asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discuss competition policy.

My last meeting with the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission took place on 15 April 1986.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, will he discuss in depth the human tragedies which are occurring as a result of rationalisation of takeover bids which lead to unemployment and family tragedy? In particular, will he look at the present takeover bid for Ault and Wyborg in the London borough of Brent, which is a good borough, and the loss of jobs that will occur if the takeover bid continues? Is it not time to stop raising the golden calf and the idol of glory for profit and look at people instead?

I shall refrain today from commenting about the London borough of Brent. The Office of Fair Trading is making preliminary inquiries into the possible takeover referred to by the hon. Gentleman. If it qualifies on assets or market share under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading will advise me in the normal way on the question of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be greatly encouraged by the setting up of the Leisener committee to look into competition policy? Does he agree that the Government's determination to see the growth of small and medium sized businesses, which has already had considerable success throughout the country, means that competition policy should be shaped to protect smaller firms from restrictive practices and excessive merger mania?

My hon. Friend has already given evidence to the committee and I shall certainly consider with great care the submissions that he and his colleagues have made about these issues, which I believe have much support in the House.

Within the context of competition policy, will the Minister explain how competition in the British economy is increased or improved by converting British Gas and British Telecom from public monopolies into private ones?

The whole House is well aware of the great success of the British Telecom flotation, and I am sure that the same will happen with British Gas.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that detailed negotiations are taking place within the European Community on competition policy and that it would be highly desirable if more persons were qualified in matters relating to competition law? Does he agree that the Law Society and the Bar Council should take these matters seriously, because, on the whole, people are at present singularly ill qualified to advise on matters of that kind.

That is an important and interesting point. I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. There is considerable interest in the commission about the whole area of competition policy and that, of course, will be considered in the review.

Does the Secretary of State accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has raised an important matter? There are great injustices in this area. Will he, at the Dispatch Box today, condemn predatory acquisition by companies of other companies only for the purpose of closure? Is he aware that in the case of the Scottish and Newcastle attempt to take over Matthew Brown last year the only intention was to close the brewery in Workington? That is happening in other areas of the economy and it is for Secretaries of State to condemn that practice from the Dispatch Box. Scottish and Newcastle may well come back with a further bid in the next two months.

It would be quite wrong of me to make any comment on cases that might come before me when I have to decide whether to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is essential in such cases that I preserve my right to act on my own discretion in deciding whether to refer matters to the MMC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, increasingly, competition policy should be operated on a Europe-wide rather than a purely national basis? Is it not crazy for us to be talking on the one hand about completing the internal market while on the other hand we are continuing and often even reinforcing the fragmentation of the European market?

The European aspects are always taken into account in deciding whether to refer a proposed takeover to the MMC. I have some doubts about the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend that it would be preferable for those matters to be decided by bodies other than the British Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support he is giving to the British power plant industry; and if he will make a statement on the industry's domestic work load.

My Department is providing substantial support in a number of ways: through financial assistance under the Industry Acts, through our support for innovation scheme, and through assistance on exports. The domestic work load is largely dependent on the ordering programme of the electricity boards, which is a matter for the boards themselves.

As the Minister says, I accept that the domestic ordering programme is a matter for his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy. Nevertheless, the Department of Trade and Industry is the British power plant industry's sponsoring Department. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the Government have failed to provide a sufficient domestic ordering programme to provide a base load for the domestc industry so that we can compete on equal terms with foreign companies, in foreign markets, and so that the British industry can survive?

I respect the hon. Gentleman's connection with the power plant industry because it is a major producer in his constituency, but he will know that the domestic ordering of the power industry is not within the control of the Department of Trade and Industry. He will know equally that it might help to see the Opposition applying a power policy indicating that nuclear power is to play an increasing role in power ordering. With regard to the Government's investment in assistance to the power plant industry, the hon. Gentleman should know that some £55 million has been invested under the Industry Acts since 1980, and some £164 million on aid and trade proposals, which have led to export orders worth £770 million, which is a very substantial amount.

