To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ban imports from Norway.

No.

I am surprised and disappointed by that response from the Government, who clearly do not take the matter seriously. I hope that the Minister has at least done me the courtesy of reading the publication that I sent him about the slaughter of whales by Norway.

I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that individual consumers will give Greenpeace's call for a boycott all the support that it deserves.

Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) of the great bond of friendship that exists between this country and Norway? Will he further remind the hon. Gentleman that we must make due allowances, whatever differences of opinion we might have, for the different cultures and traditions of members and potential members of the EC? Is it not in our interest, and in the interest of the hon. Gentleman's cause, that we promote closer friendship and trade with Norway?

There is concern about the resumption of commercial whaling in Norway. I am sure that people will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application of European Community regulations and developments to Post Office activities.

There are at present no European Community regulations which apply specifically to the Post Office, although the European Commission published a range of proposals in its green paper on the development of the single market for postal services in June 1992, which have been subject to widespread consultation. There is also a considerable range of European Community directives which have some bearing on the activities of the Post Office and with which the Post Office seeks to comply.

Does the Minister accept that Britain, with the most profitable and efficient postal service in Europe, is well placed to benefit in a single market? Does he agree that the Post Office needs a clear assurance about its future organisation, freedom to invest in and develop services, and a firm commitment to universal delivery? When will the Government come off the fence and give the Post Office the backing it deserves?

There is no question about giving the Post Office the backing that it deserves. Indeed, the Post Office had a good year last year, as its results showed. We have consistently made it clear that the maintenance of a nationwide delivery network with delivery to every address in the United Kingdom is of paramount importance. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are certainly opportunities for the Post Office within the single market.

Will my hon. Friend renew the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that pensioners will be able to cash pensions at post offices as well as perhaps through banks, if they wish to do so? Will he join me in deploring the Labour party's continuing campaign to frighten pensioners into believing that they may not be able to cash their pension at a post office?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. No pensioner or other benefit recipient will be forced to use automated credit transfer. We have made it clear that those people who wish to collect their benefits from post offices will be able to do so. Indeed, as we have said several times, the amount of business transacted through the post offices on behalf of the Government increased in each of the past three years.

Is there anything in European Community regulations to prevent the delivery free of charge of talking newspapers to the blind and partially sighted? Will the Minister guarantee today that, if proposals are made to privatise post office services, such a service will continue to be provided free to the blind and partially sighted?

I know of no proposals from the Commission that would put any restrictions on the service that is provided. As I have often said, when we come to make our full decisions on the Post Office, the House will be the first to be informed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he has raised will be dealt with carefully.

Irrespective of what the EC has to say about post offices, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that, in any changes, due regard will be given to the importance of post offices in rural areas? In many rural areas, the post office is the only shop that is there giving a service to rural people. Perhaps, in any future changes to post offices, we could consider widening the services that they can provide to rural people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the provision of post offices in rural areas. Indeed, my constituency is similar to his in some respects. There are many rural post offices. It is worth remembering that most rural post offices are in private hands and have a great deal of flexibility in the services that they can provide.

Will the Minister explain how he can square his claim that the Government back the Post Office with the Government's instruction to the Post Office to treble the pay-out that is clawed back to the Treasury? Does he recognise that the Post Office can achieve such a dramatic increase only if it shoves up the price of stamps? Is he aware of the rumours that that is what the Post Office intends to do next month? Does he appreciate that, if it does so, the Government will have imposed a new stamp tax which will shove up the price of sending a letter for everyone who uses the Post Office?

I shall not go into the details of the price rises that were inflicted by the Post Office between 1974 and 1979. The Post Office is an efficient organisation, and it has made a return to the taxpayer. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome that.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in total exports from the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1993 relative to the first quarter of 1992.

The volume of United Kingdom exports rose by 6·6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1992 and the first quarter of 1993. Thanks to the efforts of our exporters, exports grew faster than imports over this period, despite poor economic conditions in our main markets. I trust that the whole House will join me in congratulating our exporters on that impressive achievement.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of the Ford Motor Company is in my constituency. Is he aware that Ford has played an important part in exports and that, in particular, 37 per cent. of its production of transit vans now goes for export? Does he agree that that is a remarkable achievement, considering that Ford now has half the market for that type of good in Britain? Will he congratulate the work force and the management on clearly demonstrating that if Britain produces the right goods at the right price, they will sell anywhere?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows what a good place the United Kingdom is to do business. I certainly congratulate the Ford management and the work force on the shop floor on their contribution to the success of that company, which has recently received a Queen's award for export.

