asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the effect to date of the continuing miners' strike and other supportive strikes upon the United Kingdom's import and export trades, respectively.

Little changed since the reply I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 4 July. Imports of oil, coal and coke have increased and there has been some reduction in steel exports, but the strike has had a minimal effect on the vast majority of the United Kingdom's import and export trades.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although this continuing strike is not good for the economy, it is even worse for the economy of the striking miners and their families? Does he also agree that the terms proposed by the National Coal Board for non-economic activities within the coal industry are the most generous on record in the whole of British industry, and should certainly be accepted?

Yes, I entirely agree. The subsidies to the coal industry are extraordinarily generous and the offers for voluntary redundancy are among the most generous ever offered. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister observed last night, they are in marked contrast to the meanness of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who supports closures on economic grounds. We are all extremely sorry for the losses caused to so many miners who want to go to work and who are intimidated by massive picketing, and we are puzzled——

Answer the question.

I am answering the question. The hon. Gentleman may make his own judgment. I know that he is afraid that I shall draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the guts to ask Mr. Scargill to abide by the outcome of a ballot or even by the TUC's code on picketing.

As the Secretary of State is so dismissive of the effect of the strike on imports and exports, does he share the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this deterioration in the fabric of the nation, and the starving of women and children in order to drive the miners back to work, is "a worthwhile investment"?

It is certainly not a worthwhile investment of the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers to employ people to beat up fellow members of the union.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment upon the description of the strike by the chairman of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation as a political strike, or his assertion that trade union leaders are prepared to see their members' jobs sacrificed to the political ambition of one man—Mr. Arthur Scargill? What effect does my right hon. Friend think that will have upon the British Steel Corporation's export market? Is it not a disgrace that the leadership of the NUM should be prepared to see steel workers' jobs put at risk?

My hon. Friend is right, except in one respect. This strike is not about one man's political ambitions; it is about the political ambitions of the Leader of the Opposition, who crawls along like a puppy at Scargill's heels.

In the nation's interest, will the Secretary of State give us some idea of the total cost of the strike in terms of the nation's balance sheet? Last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to suggest that £350 million or so was a good investment from the Government's point of view. What is the real cost to the nation? Does the Secretary of State think that that money is well invested in trying to defeat people who are trying to defend their communities?

Whatever it costs to ensure that members of the NUM have the right to go to work without being under threat of being beaten up by pickets is worth while. Last night my right hon. Friend quoted the public expenditure involved, which is well worth while to maintain continuity of electricity, to maintain steel workers' jobs and to protect miners against pickets.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are amazed to hear that every working miner is subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £130 a week? They are increasingly asking how much longer they can continue to subsidise miners who are taking money out of the pockets of people on relatively low incomes and showing no concern for their own or the country's future.

Uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend is being unfair to many miners. The average subsidy is £130 a week, but many miners are loyally working in good pits that are not subsidised. The question is how much we can afford to subsidise the uneconomic pits which are a burden on the backs of other miners and taxpayers. Last night the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that he was in favour of closing uneconomic pits. The sooner we get on with that, the better.

Is not this dispute a classic example of how this terrible problem has been torn apart by Labour and Conservative Members like a rag doll? We cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared unequivocally to condemn the appalling brutality that is occurring on picket lines. How can the Government sit by and watch the destruction of a great industry, intimidation and violence on the picket lines and the destruction of law and order, and not do anything about it?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition is silent. He is silent because he is Scargill's puppy and dare not say a word. The Government are maintaining the miners' right to go to work through police operations to defend them. We are maintaining electricity supplies to protect consumers and we are maintaining the British Steel Corporation's ability to employ its work force. All of those matters are the responsibility of the Government, and we are fulfilling that responsibility. However, we cannot force Mr. Scargill to have a ballot and to let his members go back to work.

