To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

The reduction of inflation is the precondition of renewed sustainable growth.

Given that the second Tory recession is set to cost 550,000 manufacturing jobs and 100,000 companies and is set to put the United Kingdom at the bottom of the European Community league table on under-investment and employment in 1992, will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that urgent action is needed to boost employment in Britain to take us out of this situation? Will he also introduce training schemes to put the United Kingdom back where it was before we had a Tory Government and to take it out of this recession?

The key to renewed growth is lower inflation, which in turn makes lower interest rates possible. The interest rates in this country are now down to their lowest differential with those on the continent that we have seen for many years. We certainly do not need higher taxes, a minimum wage and the restoration of trade union power, which would prolong the recession and abort a recovery.

I thank my right hon. Friend for responding so promptly to my request that either his good self or my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs should visit Nottingham. I understand that the Minister is planning to visit Raleigh Industries within the next 10 days. That company is the most famous cycle manufacturer in the world, but it is subject to the most unfair dumping of bicycles from China. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to protect that most famous name in the industry.

I recognise the powerful representations that my hon. Friend has made for industries in his constituency, and particularly the bicycle industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet representatives of that industry when he visits Nottingham and will discuss the problems with them. Anything that we can do within the context of European Community trade policy, we will do.

On top of the 2,300 jobs tragically lost at British Aerospace today, the textile and motor trade federations are now predicting 40,000 more job losses this year, the Building Trades Federation predicts that 50,000 more jobs will be lost this year, the Engineering Employers Federation predicts that 70,000 more jobs will be lost, and the Confederation of British Industry has said that 200,000 jobs will be lost in total unless Ministers take action. Has not the Government's last remaining friend, the Governor of the Bank of England, now extinguished the Government's last remaining claims to a pre-election recovery, and is it not the case that, having lost his support, the Government have now nothing left to lose but the election?

I naturally regret the loss of jobs by British Aerospace and other companies, not least those in my constituency. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the press release from British Aerospace today began:

"The aviation market continues to suffer from the world-wide recession".

The hon. Gentleman, however, continues to deny the existence of that recession, which makes a mockery of those who have lost their jobs as a result of it. British Aerospace has to reach world standards of productivity and efficiency, as it made clear in its press release. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House of the additional job losses that would follow if Labour's reckless defence cuts were superimposed on the problems already faced by the industry.

The Governor of the Bank of England said that there are firm indications of an upturn coming and that the basis of sustainable growth remains a credible commitment to the goal of price stability. The Labour party could never credibly offer that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in manufacturing output between 1985 and 1990.

Manufacturing output rose by nearly one fifth between 1985 and 1990.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large proportion of world-beating, world-class companies? That is illustrated by Rolls-Royce, which has quadrupled its share of the jet engine market since 1987 and, even today, by the news of the British Aerospace section, which has a £13 billion per annum order book and in size is second only to that in the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would not be nearly so many such companies if they had to put up with the economic and industrial policies of the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is right to mention the strengths of those companies, even when they face difficulties in world markets, and to emphasise the difficulties that they would face at home if a Labour Government were adding to those problems. There has been a tremendous growth in exports in the aerospace industry, as in other industries. We welcome that and will do all we can to sustain and build on it in the future.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that bankruptcies and liquidations, affecting manufacturing as well as other industries, are at record levels not only in the south-east but particularly in Wales and Scotland? Will he also confirm that the fact that those bankruptcies and liquidations are occurring now in high-tech industries is a particularly worrying aspect? Does he agree that there is plenty of venture capital about, but that the venture capitalists do not have the confidence to know where to invest it? How will he instil confidence in the market so that investment in manufacturing industry can really start again?

Confidence will not be instilled by harping solely on the negatives. Naturally we regret any rise in bankruptcies, but let us remember the strengths of British industry, which has increased exports in the past 10 years by more than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that answer because he wants to talk Britain down.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the motor manufacturing industry is one of the greatest providers of employment in this country? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the company car is not a tax-avoidance weapon but an essential tool of British industry and that, if we are to have a strong home-based industry, we do not need taxes so high that Jaguar and Rolls-Royce lose money? If those companies cannot sell their products at home, and if the Government do not encourage them at home, people abroad will not be encouraged to buy them either.