Is not the Minister aware that, although the Government have recently admitted their long-term lack of interest in manufacturing, and have only just awakened to the real importance of that sector of the economy, our manufacturers in the west midlands and elsewhere have made heroic efforts in an increased export drive? Does not the Minister know that, for finished goods in the high street in the 12 months to May of this year, imports increased by 23 per cent. and exports by 15 per cent? Is that not a case of too little effort too late from the Government? When will they wake up to the question of our manufacturing sector?

It is a pity that the Labour party can never welcome good news when it hears it. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although exports have gone up by nearly 7 per cent. in the most recent quarter, imports have not increased at all, so the trade gap has narrowed. That shows that the Conservative party recognises the advantage of a competitive industry that exports goods. The Labour party wants to load extra costs on business so that we can export jobs.

Whatever shape, form or colour the new Government of the Empire of Japan assumes, will the Minister undertake to make the strongest representations to them about the barriers to British goods entering the Japanese market, which are currently in place and ought to be eliminated as soon as possible?

I can tell my hon. Friend that there has been significant liberalisation in Japan in recent years, but no doubt there is always scope to do more. I am certainly a vigorous exponent of free trade; if other countries expect access to our markets, they must also expect to give us access to theirs.

Has the Minister seen the evidence given to the Scott inquiry by Mark Higson, the former Iraq desk officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who told the inquiry that the Government deliberately misled the public and Parliament about their decision to circumvent the arms embargo on Saddam Hussein? Will the Minister confirm the accuracy of that evidence, and is not it clear from Mr. Higson's statement that, yet again, on arms to Iraq and other issues, the Government will deliberately mislead the public and Parliament just to save their own skins?

Scaremongering to get a headline in the newspaper may be justifiable to the hon. Gentleman, but that is a matter for the Scott inquiry and I shall leave it to the inquiry.

I welcome the fact that the Minister can report some improvement in our export performance, but will he acknowledge that a short-term adjustment to the balance of payments deficit does not deny the fact that Britain has an underlying inability to compete and overcome our balance of payments deficit, and that that will be achieved only if we have a long-term strategy to build up our manufacturing industry? Will the Minister make a positive statement on how the Government propose to achieve that?

The Liberal party has had a long-term inability to compete with other political parties, so I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for such an issue. It is a great mistake of Opposition Members to seek to sell Britain short at every opportunity: after all, we have a good story to tell. Manufacturing output is up by 3 per cent., retail sales are up by 3 per cent., exports are up by 7 per cent., for the fifth month in a row unemployment is down, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years. and manufacturing wages costs are down by 3·5 per cent. this year. That is not evidence of an underlying inability to compete, but solid evidence of recovery and the improvement of our economic position.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards alternative sources of energy.

I propose to make a third order setting a renewables non-fossil fuel obligation for the 12 regional electricity companies in England and Wales, to run for 15 to 20 years as from November 1994 in respect of approximately 300 to 400 MW of new renewables capacity.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer, which will be warmly welcomed by all involved in renewal energy production. Can he tell the House when the first bids for the regional electricity companies are expected, and when he expects the first projects to become operational?

I thank my hon. Friend for his response—it is indeed an important announcement that I have just made. We are hoping that bids will be submitted as from September, with the first projects becoming operational, we expect, within the next two years.

Until the Government can use this alternative form of energy, instead of using up the small reserves of gas, would it not make more sense to depend more on coal, now that we have heard about the 22 per cent. increase in productivity? The French interconnector link should be stopped, saving six pits, and the rundown of the industry should be halted. The £1·3 billion subsidy should also be taken away from nuclear power. Then we could keep the pits open and keep another 30,000 people in jobs so that they will not have to pick up dole payments.

If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very worried—for once he seems to agree with those on his Front Bench.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement this afternoon will be welcomed by producers and potential producers of energy from renewable sources? Will the new tranches announced today also be available to existing producers of renewable energy or to producers who have been included in previous tranches but have not yet been able to start production?

I am hoping to announce a fourth order in 1995, and a fifth in 1997. Today I give notice of that.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current output from United Kingdom nuclear power plants.