Recognising that many companies, including NEI Peebles in my constituency, have been artificially starved of orders, largely because of the attitude of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, will the Minister use his muscle and influence to encourage the bureaucrats to place orders of that type, whether it is coal fired or turbo? That is important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that scrap and build is an important argument put forward by the trade union movement, because many power stations have antiquated equipment and it is about time that it was replaced?

I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's advice and put forward a scrap and build programme. He will know that the CEGB is considering the case for new coal-fired stations, but equally he will know that no decision will be made on that until the Sizewell issue has been determined.

Does my hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs are tied up in the nuclear power industry and that there has not been an order for a nuclear power plant for more than eight years? That uncertainty has to be resolved shortly if those thousands of jobs are to be protected for the future.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that the results of the Sizewell inquiry are awaited shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

The Minister rightly referred to the export performance of the industry. I am sure he will agree that the industry cannot survive on domestic sales alone. He also referred to the support that the Government have given the industry. What does he have to say about the complaint of the industry that in the export markets the financial package is now the crucial factor in determining whether we win or lose an order, and that in that respect the Government are crippling the industry by their abnormally high interest policy?

The right hon. Gentleman is not being wholly fair about that. I took the opportunity to meet the chairman and deputy chairman of NEI recently because I was aware of their restructuring operation. Their presentation showed that the support being offered to help win export orders is quite considerable. I accept that any industrial operator, particularly a heavy plant operator, would want there to be a reduction rather than an increase in interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the current balance of trade.

In the year ending September there was a surplus of £403 million on the current account.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that in the third quarter of this year there was a deficit of £1·2 billion? When he looks to making up that deficit, what proportion of it does he envisage will come from increasing exports of manufactured goods and what proportion from increased exports of services? There is great fear on this side of the House that the Government are being complacent while the country's manufacturing base is being eroded.

The hon. Gentleman's figures are somewhat misleading, because we are broadly in balance for the whole of this year, although I recognise that one month in the third quarter was especially depressing. Our manufacturing productivity has increased by 32 per cent. since 1980, and in the last quarter our export of manufactures was at its highest level. I believe that that trend is on the increase.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our trade balances will not be improved by excessive pay increases which are not linked at all to productivity and thus raise unit labour costs, making us much less competitive in world markets?

Unit labour costs are certainly a constituent in the competitiveness of British goods and services, and it is on competitiveness that success will depend. I know that Opposition Members have an insatiable appetite for bad news, but the news remains extremely good on the balance of payments front.

In the midst of all this so-called good news, can the Minister explain why, if we have a surplus on our balance of trade, the pound seems to be slipping all the time against almost every other currency in Europe?

The sterling-dollar rate has remained effectively the same for the past six months. The alteration in the rate against our competitors' currencies in Europe will doubtless be widely welcomed by British industry, which will no doubt endorse the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the long-term effect on the balance of trade if the Labour party's proposal for the control of foreign investment were put into force?

The somewhat homespun remedies peddled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and his friends would unquestionably have a very serious impact on confidence in the City and on the total of our trade in invisibles, which amounted to nearly £8 billion this year.

Is not the truth of the matter that during the past seven years the manufacturing deficit incurred as a result of the Government's policies has reached more than £4 billion, whereas there was a surplus of a similar amount on 1979? Does the Minister agree that that resulted in the Government having to go to the international monetary markets to borrow $4 billion on 3 September—the highest amount ever borrowed by a British Government since the end of the second world war? Did that not result in the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to prop up the pound at the Tory party conference, using £1 billion that ought to have been used to prop up British industry and get Britain back to work?

