support by competitor countries I should be interested to see it, as would the European Commission, which is currently conducting an inquiry into the general issue of state aid. Of course, Britain does not wish to be undercut by other countries abusing state aids, but the British Government believe that the disciplines within the European Community and GATT should be strengthened to avoid an expensive and damaging trade war by escalating subsidies in that way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the director-general of the National Economic Development Council; and what was discussed.

My Department has frequent contacts with the director-general of NEDO and his staff on a wide range of business matters and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to continuing those when he chairs the council on 4 April.

Has the Minister discussed with the director general Britain's disastrous balance of trade figures, which show a £14·4 billion deficit with the EC for 1989? Did the Government consider a joint approach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggesting that an interest rate of more than 15 per cent. is hardly conducive to increasing trade and investment and thus reducing that tremendous deficit?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to talk about exports because he will find the position rather encouraging. In the three months to January 1990, excluding erratics and oil, the volume of exports was up 4 per cent. over the previous three months and by no less than 11 per cent. on the previous year. Those are encouraging figures. I am also pleased to note that between January last year and January this year unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) has fallen by 22 per cent.

What does my hon. Friend think that the prospects of the British economy would be if we renationalised most of our industries, increased income tax and national insurance, put a levy on training and increased corporation tax, all of which are policies that have been put forward by the Opposition?

Experience has shown that the Labour party has not a clue how to manage the economy. Two things would happen. First, the competitiveness of British industry would plummet—let us not forget that the competitiveness of British industry plummeted by 25 per cent. when the Labour party was in office. Secondly, inflation would escalate—let us not forget either that it reached a high point of 26 per cent. or thereabouts in August 1975. That would be the inevitable consequences of the Labour party's policy.

I hope that if the director general ever meets the Minister he will get more sense out of him than we do. That apart, can the Minister say whether there will be discussions about the economy of the west midlands? As my hon. Friend said, the level of manufacturing investment has fallen and there has been a 70 per cent. fall in apprenticeships in the engineering industry from 1979 to date. That is a serious problem for the engine of the British economy—the midlands—so what does the Minister intend to do about it?

The director general might be a little upset by the hon. Gentleman's offensive words. As usual, the Labour party has got it wrong. The west midlands has been extremely prosperous and is the chief magnet for inward investment. As we are discussing the west midlands, I shall mention manufactured exports, which rose by 3·5 per cent. in the past three months. That is jolly good news and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that.

May I divert my hon. Friend's attention to a more fundamental matter? Has he discussed with the National Economic Development Council the acute and dangerous dependence on the Japanese semi-conductor industry, not only in this country but in western Europe and America? If not, will he show the NEDC the recent advisory report to the President of the United States, highlighting the grave consequences if that dependence is not reduced?

I have not discussed the matter with the director-general, but I may find an appropriate occasion to do so, as I would welcome his views on the European programmes that we have in place, particularly on this matter. I think that they are the proper way forward and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding he proposes to give citizens advice bureaux and consumer advice centres for 1990–91.

My Department does not provide funds specifically for consumer advice centres or directly to citizens advice bureaux. Details of the DTI grant in aid for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland in 1990–91 will not be available until after the Chancellor's annual statement on 20 March.

That is a very disappointing reply, given that the Government's policy is to keep interest rates high. He will know that many thousands of families are in a desperate situation because of mortage rates. Banks and other lending societies are giving easy credit and the only bodies people can turn to are the advice bureaux. In view of the Government's policies, ought not the Government at least to consider financing those organisations?

No, because since 1945 the system has been—correctly, I believe—that the responsibility for funding bureaux at local level lies principally with local authorities. We very generously finance the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in London and Citizens Advice Scotland in Edinburgh to such an extent that Government funding has more than doubled in real terms over the past 10 years. It is worth noting that advice from the financial institutions, to those who seek it, is increasingly available from the private sector. We encourage that and think it right, and we look for the tendency to increase in the future.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the advice given by citizens advice bureaux is non-political, and that the money spent by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is not kept at the centre to promote politically-oriented advice?

My hon. Friend voices an anxiety which I know is shared by many. It is legitimate when considerable sums of taxpayers' money—£9 million or £10 million per year—is given to an organisation such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I think and hope that those involved with the work of CABs are aware of the worries that my hon. Friend has expressed—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has not been called to ask a supplementary question.

My hon. Friend seems to have touched a raw nerve among Opposition Members. I do not know what they are trying to conceal by their shouting and barracking, but I hope that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux feels that it has nothing to conceal.

Does the Minister accept that many people will note what he and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) have said about the citizens advice bureaux, which exist to represent the interests of their clients whatever the Government in power? If the national association is being seen as another Marxist cell, we have reached a point where few people will take seriously what the Government say on these issues.

Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest a little too much. Everyone will wish to examine his words carefully as they were certainly not the words that I used.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in towns and cities such as Stockport, which are well served with citizens advice bureaux, it is an utter waste of money to set up a welfare rights unit on the community charge?

My hon. Friend is as assiduous as ever in drawing the attention of the House to what is going on in his constituency. He may wish to draw the same matters to the attention of the community charge payers of Stockport, who will wish to take a view at the local elections.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters he expects to discuss at the next meeting of the EEC Industry Council.

The next meeting of the EC Industry Council will be held on 28 May. It is provisionally scheduled to discuss audiovisual matters, industrial targeting in electronics, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) Participation in Community research and development programmes and SME access to public procurement.

Is the Minister aware of the European study, which stated that the steel industry has a bright five years ahead of it? Will the hon. Gentleman stop procastinating about the Scottish steel industry and give it his full support to ensure that it takes part in that bright future and that steel workers who have given their all to this country remain in full employment?