In the first quarter of 1993, nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom supplied 21·8 TWh of electricity.

I thank the Minister for that somewhat delayed reply, which I think shows that the amount of nuclear energy, as a proportion of our total energy requirements, that we are using has not really changed for a number of years. Moreover, the fast breeder reactor programme has been shut down. If I am right, surely it is pointless to go ahead with the THORP facility, as it will only increase the amount of bomb-grade plutonium in the world and will not add to our energy supplies.

It is right to pay tribute to the nuclear industry, which has increased output from its stations, particularly from the advanced gas-cooled reactors, by a considerable amount.

Will my hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that it was part of Labour's great post-war energy strategy to give in to lobbying by industrial vested interests and boffins, and to reject cheaper, proven technologies in favour of complex, untried advanced gas-cooled reactors—the true cost of which was not even known until privatisation? Compounding that by opting for expensive domestic coal instead of cheaper, cleaner gas from which other countries were benefiting surely shows that, although decisions made by markets may not be perfect, they are a great deal less imperfect than decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.

They are undoubtedly much better than those made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Is the Minister aware that, in the wake of the announcement yesterday about the closure of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and the loss of 500 jobs, a positive proposal is being put forward for Trawsfynydd to be adapted as a centre for decommissioning skills, which would enable the technology developed there to be exported to other areas? Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will do everything they can to facilitate this, in order to provide replacement jobs for those that will be lost from our community?

I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about this, and to Nuclear Electric on a contingency basis, not only about potential plans for the use of the station site but more multi-skilling of the existing work force.

Is it not as sure as night follows day that one day gas, coal and oil will be depleted? It is at that time that we shall thank our engineers and scientists for our reprocessing techniques and dry storage. It is very important for the future that we have a long-term nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, and that we are a long-term player.

I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is an important role for renewables, and we shall shortly embark on a nuclear review, when we will look at the future role for our nuclear industry.

Does the Minister agree that the announcement of the closure of Trawsfynydd is the first occasion on which the nuclear inspectorate has closed a power station on safety grounds? The safety authority is now clearly willing to take such tough decisions. In future, the debate about nuclear power in this country will revolve around economic questions, and the size of the subsidy that the industry should or should not receive.

Uncharacteristically, I think that the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, being unfair to the nuclear inspectorate. It is true that this is the first time that a station has been closed because of safety considerations, but the inspectorate has always had rigorous standards, and it is recognised around the world for imposing them. There are a number of issues that have to be considered while we are working towards an announcement on the nuclear review, and the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are among them.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage inward investment in the north-west.

The Government attach high importance to inward investment and have developed, nationally, a quality service to existing and potential investors. As a result, the United Kingdom is now the preferred European location for direct foreign investment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past year alone, three major international companies have come to the city of Chester that might otherwise have gone to Belgium, Malaysia or the United States of America? We very much value the excellent partnership between Chester and the Department of Trade and Industry's Inward team in Manchester. Long may it continue.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Not least among the attractions of Chester, of course, is its Member of Parliament. I am delighted to receive my hon. Friend's tribute to the work that so many people do in the north-west do to ensure that the rest of the world knows about the attractions it offers for locating industry.

Before the Minister drowns himself in false self-congratulation, what is he going to do, a few days after the closure of Cammell Laird, to ensure that industries which are world leaders are preserved?

There was no element of falsity in the self-congratulation. We all know that there are problems in certain parts of the north-west. Structural change is bound to bring disappointments such as that which has been felt in the hon. Lady's constituency with the closure of Cammell Laird. We have a wide-ranging programme, however, that will help to bring more jobs to the region, in particular to the Wirral, as well as to other areas that are affected by the long-term decline of certain industries. We cannot, however, set our faces against economic reality.

May I make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend? If he wants to encourage inward investment, he should confirm that regional assisted status will continue to apply to Bury and Bolton. Will he have a word with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to find out whether an announcement about that can be made before we rise for the summer?

I will certainly have a word, as I frequently do, with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he is sitting next but one to me on the Front Bench and I am sure that he has heard for himself what my hon. Friend said.

The Minister will be aware that the Merseyside economy is based on shipbuilding and the port and has been subject to structural changes. No compensation has been offered, however, for the thousands of jobs that have been lost from Merseyside, not only from the port and shipbuilding but from related industries in the hinterland. When will the Government address that particular problem, so that jobs are created in that part of the world?