Is not the real point that Britain's economic development depends upon cost-effective energy, as much as possible of it being produced in Britain? Are we not more likely to achieve that if more people know about the cost of subsidies to the mining industry and realise that members of political parties and trade unions dare not go beyond condemning violence? They ought to call on people not to assemble in such large intimidatory numbers and not to get involved in any type of violence.

My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right, but it would be a helpful first step if the TUC code on picketing, which sets down a maximum of six pickets at any works gates, were implemented. We should then see who wanted to go to work.

Will the Secretary of State now stop complaining and answer two direct questions? Does he or does he not endorse what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last night: that, taking account of the human and other effects and costs of the strike,

"it represents a worthwhile investment for the nation"?—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 306–7.]

There is not a balance of payments deficit. I am sorry to bring the right hon. Gentleman the good news.

A deterioration.

A deterioration—from a massive surplus to balance? The right hon. Gentleman is keen on getting these things right, and I shall put him right. There are many aspects to the swings and roundabouts of trade. We have been in surplus for five years running, which is more than Labour Governments ever achieved, and we shall maintain those figures year over year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals and how many organisations have made representations to him in favour of fixed exchange rates in the past year.

I have not received any representations seeking a return to fixed exchange rates.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British economy worked much better when we had fixed exchange rates? What steps are the Government taking to bring about greater stability in international exchange rates, and, as a step towards that, when do they intend to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

I do not think that I would subscribe to my hon. Friend's view that the British economy would necessarily work better with fixed exchange rates. I remember a time when there were such rates, and there were a series of lurches of policy to maintain a level which became very unreasonable. The problem about maintaining a fixed exchange rate is rather like rolling a stone up a hill. It can be done. It requires great effort and determination, but at any time it can slip out of control and crush those who are trying to push it uphill.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will be discussing the costs to the car and oil industries of the proposed draft directives on lead in petrol and vehicle emissions at the next Council of Industry Ministers.

These draft directives were considered by Environment Ministers at the Council of Ministers on 28 June. I am not aware of any plans for formal discussions of this subject within the Council by Industry Ministers.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom Government have been attempting to persuade the European Community to bring forward the date for the introduction of unleaded petrol in the Community from 1991 to 1989. Is he aware that the draft directives were arrived at after lengthy discussions with the car and oil industries and that any attempt to anticipate the Commission's proposal and to bring forward the date for the introduction of unleaded petrol is likely to lead only to a greater influx of Japanese cars, thereby harming the British car and oil industries?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, any advance on this proposal must be made on a co-ordinated basis throughout Europe. We would not wish our industry in any way to be at a disadvantage. Any advancing of the programme must obviously be across Europe.

Is the Minister now saying that he is prepared to poison the British people so long as we stay competitive with Europe? Is that what he means by saying that, although lead has been proved a risk, he is still not ready to introduce these directives until others do?

The hon. Gentleman would be astonished if I were to reply yes. Indeed, that is hardly the situation. He knows that we have taken the initiative in moving forward quickly towards the introduction of unleaded petrol, but at the same time we are rightly determined to ensure that our industry is in no way disadvantaged. For that reason, this must be done on a harmonised basis throughout Europe. It is not in the interest of jobs in the motor industry to do otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the equity in British Telecom plc he intends to sell to individual shareholders.

It will be for the investors themselves to determine. I hope that many individuals will take up the offer.

Is the Minister saying that he simply does not have any idea of what the range of private small shareholding will be in British Telecom? In previous Government flotations, a maximum of 150,000 people have purchased shares to a value of £1,000 or less, and within a year of each flotation that number has been reduced to 25,000 people, or fewer. Is he not led to the inevitable conclusion that the market for individual shareholdings in such enterprises is finite and is made up mainly of people looking for a quick turnround on their money? Will he reconsider his plans in the light of this information?