The hon. Member's trip down memory lane, which was an almost daily occurrence under the Labour Government, betrays his ignorance, which is honourably based on a contempt for these international organisations. The decline in manufacturing trade is based on consumer preference for foreign goods. Until British manufactures are wholly competitive, that preference will continue to be expressed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that both the level of imports and the buoyancy of retail trade indicate that there is no lack of demand in the economy, contrary to the view expressed by all the Opposition parties, and that there are considerable market opportunities waiting for British companies to exploit them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Consumer spending is going up very fast, and that very increase is sucking in imports and giving rise to the imbalance to which attention has been drawn. Until British goods are competitive in all sectors and all aspects, a rise in consumer spending is likely to have this effect.

I call Mr. Robin Cook.

Hear, hear.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends. As I am a newcomer to these exchanges, can the Minister guide me as to any other country in the world which has managed to combine an oil surplus with a deficit on its visible trade? Did his office provide the Budget forecast of a £3 billion surplus on current account by the end of this year? Can he name another Budget forecast, even of this Government, which has gone quite so wildly wrong as that?

First, I must express my commiserations to the hon. Gentleman for the personal electoral reverse that he suffered. I recognise that that may cast a pall of gloom on some of the judgments that he offers at present. The forecast that he cited is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Does the Minister accept that his complacency in relation to the balance of payments is quite staggering? Does he accept that the forecast, not least of his own Treasury, for the balance of payments deficit in the forthcoming year is somewhere between £2 billion and £3 billion? Does he accept that that is because of the uncompetitiveness of British industry, which has been damaged by Government policy over the past seven years, and what do the Government intend to do about unit labour costs, oil prices and the exchange rate in order to reverse that?

In fact the bad figures arose at a time when in the last two quarters the oil price had been averaging between $12 and $13 per barrel. If OPEC raises the oil price to $18 per barrel, the overall effect on our oil exports will be an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in value. Therefore, that particular ingredient is likely to be corrected in the next year if the OPEC objectives are achieved.

Question No. 4. I call Mr. Robert Atkins —[Interruption.] Order. We are making very slow progress and have only reached question No. 4.

That is because a lot of hon. Members asked questions on the last subject. They were waiting for the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who has only just come into the Chamber.

Order. Patience is a great virtue in this place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the automotive industry about his proposals for the reform of the copyright laws.

I have received a large number of representations from the automotive industry about the unregistered design right proposed in the intellectual property White Paper.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern and not inconsiderable anger in the automotive support industry, represented by large and small companies in my constituency, at the proposals in the White Paper? Will he recognise that their fears are based on two counts, because they believe, first, that the proposals will affect competition and the quality of the products that they can provide to the industry and the public, and, secondly, that this will have a deleterious effect on jobs in those small and large companies throughout the length and breadth of the country?

I am aware of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. He will not be surprised to hear that they are being taken into consideration.

Will the Minister assure the House that serious consideration will be given to the points that have been raised, as there is a general feeling in the industry that the manufacture of component parts for the vehicle industry will lead to further redundancies, factory closures and general unemployment? There is a factory in my constituency which manufactures hydraulics and everybody there—from management to shop floor workers—is worried stiff about the future. Does the Minister intend to withdraw the proposals contained in Cmnd. 9712, allow the industry to prosper and thus remove the fear hanging over it?

I think that the industry will be reassured when we are able to come forward with a suitable compromise proposal, which we are at present discussing with it and which I think will meet most of the objections that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his comment that the industry will be reassured when he comes forward with proposals will reassure many British manufacturers? Does he recognise that a substantial amount of risk is involved in new investment in new products and that that risk must be rewarded by some form of protection? Does he also recognise that there is limited scope for relaxing his proposals when standard proprietary items are incorporated in an original design?

I agree with my hon. Friend. However, I am sure that both he and the House will not wish me to detain the House on these complicated issues at this stage, other than to say that all these matters are being very carefully considered.

Industry in many cases is very concerned about the implications of the White Paper. Does the Minister not agree that the first thing that should have been done was to indentify the implications of the questions that cause uncertainty in the industry, before the White Paper was produced?