The hon. Gentleman played his full part, as a union militant, in the destruction of Liverpool's reputation as a shipping and port-based economy. He should rejoice in the fact that more traffic is passing through Liverpool port today than in its heyday in the 1950s. Since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme, that port has become competitive again.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the figures for new car registrations in the United Kingdom for the first six months of 1993.

I welcome the 9·14 per cent. increase in new car registrations in the first six months of this year as compared with 1992.

In welcoming those impressive and encouraging figures, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has noted that virtually every car company has now committed itself to give to charity 30p-plus for every new car registered in the United Kingdom? As a result, more than £250.000 has already been raised for charities by the industry since the start of this year. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Rover group, Peugeot Talbot, Jaguar and others on this pioneering and admirable example of social responsibility in one of our major industries? Will he commend this model of charitable giving to other industries?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the car industry on what he has described as an admirable example of responsibility and charitable giving by companies. I hope that he accepts, however, that I believe that it is best to leave each company to decide how best to discharge its responsibilities in that respect.

I welcome the increase in car registrations. Would the Minister care to comment, however, on the plight of workers at the Peugeot Talbot plant in Coventry in my constituency, where 300 will be made redundant this summer because the company is taking work away from the United Kingdom and giving it to French factories? Would he care to comment on the fact that the French already enjoy the benefits flowing from the social chapter, yet they are denied to our workers?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed with the management of the factory its relative competitiveness as opposed to that of the French factories. I f he were to do so, I believe that he would discover that the factory's ability to compete is much improved—

What about the social chapter?

If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he might have the courtesy to listen to the answer.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if lie will make a statement on the Konver programme and its application to areas without assisted area status.

The Foreign Affairs Council this week adopted new regulations allowing areas not designated for objectives 1, 2 or 5(b) to receive under Konver not only European social fund grants but limited European regional development fund grants. The Government intend to make use of that new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on getting that agreement out of the European Commission, as we in Dorset have been asking for that for a long time. I know that he is seeing a delegation from Dorset who will, I am sure, say what we need for Weymouth, Portland and Christchurch in the way of money that results from other than assisted area status. Will he tell us where we can pick up the forms to apply for the new money?

My hon. Friend has campaigned vigorously for a fairer basis for the allocation of Konver funds. I have been happy to act on his behalf with the Commission and I am glad that we have succeeded in getting recognition of the merit of the case that he made so energetically. We are working out the basis of regions' dependence on defence industries, as that will be one of the factors for allocating funds. I look forward to receiving an application from my hon. Friend's constituency, as I look forward also to receiving him and the delegation next Monday.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer on 23 June to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), Official Report, column 226, if he is now in a position to announce his review of regional policy in relation to the assisted areas map.

I hope to announce a new assisted areas map before the House rises for the summer recess.

Is not the Minister aware that that is exactly the same answer that he gave last month when the question was put to him, and that we are now in a position of promises, promises, promises? Is he aware that the announcement should be made at a time when the House can properly debate it? Is not he aware of the conjecture and the leaks that have taken place, which mean that local authorities and those wanting to get involved in economic development are finding that difficult? I, for one, think that the delay is nothing short of a disgrace.

I am glad that the hon. Lady has appreciated the consistency in my answers. I have to tell her that we are still awaiting the approval of the European' Commission, which I hope to receive shortly. I am well aware of the points that she has made. That is why I gave the answer I did—I hope to announce the outcome of our review before the House rises for the summer recess.

May I add to what has already been said, as my constituents in the Ross-on-Wye Cinderford travel-to-work area are also impatiently awaiting the revision of the assisted area map? May I urge that their case is carefully considered before any final announcement is made, because they, too, will be immensely disappointed if there is any change in status in their area?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will take careful note of what he has said. The case made by that travel-to-work area, as, indeed, every other, has been carefully considered in our review.

Does the Minister recognise the deep unease caused by the rumours that he proposes to extend less help to towns that have more unemployment than they had before? How can he justify asking the Commission to cut regional aid to Darlington, Cardiff and Corby now that they all have more unemployment than they had three years ago? Has not regional aid been cut to the extent that it is now only one third of its level a decade ago? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he cannot solve a bigger problem on a smaller budget?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman would expect that the new map will reflect an assessment of structural problems as they are today and not as they were in 1984. That is surely the only fair and honest way of putting forward the map. It is on that basis that we put our proposals to the European Commission.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about Britain's international competitiveness.