The sale of BT later this year provides a unique opportunity for a large number of individual private shareholders. On 25 May and on 17 July I announced details of the telephone subscriber scheme. I shall later today be announcing further details of that scheme. Broadly, it will mean that any telephone subscriber who invests £250 in the shares of BT will get a rental voucher of £18. Thus, a subscriber who invests £1,000 will get four quarterly rental vouchers amounting to £72. This will be seen as an attractive scheme by many telephone subscribers, who will have the opportunity to buy shares in BT and share in the success of that great enterprise.

While every effort must be made to allow individuals to buy shares, bearing in mind the huge advantage of the list of telephone subscribers, does my right hon. Friend agree that the trend of share purchase has been away from individuals buying shares? Will he make sure that the huge flotation of BT is not judged by the criteria of how many individuals take up shares?

There will be an opportunity later this year for many hundreds of thousands of people to become shareholders in BT. To begin with, there are about 240,000 employees, and already the details of the scheme for their owning shares has been announced. It means that any employee of BT, by paying £100, will be able to buy £370 worth of shares. I believe that many of those employees will take that up.

Will the Minister take steps to ensure that IBM does not become an influential shareholder in BT? Will the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—in the interests of ICL and of the British computer industry, ensure that the proposed link-up between BT and IBM in the national network does not proceed?

The House need not chide the hon. Gentleman for reading on almost any occasion. As for the proposed venture of IBM and BT, they have issued a proposal which we are considering. A separate licence would have to be issued for that. We want public comment on the matter, and my right hon. Friend and I will consider it most carefully. As for shareholdings in BT, there is already a limit on the amounts which can be bought by any one group or groups working in concert.

Why are hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), such wet blankets about this business of individual shareholdings in BT? Should they not be welcoming the imaginative scheme that my right hon. Friend has announced?

One cannot hope for miracles, even on the last day of the term. There is no doubt that the scheme that I have just announced will be attractive. It will result in a dramatic increase in the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom, who will be attracted as telephone subscribers also to become shareholders.

Can the Minister give one example of individual shareholders, having bought shares, continuing to hold on to them beyond a year? Has he not yet come to terms with the fact that 84 per cent. of all employee shareholders sell the shares that they have been allocated within four days of purchase, and that in one case of privatisation, 150,000 individual shareholders at the beginning were reduced to 20,000 by the end of the first year? As the Minister presiding over a great industry such as BT, how does he feel at having to introduce the soap coupon discount voucher principle?

The proposal that I have announced today has been welcomed by the board of BT, because it wants to have many shareholders.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he has had to the consultation period on the review of regional policy.

The long consultation period has been welcomed, and the Government have received over 500 submissions within the deadline specified in the White Paper.

When will my hon. Friend be able to make a definitive statement on regional aid? When he makes that statement, will he bear in mind the very bad effect of the coal strike upon confidence in my constituency and the desirability of that area receiving the best possible designation on the new regional map? Will he bear in mind in particular that we were unable to attract Nissan, which many believe was because we did not have special development area status?

We hope to make an announcement in the autumn on our conclusions on regional policy.

Will the Minister say when the west midlands will know whether its greatly worsened situation under this Government will be recognised?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), we hope to make an announcement in the autumn.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in the west midlands believe that the area's problems are due mainly to the indiscriminate use of regional aid in other places in the past? Therefore, will he be extremely careful before he makes an announcement?

We have received many similar representations from the west midlands. Because of the discrimination of regional policy against non-assisted areas, we have already reduced the area covered by the regional policy map. We shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's caution.

Given the problems of Bathgate—I thank the Minister for his courtesy in seeing us three times in the past six months—is there not a case for extending the advantages of Livingston development corporation to the rest of the Bathgate travel-to-work area?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as well as the House, will understand that I cannot reply immediately from the Dispatch Box, however difficult may be the situation in an area, to the different pleas that I hear from constituencies. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am giving careful consideration to the situation in his constituency.

Will my hon. Friend agree to consider carefully any new computer-drawn travel-to-work areas that may critically affect the assisted area status of towns such as Bolton?

My hon. Friend knows that the travel-to-work areas are the responsibility of the Department of Employment. We will not be bound by the travel-to-work areas, designated or assisted areas, although they will be the main building blocks of the system.