I have always shared with my hon. Friend a belief in the importance of manufacturing industry, particularly the motor car industry. Therefore, like him, I rejoice in the fact that in the last three months of last year the motor car industry earned a surplus on the balance of payments, and exports of motor cars rose by 55 per cent. I shall convey his point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who also recognises the great importance of a strong and recovering motor car industry.

I notice that the main question carefully ended with the date "1990". Why has manufacturing output fallen faster and further in Britain's economy than in those of any of our competitors in western Europe? Does the Minister not yet realise that the country needs action, not words?

The hon. Gentleman should remember that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and that it is up under this Government. Compared with 10 years ago, at the same point in the economic cycle, output is up by nearly a quarter, investment is up by a third, manufacturing productivity is up by more than a half and manufacturing exports are up by nearly three quarters. That is a record to be proud of and to build on in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for telecommunications headquarters of internationally mobile companies.

The United Kingdom is extremely attractive as a location for inward investment in the telecommunications industry. Recently, US West and IBM have announced that they are to move their business headquarters to the United Kingdom. One of the important characteristics of those moves was the support that it represented for British liberalisation policies. Many more companies will follow as investors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Government will continue their policy of liberalisation in the telecommunications industry and continue to welcome foreign companies to compete on an equal basis in this country—provided that, in return, our companies can compete in those countries?

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is exactly what the Government intend to do. We welcome all sorts of investors here on fair terms. Another feature that we welcome is that manufacturers are now investing here in the manufacture of equipment to supply the telecommunications industry because of the strength of the underlying service provision in this country. How much I welcome NEC, Motorola and the other companies, which make large numbers of mobile phones in this country in response to the strength of the cellular mobile phone market.

Is it not strange that, while foreign companies invest in this country, British companies which are aware of the position here have invested £40 billion more overseas than the foreigners have invested here?

Investment both ways is welcome because free trade and free investment flows increase world prosperity. I am delighted that enough large companies in this country have the profits to invest both here and abroad to bring more dividends and income into this country. It is a great testimony to this country that far more of the large, successful companies in Europe are based in Britain than in France or Germany.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the stunning improvement in telecommunications in this country in the past 12 years has been led by British Telecom? Will he confirm that not only has British Telecom invested—this is what the Opposition keep talking about—£20,000 million in new technology, but it has contributed no less than £1,000 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer?

My hon. Friend is right. Much of the major investment in this country's telecommunications infrastructure in recent years has been from BT, which has made a much bigger contribution to the Exchequer than it did in the 1970s, as it is more efficient, more productive, sells more services, makes more money and pays more tax. That is true not just of BT—a large number of other investors are coming on to the market. Some £5 billion is pledged from the cable companies alone, which now have 20,000 telephone service customers. That is just the beginning. Many thousands more will follow. We offer choice, competition and more investment—how different from Opposition policies which would smash profits and investment, and return to a monopoly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the figures for steel production in the United Kingdom for the last two years for which figures are available.

United Kingdom production of crude steel totalled 17·8 million tonnes in 1990 and 16·5 million tonnes in 1991.

Is the Minister aware that in Scotland we have gained the impression that while the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to have meetings about the industry—such as the one that he had yesterday with the shadow Secretary of State for Industry—the man with the real power in relation to the steel industry, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is not prepared to lift a finger to help secure a future for steel production in Scotland? Will the Minister answer one straight question? Is the Department of Trade and Industry prepared to do anything to help the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) to try to secure thin slab steel production in Scotland—or are we to be left entirely to the mercy of that virtual private monopoly, the British Steel Corporation?

We would be happy to consider the prospects for thin slab steel production, but unfortunately there has been absolutely no commercial interest in such production. Those are the economic facts of life. As for the Government's position, we are investing £120 million to help the people and economy of north Lanarkshire, including £40 million from this Department. The hon. Gentleman asks what we intend to do. One could well direct that question to the Labour party. Will the Labour party nationalise, subsidise and force British Steel to keep the plant open? The Labour party should put up or shut up.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Steel's productivity woud be fatally crippled by Labour's absurd proposal to ban coal imports? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of imported coal goes directly to British Steel and that that coal is not currently available in the United Kingdom? Should not the Labour party occasionally pause and think before announcing ridiculous objectives which would cost so many British jobs?