Productivity has risen by 8·7 per cent. over the past year. Inflation is at its lowest level for 30 years and manufacturing output has shown the largest increase for four years. Those are all signs that Britain's industrial competitiveness is steadily improving.

As competitiveness is a race among nations and as that race is getting tougher, will my right hon. Friend outline the particular steps that he proposes to take to reduce the burden on business of regulation from Brussels?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that one of the ways to help British business to be even more competitive is to reduce the burden of regulation. That is why I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is taking such energetic action in pursuit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's deregulation initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided yesterday over a meeting at which we discussed further progress on deregulation. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give deregulation and lifting the burden of bureaucracy from business, particularly from small businesses, the highest possible priority.

If the Minister is so satisfied with Britain's international competitiveness, will he please explain why last year we had a record trade deficit in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930s? The Government have presided over the worst growth rate of any Government since the war.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want anyone to be satisfied with our competitiveness because, whatever stage we may have reached, we can be sure that our international competitors will not be resting. They are also looking at their competitiveness. We find that Britain did particularly badly in the 1960s and 1970s when, for too much of that time, we followed the kind of subsidy policies that are still so energetically supported by the Opposition Front Bench. The interesting thing about the 1980s is that we did markedly better and. in terms of productivity, we did better than all our major competitors. We caught up a lot of ground, but we still have further to go. That is why the Government will continue to give priority to improving the competitiveness of British industry.

In fully supporting the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) and in supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative on deregulation, will my right hon. Friend give me and the House an assurance that, prior to the Government introducing any legislation in future, the implications for our international competitiveness will feature as part of the consideration of that legislation and its implementation?

I am delighted to give my hon. Friend just that assurance. That assessment of the impact on companies, particularly small companies, will precede any further regulations. It is perhaps because I am able to give my hon. Friend that assurance that I was interested to note that the Engineering Employers Federation's industrial strategy interim report says of my Department that we

"are supportive, positive and helpful and we"

"are happy to acknowledge this".

The House will welcome the Minister's statement that our competitiveness is steadily improving. The Opposition accept and welcome that, as we also welcome the attack on regulation. However, most of the regulations on the statute book are a consequence of 13 years of Conservative Government, and not the consequence of Brussels. If the Department of Trade and Industry's competitiveness unit uses gross domestic product per head as a measure of competitiveness, in accordance with the Department's leagues, we are 18th out of 24 in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league. How does the Minister propose to improve that record with improved investment and improved skills in our work force when we have a shortage of skills and investment?

Of course, skills in the work force are an important part of the input into the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. That is one reason why we have already taken so many measures to raise skills in our work force. Almost all those measures have been opposed by the Labour party; they include the national curriculum, testing, training and enterprise councils, national vocational qualifications, investors in people, national education and training targets and training credits. Those measures have been consistently opposed by the Labour party.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from those wishing to renationalise British Telecom.

I know of no such representations to renationalise British Telecom, even from the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am sorry. We still have some people who would like to see that. The Government are convinced that the privatisation of British Telecom and the introduction of competition into the telecommunications market has been largely responsible for British Telecom's transformation into a highly successful and internationally competitive telecommunications operator.

Does my hon. Friend think that that almost complete silence is due to the fact that a three-minute cheap rate telephone call is now half the price in real terms that it was 10 years ago? Is not it due to the fact that there are now 96,000 telephone boxes, of which 95 per cent. are operational, as opposed to 50 per cent. 10 years ago? Does my hon. Friend think that those improving statistics, of which we are all aware, may have been of benefit to people sceptical of the benefits of privatising the rest of the Post Office at the earliest opportunity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that I have made the Government's position on the Post Office fairly clear in my answers to earlier questions, but he is right. There have been dramatic improvements in the performance of British Telecom, in spite of all the scare stories that we consistently hear from Opposition Members at times of privatisation. There were scare stories that telephone boxes would go. My hon. Friend is right to say that more boxes are in operation; what is more, they are working, which is quite a change from the position 10 years ago. There has been an improvement to the customer and to the country.