If the levels of regional assistance available in France, Italy and Spain are higher than those available to the northern region, especially Cumbria, how will it be possible for us to compete internationally for footloose industries? Does the Minister realise that at the moment we are winning nothing, that we are not gaining new industry and that we are failing in that area? Is he aware that we need the highest level of regional assistance in the northern region? Will he give some commitment to that from the Dispatch Box today?

One of our most important considerations is the need to attract inward investment to this country, and we must provide a level of grant that enables us to do so. We have been very successful in attracting inward investment. There is more American investment here than in any other European country. We get more investment from Japan than do other countries in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the loss of assisted area status, particularly in areas such as Grampian and Banff and Buchan—my constituency—has had a serious effect on employment. When he is considering the new regional policy, will he take into consideration the amended travel-to-work areas that would give work to areas such as the ones that I have mentioned and therefore create further employment over a wide spectrum?

I shall take that into account.

The Minister must be aware from successive Question Times, when there has been the same interest from all parts of the House in his new proposals for regional policy, particularly in respect of the map, that it is not a terribly satisfactory procedure whereby the House is invited only to debate the decisions that he has taken. If that is to be the case, will the hon. Gentleman give us a clear undertaking, before the recess, that when we discuss the order specifying the new map he will arrange for the Government to take such steps as are necessary, by means of a business motion, to ensure that the debate is open-ended? Thus, hon. Members affected—nearly every hon. Member will be—will have the opportunity to debate the matter, which will not be the case if there is only a one and a half hour debate after 10 o'clock.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the matters that he has raised are for the business managers, but I have said again and again that I well appreciate the huge interest in this subject. I have passed on that view strongly to my hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the effect of the dock strike on import and export figures.

Transient and of no significance.

May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, if he is seeking to mitigate the costs of the dock strike, he should look carefully at the compensation amounts that are still due to the merchant bankers Lazard Freres in New York for the services of Mr. Ian MacGregor? Will he confirm that upwards of £1 million is still due in compensation and that that is subject to a pending and a future performance review? Will he further confirm that he has the means available to him, when he considers the performance reviews of Mr. MacGregor, of reducing import costs in the future?

I do not think that has anything to do with the question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the dock strike severe temporary inconvenience was caused to many companies in my constituency that serve the oil industry, and that it could have had long-term effects on inward investment? Does he agree that for self-interested people who have jobs for life to put other people's jobs at risk is nothing short of reprehensible?

I agree with my hon. Friend that if the strike had gone on the effects could have been damaging.

Will the Secretary of State explain where there are people in the docks industry who have jobs for life, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) alleged? Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the reason why the dock strike was settled was that the employers—the National Dock Labour Board—gave a sensible undertaking that, they would not again break the scheme, which was the basis on which the strike was begun? The men were provoked into striking. Is the Secretary of State not aware that it is not good enough for him to defend every reprobate employer in this country?

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is not good enough for him to come and defend every single strike that has taken place under this Government—I am sorry, I do him an injustice. He did not defend the strikers at the National Union of Mineworkers headquarters when they struck against their employers. That is the sole exception. I notice that the hon. Gentleman defends the dock strike. I would not agree with his somewhat tendentious account of the matters concerned, but I have to say that a combination of the dock labour scheme and the Aldington-Jones agreement in effect guarantees jobs to dock workers for life.

rose——

Order. I appeal for briefer questions and answers. It would be nice if we could reach Question No. 25, if possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with progress on the privatisation of nationalised companies under his control.

Yes, though I am constantly seeking to advance the programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of Weardale Steel, Tyne Ship Repair and Readheads Ship Repair shows the enormous scope in every public industry for giving workers a real stake in their future? Will he encourage his colleagues to transfer the Scottish and north-east pits to those who work in them?

That is an interesting proposition for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Wherever possible, we seek to give workers a substantial interest in companies that are denationalised—notably, the National Freight Corporation and some of those that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I believe that that is a very good thing and we intend to do the same with British Telecom.