We are extremely worried about that proposal, which was no doubt drawn up on the back of an envelope. British Steel tells us that there is no viable United Kingdom source of metallurgical—grade coal—coking coal. It has to import 100 per cent. of that grade of coal and take advantage of world markets to buy from the cheapest source. The Labour party wants to stop British Steel importing that coal.

British Steel has trebled productivity since 1979. Does the Labour party want to return to the days when British Steel cost the taxpayer £8 billion or £16 billion in today's money. The Opposition must withdrawn their policy, and do so today, or everyone will know what their policies mean for British Steel.

Is the Minister aware that the case for expanded production and investment at the Dalzell plate mill in Lanarkshire is now backed by the Glasgow university study, the Scottish Office, the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish National party and Motherwell district council, all of whom believe that it is an outstanding plant, given the requisite investment, with a ready market for its enlarged product? Would the Minister be prepared to back such investment and expanded production, provided that the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is prepared to stop rubbishing the plant and its work force?

There is every provision for market investment in this area. If the market wants to back such a scheme the market will back it.

Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that in the heady days of politician-directed industrial strategy in the 1970s Britain had a deficit on our steel trade of £1 billion per year and British Steel lost £16 billion during that decade, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient steel maker in Europe and we have a surplus on our steel trade of £1 billion per year? If Labour Members are so keen on Ravenscraig staying open, why does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) not have the guts—or perhaps the influence in the shadow Cabinet—to give an unequivocal commitment that if the Labour party came to power it would keep Ravenscraig open?

I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is seeking to intervene. The whole House is waiting to hear what the Opposition's policy is. Will they subsidise? Will they nationalise? We want to know now.

Is the Minister aware that the proposals for the expansion and development of the Dalzell works have been pursued for many years more consistently and vigorously by the Labour party than by any other party? Is he also aware that British Steel cannot go ahead with its plans for building a new plate mill on Teesside because of the depth of the recession into which the Government have plunged the country? Is he further aware that he is out of date about the commercial interest in thin slab production at Ravenscraig, which has been communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland but not, apparently, to the Department of Trade and Industry?

Is the Minister aware that substantially lower steel production costs are being achieved by NUCOR with thin slab production in the United States? Will he confirm, in line with undertakings given at the time of privatisation, that he expects British Steel to consider offers for the sale of Ravenscraig on a commercial basis at opportunity cost—at a price which British Steel could expect to get for the plant on world markets?

That was a very interesting academic lecture, but it was absolutely meaningless because I have already said that if there was a market for thin slab production we would welcome that. Once again, despite the smoke-screen, the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question to which everyone in Scotland wants an answer. Will Labour subsidise Ravenscraig? Will it nationalise it? Will it force British Steel to keep it open? The Opposition refused to answer that in the recent debate, and they have refused to answer it again today. Their only guiding light is ambition for office, and they refuse to tell the people of Scotland what their policy is. That is disgraceful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in the last six months to protect hosiery and knitwear manufacturers from dumped third-world imports.

The United Kingdom Government will pursue vigorously with the EC authorities any dumping cases brought to our attention. In this industry, none has been brought in the past six months. Last year, under different provisions, a temporary ban was imposed on Chinese underwear imports to stop a temporary surge.

Is my hon. Friend aware that up to 500,000 jobs in Britain depend on having a sensible, controlled market, and that discipline and control of third world dumped imports can be brought about only if we have a sensible GATT regime? Will my hon. Friend please encourage my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to press to ensure that we have the protection of a new GATT structure as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend has my full assurance. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade are dedicated to pursuing sensible GATT solutions to these problems. The Government fully recognise the importance of the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, (Sir J. Farr) so ably represents, and we want proper GATT disciplines for fair trading in this as in other sectors. I hope that our partners in the world economy and the European Community will assist our efforts to achieve speedy resolution of the GATT discussions.

How is it that at the British yarn show held recently in Leicester the chairman of Benson Turner, a firm of spinners in my constituency and an efficient and well-organised company, complained that the Department of Trade and Industry shows inertia and indifference when the industry submits complaints about illegal subsidies and dumping? The chairman called on the Department to take action about those complaints because if it did not do so there would be little industry left to take action about.

I can promise that the Department will take vigorous action where there are good cases. I am advised that no cases came to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the past six months. The hon. Gentleman should represent his constituents by writing a letter with specific complaints. We shall then take action to follow it through with the EC authorities.

My hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work in the knitwear industry and are grateful for the steps already taken by the Government. Does he agree that they are at greater risk not from imports but from the minimum wage, which would devastate the knitwear industry?

My hon. Friend is right. The proposals of the Labour party, and some of the proposals in the Maastricht social protocol, would be deeply damaging to the industry. We do not want to see those jobs destroyed. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might like to remember that in the polyester yarn sector, which is not covered by the question, there are anti-dumping suits going on, so we are pursuing the cases of which we are aware.

Is the Minister aware that it is not true that there have been no notifications of dumping in the past six months? Is he aware of the work that the Scottish Knitwear Council has been doing with departmental officials showing that in 1990 a total of 123,000 knitted garments in cashmere coming from China were dumped over the quota agreed? What action is the Department taking to seek compensation and redress so that the overshipments in 1991 and this year are stopped forthwith?

The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) was specific. It asked about six months in a limited industry, and I gave an accurate answer on that. There have been cases in cashmere relating to an earlier period and we are pursuing those actively with the EC authorities. We have to ask whether there was some failure in the mechanism of the quota arrangements, and whether they can be adjusted or whether there needs to be some compensation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is actively pursuing that.

rose—

Order. We are making slow progress. In fairness to those whose questions come further down the Order Paper, I propose now to speed up a bit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Post Office's negative external financing limit for the year 1992–93.

A negative external financing limit of £66 million has been set for the Post Office for the year 1992–93.

Since 1979, the Post Office has contributed more than £1 billion in negative external financing limit payments, at 1991 prices, cutting back on investment and milking the customer. Would it not be far better for the Government to end these punitive and ridiculous double tax payments—the Post Office already pays corporation tax—thus allowing it to concentrate on improving the quality of service to customers rather than pursuing abolition of the second delivery in towns and putting restrictions on rural services such as insisting that people have letter boxes at the bottom of their gardens or, in some cases, making people go to village centres for their letters? Should not the priority be investment to improve the quality of services?

Let us put the matter into perspective. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am only trying to answer the question. We are talking about an organisation which has a turnover of £4 billion. It is not unreasonable that, from that, it should give its only shareholder—the Government—a dividend of £65 million per year. If we did not require that dividend, which is spent on hospitals, schools and much else, we would be able to cut only about 1p off the 24p cost of a first-class stamp. This year, the Post Office has a £340 million capital investment programme. The first and second-class delivery services have shown a marked improvement over the past two or three years. The Post Office is a successful and profitable organisation, and I hope that the Opposition wish it to remain so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the rural sub-post office is at the heart of the rural community and that it plays an essential role in west Norfolk? Will he do what he can to ensure that as many Government services as possible are available at post offices? For example, why cannot every rural sub-post office have a vehicle relicensing facility?

We are anxious to protect the rural post office network and one of the main purposes of the citizens charter is, through the process of competition, to improve quality and choice within the constraints of an affordable uniform tariff. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, that we have very much in mind the needs of rural post offices and we shall look with interest at any requests that they make to us for extending their liability to sell other services.

Does the Minister accept that it is feared in rural areas that a move towards privatisation would lead to services that require subsidies being axed, which would be a body blow to those rural areas and their opportunities for economic development? Can he give any assurance about the future of such services in rural areas?

I have already given such an assurance. I have said that the Government are committed to the maintenance of the uniform tariff structure, about which people in rural areas are concerned. That is the commitment that we have given and by which we stand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to visit Mucking Flats in south-east Essex, to discuss industrial growth in the area.

I shall read this answer with particular care. I have no plans at present to visit Mucking Flats.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government's progressive policies in privatising the electricity industry, that area of south-east Essex deserves a visit because methane produced by all the muck that comes out of London is being dumped at Mucking Flats, converted into electricity and sold to the national grid, thanks to the enterprise of Cory's, which is in my constituency? Is he further aware that, just up the road from Mucking Flats at Shell Haven, Shell and Mobil are planning to turn their spare gas into electricity? Does not that show that when we introduce private enterprise we turn muck into brass?