What were the costs of the advertisements to encourage people to register for British Telecom shares? Will the Minister have a word with a Home Office Minister to find out how that compares with the money that was spent on encouraging people to put their names on the electoral register? For instance, last year nothing was spent on the latter in Northern Ireland, although a considerable sum was spent there on encouraging people to register for British Telecom shares. Does not that display the Government's incorrect balance of values? They push ahead with privatisation, when people try to grab what they can, rather than being involved in the democratic process.

I was not sure from that question whether the hon. Gentleman was telling us that he favoured renationalisation. Since privatisation, the service provided by British Telecom has dramatically improved, and we even see occasional signs of approval from Opposition Members.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk from the Labour party is not simply of renationalisation but of other idiocies, such as a windfall tax on profits to cover up its overspending in other areas? Will he draw the attention of the millions of shareholders who subscribed to the successful share offer to the fact that they are likely to be savaged if there is another Labour Government?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the supposed windfall tax that the Opposition were talking about would do great damage to British Telecom's future investment. Opposition Members speak with different tongues, however, because only yesterday the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) issued a press release which ended by saying:

"These twin reforms, taken together, will benefit every industry, every citizen and every BT shareholder."

Surely the Minister recognises that after many millions of pounds were spent pushing the BT share sale, a few weeks ago a prospectus finally emerged in which BT mentioned six major issues of fair competition and fair regulation, including one on which it is taking the Government to court? In the light of that, does the Minister advise new shareholders to hang on to their shares?

Here they go again, totally criticising our intention to create wider share ownership and trying to undermine what has been a very successful share offer. We are proud of the fact that we have returned British Telecom totally to the private sector and we are amazed at the turnaround by the Opposition Members. We are proud of our wider share ownership. We will not do anything to destroy it. The Labour party would.

Although one welcomes and supports competition in the telecommunications industry, is the Minister content with the fact that Mercury is creaming off the best business while British Telecom continues to meet the need to invest in and service the more remote rural areas, such as my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman raises a particular point. Many representations are made to the director general of the Office of Telecommunications. The director general will obviously consider the representations that are made to him. That is a very effective way of doing so. We should welcome competition in the telecommunications industry; it is beneficial to the consumer. Obviously, the director general of Oftel will judge all those matters when he makes his decision.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on progress in lifting the burden of unnecessary regulation on business.

At the Prime Minister's progress meeting on deregulation held yesterday, Ministers welcomed progress on specific deregulation measures to reduce the burden on business and agreed to introduce an important deregulation Bill as soon as possible. Ministers also agreed to publish a document called "Working with Business: A Code for Enforcement Agencies" and a report on the operation of EC law in the United Kingdom; to review how duplication between enforcement agencies might be eliminated; to require a small business litmus test of the impact on them of any new regulations; and to set up an eighth task force focusing on charities and voluntary organisations.

I welcome the progress that is being made with the campaign to hack at red tape. Does not it contrast with the legislation, bureaucracy and interference that would follow from the adoption of the social chapter which is supported by two Opposition parties?

I know that dinosaurs have become much more popular recently as a result of films, but Opposition Members really must get rid of their neanderthal attitudes to the competitiveness of British industry. It is only by continuing to reduce the burdens on industry that we can take full advantage of international competitiveness, which will ultimately be reflected in increased employment opportunities.

Does the Minister accept that millions of people would welcome more regulations, particularly when dealing with companies such as Ever Ready, which has closed a factory in Wolverhampton, with the loss of 80 jobs? A constituent of mine visited Woolworths in Wolverhampton and found on sale Ever Ready batteries that were manufactured in China.

The hon. Gentleman must accept that bureaucracy and red tape do not do business in this country any good at all. The consequence of imposing extra legislative burdens on companies to increase their operating costs would simply make us less competitive. What we should be concerened about in the European Community is not what Mr. Delors called social dumping in moving jobs from France to Scotland, but moving jobs outside the European Community altogether to the deregulated economies of the far east and elsewhere.

When my hon. Friend considers deregulation measures, will he consider abolishing the statutory audit? In particular, will he listen to the views of business organisations, especially the Small Business Bureau, which have made it perfectly clear that there is no reason why there should not be total abolition of the statutory audit for all privately owned companies? It serves no purpose to any outside trader dealing with privately owned companies; therefore, let us get rid of it.I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to to do so very soon.