Does the Secretary of State agree that as discussions about denationalisation of BSC special steels have been going on for more than four and a half years this long uncertainty has caused great damage in both the public and the private sectors of the industry? Will he now announce that he accepts the strongly held and expressed view of the Select Committee and drop the whole idea, especially in view of the conspicuous lack of success of the Phoenix 3 company, Sheffield Forgemasters?

No. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the steel industry and wishes to remove uncertainty, I hope that he will get on to those who have been picketing the steelworks and trying to interfere with supplies of coal and ore so that that uncertainty can be removed very quickly.

In the progress towards the privatisation of British Shipbuilders, will my right hon. Friend consider the need to protect the company's assets in terms of the training that is now available to some 2,000 members of the company, but which BS proposes to close down during the summer recess?

I am sure that the management of British Shipbuilders will ensure that adequate training is available for the men whom the industry needs to employ.

What will be the loss to BL from the sale of Jaguar, first, in profit and cash flow, bearing in mind that £100 million has already been offset against originally agreed Government loan; secondly, in spin-off from research and engineering development; and, thirdly, in market and sales support, especially for Austin-Rover in Europe? What steps is he taking to assist the BL board to counteract those losses?

The BL board has made it plain that it sees the sale of Jaguar as being to the advantage of the company. I am sure that I should be wise to rely on the board's commercial judgment rather than on that of the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the denationalisation of Jaguar is widely welcomed in the west midlands and has engendered such confidence that the company is actually taking on more employees?

I realise that. but I believe that the main reason for the taking of more employees is the fact that Jaguar is once again producing motor cars that people really want to buy and are prepared to pay for.

As the Secretary of State is in a generous mood, will he pay tribute to the Labour Government, who rescued Jaguar, and but for whom the company would not exist for the Government to sell? Is he aware—

rose——

Is it not out of order, Mr. Speaker, for the Secretary of State to keep trying to rise while I am speaking?

I am not prepared to take lectures about the national interest from the hon. Gentleman, who is notorious for supporting the most narrowly based, sectional, extreme Left-wing interests, notably those of the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. The only reason why a rescue was required for Jaguar and much of the rest of the British motor industry was the botched-up schemes to push together companies which had nothing in common. Those schemes were notoriously supported and pushed by previous Labour Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what period he intends to allow for consultations on investor protection legislation after the publication of a White Paper.

Consultation has been continuing throughout the year, starting with the publication of the Gower report in January, including the debate in the House earlier this month, and culminating in the advice to be received from the group advising the governor, and the insurance group advising me. The White Paper, which I hope will be published in the autumn, will be essentially a definitive statement of the Government's views.

Notwithstanding the definitive nature of the White Paper which is to be published, does my hon. Friend agree that it will be necessary, and indeed essential, for City and other interests to be consulted if self-regulation is to be successful against the new statutory background?

The consultations are currently taking place. When the White Paper is published, people in the City and elsewhere who wish to make representations will be free to do so. Another debate on the White Paper may take place in the House.

Is the Minister aware of the growing impatience in the City, which is shared by the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at his and the Secretary of State's inability even to show which way their minds are working? Will he recognise the growing weight of opinion in favour of the self-standing commission and confirm that that is his preferred option, so that minds can be concentrated on the form that the commission will take?

My right hon. Friend and I are awaiting with interest the views of the group advising the governor and the insurance group advising me. When we have received their views on the matter, my right hon. Friend will produce a White Paper in the autumn.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current proportion of public procurement going to small and medium enterprises.

Records are not kept on the proportion of Government procurement contracts that go to small and medium-sized firms. However, the Ministry of Defence is currently collecting information on the value of its direct contracts placed with smaller firms in the present financial year.