My hon. Friend offers me an enticing invitation which I shall consider taking up. This is an interesting plan and I am delighted that my Department has been able to offer a grant to help it. We want to see the environmentally friendly development of electricity. I understand that this scheme will be able to light up a town of about 30,000 people, just as my hon. Friend can today, almost single-handedly, light up her constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession in industry.

My right hon. Friend receives considerable correspondence about the state of northwestern business.

Will the Minister confirm that since 1979 there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in manufacturing industry in the north-west—a larger proportion than in any other region in the United Kingdom—that last year 16,800 jobs in the manufacturing and engineering industries were lost and that, unfortunately, we foresee more jobs being lost as a result of the statement made by British Aerospace today? Faced with those facts, what action will the Government take? Why do they stand aside as British manufacturing industry is reduced, whereas our main competitors in other countries support their industries?

My right hon. Friend set out the Government's policies some time ago in a clear document that was fully backed by the CBI, which believes that we have the right policies to improve our competitiveness and to take advantage of lower inflation and of business conditions around the world as they improve. In the 1980s, north-western output expanded, as it did nationwide. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that manufacturing output was up by more than one fifth, and productivity, investment, and exports by much more impressive figures. The CBI stated recently that matters will improve and the Bank of England says that the leading indicator measures point firmly to an upturn in output in 1992.

As to British Aerospace, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that the Government will continue vigorously to support exports of military aircraft—something which is strongly opposed by many Opposition Members? What is the Government's attitude to Labour's proposal for a defence diversification agency, bearing in mind that if it were so easy to create jobs through a Government agency, it is surprising that Labour has always left behind more unemployed than when it took office.

My right hon. Friend is right. The Government will offer all assistance under our policies and programmes to help British Aerospace to export its products. After all, it is orders that businesses need to provide jobs and to guarantee employment. The large defence cuts that Labour proposes would be ruinous to job prospects, and its ham-fisted intervention plans would not work. It would not be easy to effect the transition that Labour suggests by Government sleight of hand. What is required is careful business planning by the managers and directors of the companies concerned.

Yes, but if the Minister will come into the real world, he will find that redundancies are still occurring. Many of the redundancies at British Aerospace involve white-collar workers, including professional engineers—many of whom are graduates. What future will they have in the recession that continues under the present Government?

The worldwide recession will lift. It is doing so in many parts of the world, and that provides export and job opportunities. Skilled people always have opportunities ahead of them, and I am sure that they will continue to do so under this Government, who have the right economic policies. Those opportunities would be wrecked by the Opposition's policies for commerce and industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's deregulation unit.

The Government have a strong programme of deregulatory work. I will announce shortly the work programme for the coming year. Removing or reducing burdens on business is vital to successful enterprise policies.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work so far. Does he agree that minimising the regulatory burden on business is a worthy objective for any Government? Would not it be a disaster for business throughout the country suddenly to be confronted by a long list of new regulations and constraints? I refer to social audits, contract compliance agencies, work force monitoring, compulsory disclosure of information, minimum wages, equality tribunals and many other Opposition ideas.

That is a forbidding and worrying list for all business people. One of this country's great strengths is that the burdens imposed by the Government on employing people are much lighter than in France and Germany. That is why we enjoy higher inward investment compared with those two countries. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen think that that is amusing. They do not understand the importance of keeping costs under control, and of making sure that the Government do not impede enterprise.

As an apostle of deregulation, will the Minister investigate why British Transport Advertising has banned British Medical Association advertising that seeks to discourage smoking by young people when, at the same time, the tobacco industry spends £300 million on advertising—

Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.

I do not see how I can answer the question as I could not see properly the document that the hon. Member was waving.

We proceed here by speech, not by visual aids.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he announces new proposals for deregulation he will ensure that he and his officials have consulted the Minister for small businesses to see that every effort is made to take into account the needs of small businesses and that deregulation, wherever possible, is increased, so that small businesses can get special exemptions where possible from what can be very complicated regulations and procedures that the Government introduce?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Much practice in the past year or two has reflected just that process, after a good deal of consultation with small businesses. They have been exempted from certain reporting requirements by my Department under the companies legislation, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a lot of measures in last year's Budget to improve the position of small businesses, because tax is revealed to be one of their most noticeable problems when they reply to our consultations.