Yes, that is a perfectly fair point. However, we were addressing the fact that it is also important to recognise that a certain degree of copyright protection is needed for original designs. The problem is to balance the respective interests in the motor industry. That is very important.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the only important point for the retail customer is to know what he is buying? The customer should then have freedom to buy what he wants. My hon. Friend must guard against manufacturers who will not supply spare parts, but only replacement units at hideous cost, which is taking the consumer for a ride.

I am obviously aware of the consumer arguments. We must also recognise, however, that there is a perfectly legitimate case to be made on behalf of those who devise the original spare part, component, or whatever it may be, because they have rights, too.

Nevertheless, these were Government proposals. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government believe that their proposals will increase freedom of choice and competition in British industry?

Yes, I will. It is important for the welfare of those in the British automative industry that those who originate designs should have a proper, though not an excessive, degree of protection. That in itself will assist the competitive process.

On the question of the reform of copyright law, will my hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to abolish the licence of right on pharmaceutical products in the course of the next year?

We have said that we wish to abolish that right as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about standards of safety in electrical installation work in domestic and commercial buildings.

I have not received any representations to date, either from private individuals or from official bodies, concerning the standards of safety in electrical installation work in domestic buildings. Questions concerning such work in commercial buildings are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

In view of the danger of accidents, including loss of life, from faulty installation work, does my hon. Friend consider that those who do this work should be properly qualified and appropriately registered?

As a result of my hon. Friend's substantive question my officials contacted the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting for its views on this question. I am advised that there has been no recorded increase in accidents attributable to faulty electrical installation. If my hon. Friend would like to discuss a particular incident in his constituency, I am ready to look into the matter.

In view of the likelihood of the onset of a wet winter, will the Minister discuss with the Department of the Environment the problem of electrical installation standards in inner city areas where repairs are needed, because a large number of houses are out of date and where, because insufficient sums are available from rates as a result of rate capping, it is impossible to ensure safety for old-age pensioners whose electrical apparatus needs to be renewed?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is predominantly a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope he will be reassured that electrical installations in domestic premises are subject to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1937, which give appropriate safeguards for the proper wiring of customer premises.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that in the whole of installation work, be it electrical, gas or plumbing, we lag behind most other countries in our determination to protect consumers through a system of registration which would allow for those who are properly qualified to be recognised and rewarded?

I have consulted some of the bodies concerned and I am convinced that at present the process of self-regulation is working to the consumers' benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning investment in national infrastructure.

None, Sir.

Will the Minister heed the advice given recently by the CBI to invest in infrastructure and realise that every job created in the infrastructure costs £8,000, whereas every job created through tax cuts costs £25,000? Is it not a disgrace that the Government have failed to invest in the infrastructure?

I do not agree with that. The Government's record on infrastructure spending is extremely good. Total public sector capital expenditure is more than £21 billion a year, capital spending on motorways and roads has increased considerably and National Health Service capital expenditure has also increased. I could give the House millions of examples.

Is it not true that the regions that are at present making their submissions are doing so to obtain money in their bids from the EEC and are unlikely to put the best complexion on these matters? In answer to the whingeing of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), is it not the case that the shire counties, such as Hertfordshire, have invested hundreds of millions, if not thousands of millions, of pounds in the regions through the redistribution of the rate support grant? Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that due recognition should be given to the shire counties for the sacrifices that they have made over the years?

As I represent part of a shire county, I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I agree with a great deal of the first part of his remarks.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many parts of the deprived regions will be shocked by the complacency of the reply given a few moments ago? We need to spend far more money on the infrastructure to deal with the problems facing us, especially in the north-west and in other deprived regions. When will the Government tackle those problems and get people back to work?