In view of the fact that in Britain smaller firms get a lesser proportion of Government orders than in almost any other industrial country, will the Department of Trade and Industry, and especially the small firms' division, play a co-ordinating role between Government Departments to raise the proportion going to small and medium-sized enterprises? The matter is important, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise. Will he examine in particular the procurement policies of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Security?

The Government's policy is that contracts must be won on merit, irrespective of company size. However, we are anxious to see, if possible, that smaller companies are put on a more equal footing to enter the competition. I welcome the work that the MOD is doing on that. The Government have taken various measures to help small companies. Recently we raised to £10,000 the threshold for contacts below which firms are normally exempt from approved procedures. We standardised the financial and general information procedures for companies to qualify as Government contractors, and we shall also standardise technical qualifications. All that will help small companies to get into the race.

When my hon. Friend considers the method of awarding public procurement orders, will he pay special attention to those orders placed with firms operating overseas? Will he seek an urgent meeting with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to urge that orders for MOD supplies are placed within the United Kingdom?

A large proportion of public procurement generally is placed in the United Kingdom. That is particularly true of the Ministry of Defence. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has met the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry recently to discuss the level of business and industrial confidence.

Yes, Sir. At that meeting the president of the CBI assured me that the underlying confidence of business remained firm.

Did my right hon. Friend note in the survey published yesterday by the CBI that it was clearly stated that the miners' strike had had no effect on business confidence? Does he agree that the reason for that happy outcome is in large measure due to the continued assurance of electricity supplies, both by working miners and the Government?

Yes indeed, Sir. The CBI understands the wisdom of undertaking the public expenditure, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred last night.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those hon. Members who are following him closely have noticed that he is extraordinarily nervous this afternoon and is even having difficulty in controlling a nervous shake of his hands as he comes to the Dispatch Box? [Interruption.]

Order. That does not have much to do with this question.

Is the Secretary of State nervous, not just because he is angry with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but because he has realised that not even his customary stock in trade of insults and bluster can disguise the fact that the recovery has petered out and that there must be a major change in policy if there is to be any chance of a reduction in unemployment before the end of this Government?

The hon. Gentleman should get over his shaky lack of confidence about reselection and come back into the real world.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if ever any man gave an impression of confidence on the Front Bench, it is he? When he consults the CBI, will he make it clear to all aspects of industry that the Government will continue their economic policy and that they will not waver, because if industry gets the impression that we are wavering things will begin to go wrong?

Indeed, and industry has overwhelming confidence in that policy. Not only British industry is confident. I notice that, no doubt partly as a result of pressure from industry in France, the French Government have moved away from the Socialist nonsense that is still preached by the Opposition here and have come much nearer to the policies of this Government.

When did that unique and remarkable meeting with the representatives of the CBI take place? Is the Secretary of State aware that only four months ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a reduction in minimum interest rates from 8·5 to 8 per cent., the CBI greeted that as an enormous contribution to the effectiveness of industry? Only 10 days ago, interest rates increased from 9 per cent. to nearly 12 per cent. Was the CBI speechless on this occasion, or had it entirely forgotten its natural self-interest?

; CBI representatives were neither speechless nor had they forgotten their self-interest. That was why they expressed their confidence, and that of business generally, in the Government. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased that interest rates have increased, because he is pleased when anything happens that is adverse to British interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received since he announced his review of merger policy on 5 July.

None, Sir.

Was not that scrappy statement, just over a page long, a pathetic outcome of what was supposed to be a major review? Was not the Financial Times of 10 July right to say that, in its aftermath, British competition policy remained arbitrary and inconsistent? Is it not about time that the Minister and the Secretary of State stopped using competition policy as a simple slogan and developed a coherent policy?

No, Sir. No, Sir. No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his discussions with the North British Steel Foundry, Bathgate.

I have written to the hon. Member explaining that selective assistance for the company under section 8 of the Industry Act is not available, but that the possibility of section 7 assistance is being investigated by the Scottish Office.