When the Minister reviews the business regulations will he consider extending that review to the regulation of financial institutions, in view of the problems with the collapse of Guinness III and the potential collapse of Guinness II, and in view of the serious difficulty with fraud regulation at present, particularly now that only three people will be going to gaol for a shorter time than the whole of the Guinness trial was taken, with one of them, Mr. Ernest Saunders, whose sentence was reduced because of ill health, on the national media this morning in blooming health and protesting his innocence?

I do not intend to comment on individual cases before the courts. The general principle of the Government's policy is clear: we will ensure that people who commit fraud and swindles are brought to book through the courts. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently made statements, and was on the radio this morning, about the review that he is conducting of how court procedures can be improved. The House can rest assured that the Government will take every action possible to bring villains to book. We will not tolerate them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the long-term effects of the recession in industry.

British industry is well placed to grow as we recover from the recession.

Does the Secretary of State recall that in the last recession under this Government the collapse of manufacturing industry was said to be making it leaner and fitter to face the future? Ten years on, and having lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the northern region alone, manufacturing is faced with yet another recession, only this time, far from leanness and fitness, it is faced with malnutrition and is dangerously near the point of no return. With 6,000 manufacturing jobs being lost every week and 1,000 businesses a week going under, what action does he intend to take before more of our industrial capacity is lost altogether?

We are used to the Labour party believing that it can talk up its support by talking the country down. The hon. Member believes that he should talk down his own region and constituency. I notice that the Newcastle Journal has the headline "North-East bucks the trend with firms taking on more workers", and I am sure that the hon. Member will be delighted that Vickers in his constituency, making the new tank, has excellent opportunities at home and export prospects abroad. They would be helped by, and I am sure that they would welcome, a positive, upbeat statement from the hon. Member about the revived and renewed prospects for the north-east, which has been transformed not least by inward investment which is threatened by the Front Bench of the Labour party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the shadow Chancellor recently visited the James Halstead group in my constituency—it employs more than 400 people and is successful in making good profits—he expressed satisfaction to the local media that most of the technology that he saw was British-made and that most of it had been made 20 miles from Bury? Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition actually trumpeted these successes in the British manufacturing industry instead of moaning and complaining and doing British industry down?

Absolutely. I noticed that this did not feature in their party political broadcast, wrongly entitled "Made in Britain" and alleging that virtually nothing was made in Britain, when we not only have the successes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) in his constituency but export far more television sets than we import and make the best hi-fi in the world, and when one in ten personal computers sold in the world are made in this country—in Scotland.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the beginning of 1990, manufacturing investment has fallen by 35 per cent? Will he tell the House why he has rejected the CBI's call for investment incentives and investment strategies?

The CBI urges people not to take a short-term view, as the hon. Gentleman does in considering only a 12-month period. If we take a 10-year view, we see that manufacturing investment is up by a third in comparison with a similar part of the same cycle. I believe that, as we come out of the recession, we shall find that British industry is much stronger than it was during the same period at the beginning of the 1980s, and that it will prosper mightily during the remainder of the 1990s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the "199?" hotline has received from small businesses in Essex.

Nationally, calls for January this year have been over 50 per cent. higher than the corresponding period last year, and nearly 120 per cent. higher than in December 1991. Calls to the single market hotline are not necessarily recorded on a geographical basis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, next month, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and I shall be visiting the European Commission and Parliament—not only to tell Mr. Delors that he cannot have all the money that he is asking from the British people, but to create business opportunities for our constituents? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon, the finest town in the country, is strategically placed to take full advantage of the single market? Of course, my hon. Friend's hotline is available to help my constituents with their inquiries.

My hon. Friend always speaks out powerfully for Basildon: he has done so for the past eight years, and I have no doubt that he will do so for the next eight.

Basildon is indeed well placed to take advantage of the single market, but it is important for companies to be well prepared. It is therefore extremely encouraging that, only this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the 250,000th call on the single market hotline—and he could give the answer to the caller's question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and range of discussions he has had with OFTEL on the length of time customers have had to wait to have their telephones repaired; what changes in waiting time there have been in the last seven years; and if he will make a statement.