My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he should not lead with his chins but reflect more carefully before he asks questions. British steelmaking is among the most productive and profitable in the European Community. Incidentally, I always take it well from hon. Members if they preface their remarks by telling us by how much unemployment has fallen in their constituencies in the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman did not do that, but I will tell the House that in his constituency it has fallen by 21 per cent.

When my hon. Friend attends the EEC Industry Council, will he raise the issue of artificial obstacles to exports to Japan? Recently, a confectionery firm in the west country was required to obtain certificates from Harwell for each item of confectionery certifying that each item was not radioactive. There was also a requirement at the trade fair in Japan sponsored by the DTI demanding that the firm display a large sign over its stall stating that the items on show were not fit for human consumption and would be destroyed after the fair. Will my hon. Friend draw attention to that issue please?

I cannot guarantee to do that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be helpful if he drew it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are anxious for the Japanese to admit yet more British products into Japan and, so far, we have achieved considerable success. In the past 12 months, exports to Japan have increased by about one third. In the same period, the number of passenger cars imported into Japan from the United Kingdom increased by 75 per cent. If those figures are wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans to help British exporters.

The DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office offer a comprehensive set of services to British exporters in overseas markets. We already have a good range of services in major markets, such as the United States of America, the EEC and the far east. In response to a previous question about Hungary, I announced the way in which we are strengthening our services in certain eastern European markets, especially Hungary.

That all sounds patriotic, but why are the Government proceeding with the dogmatic privatisation nonsense in relation to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, some parts of which are being privatised while others are left with a big question mark over their future? That is spreading uncertainty throughout the OECD and those who depend on it. Why are the Government advancing with the Union Jack in one hand and the privatisation axe in the other?

It is because privatisation works where other systems do not. That is why it is being adopted world wide to strengthen accountability and to improve services on a broad scale. I have already explained to the House that profitable insurance services are being privatised to bring them into line with EEC requirements, so that they continue to offer a good service to British exporters. The other services that we provide, costing £138 million a year, are welcomed widely by British industry, and exporters are proving to be successful.

Does my hon. Friend accept that exporters need decent postal services, and that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of those services? Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to get rid of the Post Office monopoly, which has led to poor quality service?

I am sure that, like everyone else, exporters want high quality postal services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for postal affairs is present and no doubt has heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Does the Minister agree that the prospects for exports have not been helped by recent Government decisions—for example, the strange decision to turn down the invitation to Britain to be special guest country at the Hamburg trade fair in 1992? Will he confirm that the French accepted that invitation since we declined it? Surely the German market is important for our visible and invisible trade now that the latter is also in the red. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we do not lose out in that market in the future? When will he take our trade problems seriously?

I have explained the numerous measures that the Government are taking and how the private sector is responding. That is why exports are rising and why we are doing well in many markets around the world. The hon. Lady is not listening to my answers. Many services are on offer; people are taking them up and the results are there for all to see in an improving balance of trade.

Will my hon. Friend keep one of the old plans well in mind? I refer to the assistance to exporters for appearing at trade fairs. I follow the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) in this. We are a proud island race with a wonderful boat-building capability. British marine industries are doing very well and they need that extra help so that they can appear all over the world and contest what we fear will be the rise of Japan into that new market.

Yes, of course the Government will support British exporters, as I have already described. As my hon. Friend knows, the British Overseas Trade Board runs a system of sponsored trade fairs, which many British exporters find most welcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Recycling Advisory Group to report on its consideration of recycling of domestic and industrial waste.

The group is expected to complete the current phase of its work before the end of May.

Given the absence of provisions for recycling in the Environmental Protection Bill, will the Minister arrange for the report to be printed in full and then immediately introduce legislation to implement that report?

No. The hon. Gentleman perhaps misunderstands the purpose of the group. It was formed last September from a wide variety of interests to advise my Department and the Government generally about the way forward on recycling. We look forward to its preliminary conclusions, but they will not be part of a formal report. However, we expect that the group will provide a major input to the preparation of the environment White Paper later this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is excellent to encourage householders to segregate and dispose of waste so that it can be recycled, ultimately the only efficient way forward is to encourage waste disposal authorities to negotiate with recycling companies so that 90 per cent. of domestic waste can be recycled?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he tempts me to prejudge and pre-empt the recycling group's conclusions, which I am reluctant to do. The group will examine precisely those aspects and I look forward to its conclusions to ascertain how we can best put such recommendations into effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in the textile industry.

The latest available figures show that imports of textiles exceeded exports by £1,565 million in 1989.

As the Minister knows, given today's dreadful news that our invisible balance is also in the red, those figures give no room for complacency. What objectives does the Minister have for the forthcoming multi-fibre arrangement talks in Europe? Will he specifically tackle the global quota requirement which the United States is establishing and which, as we all know, is simple protectionism?

I have already covered that in answer to a previous question and in extensive debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of Industry has also answered such a debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to help the textile industry, and any other industry in the United Kingdom in the export market, is to ensure that we do not indulge in practices such as sanctions which prevent our exporters from benefiting from the markets of people who want to buy from us?

My hon. Friend is right. Open trade is the best of all worlds. It creates prosperity for all who accept its disciplines. It has to be negotiated through GATT to ensure that everyone agrees with it. There are examples of great success within the textile industry. I pay tribute to the wool textile industry where exports are up 10 per cent. to record levels of £673 million in the last year and where there is a favourable balance of trade. Companies such as Courtaulds, Coats Viyella and Dawson International are among our leading exporters and I wish them every success in exporting still more.