Will the Minister's officials impress upon Mr. Grant of Lazard Freres that this company has reinvested? What temporary protection can be expected for a firm that could make a considerable contribution to the machinery required for North sea oil development, and to power generation, by producing castings of tolerances that are possibly not bettered anywhere in Europe?

I have asked Mr. Grant of Lazard Freres to meet representatives of the company. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the North British group provides a range of specialised castings, including those for the North sea. However, I understand that the company intends to concentrate its production at Armadale to continue to provide specialised castings. That factor will be taken into account in the discussions between the group, the Industry Department for Scotland and the Scottish Development Agency when they are considering financial assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied that there are no unfair restrictions inhibiting the sale of motor vehicles in the United Kingdom.

By its nature the selective distribution system of the motor trade contains certain restrictions. Whether any of those restrictions is, on balance, justified is a matter for consideration by the Director General of Fair Trading or the European Commission as appropriate under the relevant competition legislation.

Is it the Government's policy that British purchasers of motor cars should be able to buy them at the keenest possible prices? If it is, will they do something about the fact that cars can be purchased more cheaply in Europe? Should not United Kingdom purchasers be able to buy motor vehicles at the same prices as their European counterparts?

Subject to taxes, and on occasions distortions in the market place, I agree with my hon. Friend. We support the objectives of the Commission and we are discussing with it and with the motor manufacturers and consumer groups here how best to act in the interests of the consumer and the producer in Britain.

What instructions were given to the United Kingdom representatives on the advisory committee which is looking at the final draft?

The instructions were precisely in the terms that I described just now.

While I am grateful for my hon. Friend's replies, may I ask him to be careful not be seduced by the arguments often advanced for the reduction of motor car prices in the United Kingdom, based simply on a slick comparison with prices in certain other continental countries? Will he be careful to listen to representations from the British motor industry about the potential effect of an arbitrary limitation of the kind being suggested in some quarters?

Yes, and only last week I had a meeting with the motor manufacturers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on progress in the privatisation plan for Jaguar cars.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 22 May the Government's approval of the BL board's proposal to dispose of the whole of Jaguar. This disposal was subsequently approved at an extraordinary general meeting of BL shareholders. The issue has been underwritten and prospectuses have been published. Dealings in Jaguar shares will commence late next week.

My hon. Friend and the Government are to be congratulated on this step, but will he keep his eyes on the further horizon—the denationalisation of the rest of BL—and will he perhaps state a time scale for it?

It is the Government's policy that all the constituent parts of British Leyland should be returned to the private sector. We shall be making announcements about that in due course.

Amidst all these congratulations on the privatisation of Jaguar, has the Minister considered at all the progress of Jaguar after it is privatised? I know that he cannot command any private company to invest sufficient money in research and development, but he will know that it will still require a considerable amount of investment in research if Jaguar is to continue to progress.

Of course that is right, but that was taken into account by the Government and the board of British Leyland when they recommended that the company be sold off. The company has been extremely successful recently. It can stand on its own feet. I see no reason why the state should continue to be in the luxury car business.

Will my hon. Friend recollect, amidst all these congratulations, that in the past many of the congratulators said that it was impossible to hive off any part of British Leyland? Will he remember that when he is considering his policies for the remainder of BL?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

We all welcome the improvement in the prospects of Jaguar, but does the Minister not understand that the terms —[Interruption.] It is not in private hands. It is in public hands. It was rescued by the public. Is the Minister not aware that the terms on which Jaguar is being offered are a disgrace and simply represent the Government's attempt to recuperate from the absolute farce of the sale of Enterprise Oil?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is quite impossible for me to comment on that at this precise moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with the privatisation of British Telecom; and whether this is in line with the Government's plans.

The Government's plan to privatise British Telecom in the autumn is on schedule.

Will my right hon. Friend expand on that encouraging reply? Perhaps he will comment especially on the staffing position in Oftel and say whether all is well in that regard, so that adequate monitoring can take place of the future success of private competition in the telecommunications industry.