The Government and the Director General of Telecommunications frequently discuss telecommunications policy issues. Ninety-nine per cent. of faults are now repaired in two working days, compared with 87 per cent. in 1985. My hon. Friend may remember that, in 1980, a quarter of a million people had been waiting for more than two months for telephones to be connected. Seven days—a week—is a long time to wait for a telephone service nowadays.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that our policy of privatisation and the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry has led to lower prices and a better quality of service for the consumer? In the light of that, and of the answer that he has just given, would he care to contrast our policy with that of the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is right: our policies have been most successful in achieving higher-quality service and lower-priced telephone calls. How welcome that is. Labour's policies, which are partly monopoly and partly over-regulatory, and aim to damage the industry's profits and investments, could only make matters worse. Quality would deteriorate and people would have less choice and therefore a less good service.

Given the position of such firms as Motorola at Bathgate do the Government recognise that what such firms really want is infrastructure, and that local authorities should be helped to provide it?

All kinds of infrastructure are being provided, both through the expenditure of public moneys under programmes organised by, for instance, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, and through the provision of large amounts of private-sector capital in the case of such matters as telecommunications infrastructure. The big surge in investment has been possible only because of the liberalisation policies pursued by the Government. It is being backed up by road programmes and by railway and other investment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industrialists urging the Government directly to intervene in the strategic direction and management of companies.

The CBI report "Competing with the World's Best" rejected the notion that Government could or should

"be in the business of picking winers, or of engaging in direct intervention in the strategic direction and management of companies".

Yet is that not exactly what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his hon. Friends are advocating, through the establishment of a national investment bank and a host of other measures—despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has never done a day's work in industry in his life? Clearly, the British people do not want a return to the failed interventionist, socialist policies of the 1960s and 1970s—and that is another reason why Labour will be defeated at the next general election.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is extraordinary that only last week the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that the Labour party is still wedded to bodies such as the national enterprise board, despite the fact that, of the 102 companies in which that body invested, about 35 went bust, 38 were sold at a loss and only the remainder managed even to return taxpayers' money.

Will the Secretary of State have some regard for companies like Lawtex, a firm in my constituency that went into liquidation, resulting in the loss of 120 jobs? Six months later, those people are still waiting for their redundancy payments. Why are the Government sitting on their backsides and failing to see that they are paid now?

With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, if there is any question of the law of the land not being obeyed I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reconsider the boundaries for development and assisted-area status in Devon.

The Government intend to conduct a full review of the assisted areas—for all of Great Britain—early in the next Parliament.

After the general election, will my hon. Friend give priority to consideration of rather more remote areas, like Ilfracombe, Barnstaple or South Molton that have rural or coastal connections? Should not the Government be considering places where rail and air communications are poor and where the reduction in the defence programme is causing employment problems?

My hon. Friend is a very effective constituency Member. I know that he lobbies hard on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, he has already brought two delegations to see me. I am aware of his constituency's problems, and I promise that as soon as this review is held we shall urgently consider them. He spoke generally of the problems of rural areas and less-favoured areas. It is interesting that since I have been the Minister responsible for regional policy, regional spending has increased from £506 million in 1990 to £534 million in 1991–92. That shows an elementary fact of political science: that when one becomes a Minister one does the opposite of what one previously promised.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will increase the level of expenditure on the environmental technology innovation scheme.

Although there has been a good response so far to the environmental technology innovation scheme, there are no plans to increase the current allocation of £12 million.

Given the nature of the tasks facing industry, that seems a rather small amount of money. Is any of it used to find alternatives to CFCs in the manufacture of refrigerators, foam, and so on? I assume that the Minister is aware that 750,000 tonnes of CFCs are used in the world every year and that that has resulted in an ozone layer hole as large as Alaska. What are the Government doing to further alternative technologies?

We believe that this scheme will attract considerable sums of private money for the development of such technologies. We believe that small and medium-sized companies, which tend to be the most innovative, will be persuaded to develop new technologies and that that investment will result in considerable leverage. About 280 applications have already been received. I am not sure whether any of them cover the technology that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but, like him, I recognise the importance of solving the problem and hope that, by this scheme or otherwise, solutions will be found.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff at the university of Kent and the two commercial pharmaceutical companies with whom the university is combining in a venture called "Viridian", which is a programme of environmental biotechnology based entirely on bacteria that are naturally available? Under that programme, they have been able to demonstrate ways of breaking up many dangerous industrial wastes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that there is scope, through a range of Government and quasi-government bodies, to encourage action beyond what can be done with direct Government money?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who are involved in this research. I recently had the privilege of opening the display on biotechnology in George street. This is a subject in which Britain has a lead over the rest of Europe and much of the world. We want to strengthen that lead, as we believe that it is in the interests of British industry, British science and the world environment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of overseas investment in the European Community is made in Britain.