I am confident that we will be able to announce in due course a relaxation of the current audit requirements on small companies. The results of the consultation exercise in which we have been engaged for some time will be evaluated shortly. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and the Small Business Bureau have made representations to me as part of that consultation process.I hope that we shall he able to announce a radical change, to the benefit of business, in due course.

As the Minister has had a year to study the Institute of Directors' proposals to abolish 50 licences, including licences in respect of driving instruction, the retail sale of alcohol, the running of theatres and cinemas, and minicabs, will he repudiate the proposals to leave the public without proper protection and ensure that they are not included in his Bill?

I shall repudiate the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. They have done nothing constructive to contribute to the debate. There are many ways in which we can ensure effective regulation to preserve the interests of the wider public which do not involve licensing. As part of the deregulation review, we shall be reconsidering all the legislative burdens on business of any kind to ensure that they are proportionate to the benefits that are claimed to flow from them. It can never be in the interests of business or of the people whom business employs to impose unnecessary costs on them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members are pleased to hear about the new initiatives to consult small businesses about the regulations that bear so heavily on the people who run those businesses? Is he happy with the means of consulting all small businesses? Has he any proposals to improve the consultation process?

We agreed yesterday that, in future, when we consult before legislation is put before the House, we will first view our proposals from the perspective of small business. Too often in the past, the Government have listened to what big business has had to say and to business organisations, which may not in themselves be wholly representative of all the small businesses that are active in their economic sectors. It is important that small businesses are encouraged because it is from small businesses that big businesses and future jobs will grow.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning in the home from unsafe gas appliances.

The number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances is a matter of concern. That is why I welcome the introduction of the EC gas appliances directive, which sets new safety requirements for gas appliances.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but it seems highly inadequate given the estimate that each year there are 200 deaths in the home from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by badly installed and poorly maintained gas appliances. Does the Minister share with me and the Council of Registered Gas Installers the concern that there are 40,000 cowboys installing gas appliances, yet CORGI members are the only people legally entitled to do so?

Any death from carbon monoxide poisoning is tragic. We do hear of a number of such cases, although I do not recognise the number quoted by the hon. Gentleman. My information is that there are between 30 and 40 such deaths a year. However, arguing about the figures does not help. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive takes its responsibilities very seriously.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding he will provide for British Coal to enable it to prevent pollution of the River Wear caused by the closure of pits in Durham.

It is for British Coal and the National Rivers Authority, in the first instance, to decide what action may be necessary in respect of any threat of water pollution which may be related to any proposed pit closure.

Is the Minister aware that the NRA is saying that if British Coal were to turn off the pumps at Easington when the pit closes, the River Wear—which supplies 20 per cent. of the water for the city of Sunderland—would be devastated by pollution? Is he further aware that British Coal is flatly refusing to accept any responsibility for the consequences of turning off the pumps, other than giving 14 days' notice? What is he doing to ensure that British Coal lives up to its responsibilities?

The hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate.

Oh yes, I am.

No, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct. If he had read the letter to him from the NRA, he would know that he had misquoted it. As I understand it, the problem relates to pumping issues at pits above Easington that have been long abandoned. It is clear that there would be an issue were pumping and production at Easington to cease. There has been a careful examination of the matter, both by the NRA and by British Coal. There is no question of any rapid decision being taken to cease pumping in that section of the Durham coal mines.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policies to encourage United Kingdom manufacturing companies to increase their investment in research and development.

The best encouragement that the Government can provide is a stable economic environment with low inflation, low interest rates and low corporation tax, together with selective assistance, such as that provided by the Department in appropriate cases.

Are not United Kingdom manufacturing tools twice as old as German tools and three times as old as Japanese tools? Do not British companies spend twice as much on dividends as they spend on research and development? It is no wonder that we have such a massive trade deficit, which is unprecedented in a recession. When will the Government shake themselves out of the complacency shown by Ministers' answers this afternoon and learn from the Japanese and other Pacific rim countries, which are investing massively in research and development? Why do they not start by transferring savings from defence research and development to civil research? If they did, at least the Minister could boast that his Department's budget was somewhat larger than that of the Department of National Heritage.

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was trying to talk her question out. The fact remains that industry-funded research and development rose 28 per cent. in real terms between 1981 and 1991. Of the companies questioned by the Confederation of British Industry in an innovation trends survey, 50 per cent. planned to increase their research and development expenditure in 1993, which is very encouraging.