The arrangements in Oftel are going well, and the regulatory system will be in place on time as an effective measure of consumer protection.

Is the Secretary of State pleased or satisifed with the condition in BT's licence that it must give a 20 per cent. discount to its competitor, Mercury, to subsidise that company until it becomes profitable? What part does that play in the right hon. Gentleman's capitalist thinking?

There is no such provision in the licence.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the amount of public funds invested in the development of the proposed new London taxicab.

My Department, with the Department of Transport and the Greater London council, has offered support to Carbodies Ltd. for the development of a new taxi. Details of this assistance, in accordance with usual procedures, must remain confidential.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this contraption is inferior in design and purpose compared with the present well-loved vehicle? Is he aware also that the prospective cost of the vehicle will be prohibitive, that it will not be bought by London taxicab drivers and that the public will not want it? Is taxpayers' money being wisely spent on this project?

One of the reasons for spending taxpayers' money is to tailor the car rather more effectively for the use of the disabled. We are anxious, as the company will be, to ensure that the present design, which is now 25 years old and held in great affection, should in due course be replaced. I fully understand my hon. Friend's affection for the current model.

What potential export evaluation has taken place of the excellent new taxi, which is based on the Range Rover? Is the Minister aware that throughout the world the new taxi will be recognised as a Range Rover and that it should enjoy maximum Government support, as it will create many jobs in the United Kingdom if it is fully exploited?

One of the reasons why the company has taken the decision to tailor the car more adequately for use by the disabled is that it will give it access to international markets. It has been a problem that the FX4 taxi has been confined to the home market. The company is hoping to internationalise the new taxi.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the balance of trade in manufactures for the first six months of 1984.

There was a deficit of £1·6 billion, within the context of a current account surplus of £285 million in the same period.

Does the Minister agree that these figures give the lie to all the euphoria Which we heard yesterday and which we have heard today about the recovery of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that the deficit warrants the most vigorous action on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments, to give British industry an opportunity fairly to compete in world markets?

That is precisely what the Government are doing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that our export performance in manufactures improved significantly in the second half of last year and in volume terms is now 8·5 per cent. higher than a year ago.

I agree that the manufacturing sector is and will always be of the greatest importance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the most likely growth area for the economy and employment is in the service sector? Does he further agree that we should not become obsessed with manufacturing performance and that we should concentrate equally on the success of the service sector, which will provide our exports and jobs in future?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The service sector is making a significant contribution to our balance of trade.

No doubt the Minister will agree that our future balance of trade in manufactures will depend on the speed at which we adopt new technologies. Will he explain why his Department has, at two days' notice, withdrawn the Government's computer consultancy scheme and replaced it with a less well-funded scheme? Does he realise that this has created disruption within computer consultancy? Does he understand that it will result inevitably in a slower take-up of the new technologies that we need so badly?

No, Sir. This is part of a repackaging scheme which the Department has introduced, and the programmes have been taken up very well.

Are these not appalling figures and do they not give the lie to all the boasts about the economy being in good shape? Is it not the case that our manufacturing trade is in deficit, it being about 60 per cent. above what it was last year and running at about £3,000 million a year, and that our total visible trade, including oil, is running at a deficit of £3,000 million a year? Is this not a disgrace?

The economy is in surplus overall.

asked the Secretary of State, for the Home Department if he will allocate radio frequencies for local authority/community level use for civil defence purposes.

A Home Office communications working party is considering how to develop civil defence communications between counties, districts and communities, making the best use of available frequencies, but there are unlikely to be sufficient frequencies for exclusive allocation to civil defence.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He is aware that, with the new civil defence regulations now coming into active force, there is likely to be a much greater demand for this type of exercise. Will my hon. Friend therefore look carefully to ascertain whether it is necessary before the end of the year to introduce some exclusive frequencies for this valuable and important work?

I know the importance which my hon. Friend, who is a great expert in these matters, attaches to that aspect. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—who has a particular responsibility for these issues, looks carefully at what my hon. Friend says.