According to the latest information published in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic outlook, December 1990, in 1988–89 the United Kingdom had a nearly 40 per cent. share of the total inward foreign direct investment in the EC.

Is not the significance of that reply that in a Community of Twelve, investment in this country is as much as that in the other Eleven put together? Is not that the most telling argument as to the comparative economic strength of this country?

Yes, of course it is. The fact that this country is the No. 1 location for inward investment in Europe shows that the international business community has confidence in our policies. What the House wants to know is whether the international business community has confidence in the policies of the Labour party. We keep asking questions about the Opposition's investment plans: how much they intend to give to the British Technology Group, regional development agencies and investment trusts. There was a Department of Trade and Industry Question Time last month and a debate last week, but the Opposition did not answer those questions. Seven Labour Members are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that one of them will stand up now and give the answers, because the whole House wants to know.

Does not the Minister understand that the simple reason for inward investment in Britain has nothing to do with the Government's activities? The Governments of countries such as Germany and France invest in their own industries. The difference is that, far from investing in our own industry, the Government of this country is slaughtering it. Then they have to send Ministers like that youngster around the world with a begging bowl to get other industries to come in to repair the damage that they have done.

Now at last we see the true face of the Labour party on inward investment. The Trades Union Congress has called this alien. I want an answer from one of the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench about their views on inward investment. We now have companies such as Fujitsu in the north-east of England, Nissan in the north-east of England and Toyota in Derbyshire bringing wealth into this country and improving our manufacturing competitiveness. What is the attitude of the Labour party towards inward investment? Do the Opposition favour it or reject it?

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.

I have received the recent excellent report by the CBI's manufacturing advisory group which showed that there has been a transformation in manufacturing performance during the 1980s.

With output in the construction industry falling to its lowest level for six years and the industry predicting a further 50,000 job losses this year, when will the Secretary of State stop his policy paralysis and start listening to people in industry who know what they are talking about? Will he now start an emergency investment programme? When will the Secretary of State stop attacking good advice and start attacking the recession?

The hon. Gentleman surely realises that the key to success in that industry is lower interest rates and that the key to lower interest rates is lower inflation. All the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his party advocate would move us in exactly the opposite direction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituencies such as mine in Leeds have been very considerable beneficiaries of investment in a wide range of different industries? For example, this year alone we shall see the commissioning of chemical and textile plants. We are beneficiaries to the extent of a 20 per cent. reduction in unemployment since the time of the last general election. What those industries fear more than anything else is interference by the Government and the European Commission, interference in the choice of products that they can make, interference in the work patterns that they can enjoy and interference in their wage rates. The more successful my right hon. Friend is in resisting that interference, the greater will be the level of investment in this country.

Everything that my hon. Friend says is echoed by the business men I meet. They know that the greatest damage would be done to this economy by raising taxes, by imposing a minimum wage and by restoring artificial trade union powers. They do not want it. They reject it. They are determined that we continue with the strategy which, as the Confederation of British Industry says, has restored the health of manufacturing industry and revived the strength of the British economy during the 1980s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to discuss industrial policy.

I next plan to meet representatives of the northern region CBI later this month to discuss a range of business matters.

Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Order. We are progressing speedily but the Minister has answered Question 21. We are on Question 20.

I meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce from time to time to discuss a range of policies.

Does the Secretary of State accept that people living in the real world question the Government's industrial policy? In fact, the Government have had no industrial policy since being elected in 1979. The people are sick and tired of seeing on the television, hearing on the radio and seeing in the press the fairy stories that the Secretary of State keeps preaching from the Dispatch Box. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should have an industrial policy that is beneficial to Britain so that we can meet the challenge of the 21st century?

I read earlier the CBI's rejection of any policy in which the Government tried to pick winners, determine strategic investments and interfere in the decisions of business. That is the sort of industrial policy that industry does not want. Industry wants low inflation, a consequent reduction in interest rates, competition, open markets, a successful GATT round and completion of the European single market at the end of this year. We will provide that.