I am astonished at what the hon. Gentleman says. In the north-west nearly £1 billion has been spent on regional aid since 1979, the Merseyside development corporation has been created, an urban development corporation for Trafford Park and Salford has been created, there is a commitment to develop Manchester airport, £58 million has been invested in improvements, there are £105 million worth of urban development grants and there has been a 65 per cent. increase in the north-west water services.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view of all those of us who are regular users of the motorways that the miles and miles of cones that we must work our way around are a vivid example of how much is being spent, not only on motorway repairs, but on improvements in the infrastructure?

Motorway cones are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I agree with my hon. Friend that capital spending on motorways and trunk roads has increased by almost 30 per cent. in real terms. Why are Opposition Members so solemn and sour about it all?

With regard to the submission to the European regional development fund on infrastructure and other aspects of Government policy, will the Secretary of State tell us exactly who is responsible for saying that the prospects for reducing unemployment are gloomy, frighteningly bleak, or impossible until fundamental problems of public investment and expenditure are resolved?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government make no forecast of future unemployment. We do not think that that would he sensible. Opposition Members are determined, not surprisingly, to make trouble for the years ahead. Under the rules of the ERDF, the Government have to provide assumptions that are used for financial planning purposes only, and they are assumptions, not forecasts. It is the same as the public expenditure survey forecast. The hon. Gentleman is trying to create a great deal of fuss about nothing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the views of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) are typical of the views of the Liberal party nationally? I cannot find any local Liberal organisation that will allow expansion of roads, railways, prisons, tunnels or airports in its own area.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the state of the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Leyland.

The position on Leyland Bus and Unipart was announced to the House on 24 July. Since then, Rover Group has announced agreement in principle to dispose of a majority interest in Jaguar Rover Australia. It is also taking forward the disposal of a majority interest in ISTEL.

Will the Secretary of State give some security and peace of mind to British Leyland, its workers, dealers and its customers, by giving an assurance that there will be no negotiations before a general election about the sale of British Leyland or, for that matter, Land Rover?

There are no such plans. I explained the position on Land Rover some months ago, and there is no change in that position. I have already explained what is happening in a number of subsidiaries of the Rover Group. Our policy remains to seek to return the businesses, together or separately, to private ownership. I am awaiting a report from Mr. Day on the financial structure of the company. I have nothing to tell the House beyond that.

Whether British Leyland is or is not privatised, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will not allow it to engage in unfair competition with existing car and truck manufacturers in this country?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I well understand his concern about events in his constituency.

How will privatisation help to solve British Leyland's real problem, which is a sales problem? When will the Secretary of State ask the directors of British Leyland to do something about the failure of the company's sales and marketing management to sell the vehicles that they are employed to sell, instead of constantly calling for redundancies among the men and women who work in the factories, who have significantly improved both quality and productivity and who are then rewarded with the sack?

The hon. Gentleman is being most unfair and unreasonable, which is not typical of him. I have asked Mr. Day to do his utmost to try to improve the commercial performance of the Rover Group, which is in everyone's interests. The group is making considerable strides in quality, production and output, and is doing extremely well. I am asking Mr. Day to look at the whole commercial future of the Rover Group and I look forward to receiving his proposals. I am sure that they will be received enthusiastically by the hon. Gentleman.

Do the privatisation plans that have been announced mean that the money that will then be released will be available for reinvestment in the Rover Group, bearing in mind the excellent new car — the Sterling—which has a splendid future if it has the right investment, for which Mr. Day is asking?

All questions about investment in the Rover Group will have to await Mr. Day's report. I am naturally in agreement with my hon. Friend about the quality of the Rover Group's cars and I only wish that more people, both inside and outside the House, would buy them.

How seriously can we take the Secretary of State's list when the privatisation from British Leyland of Self-Changing Gears in Coventry took place in June without any announcement to this House until it was squeezed out of the Secretary of State in a written answer? Despite promises about the safety of the company in the harbour of Cummins Engines, within 12 weeks of privatisation 20 per cent. of jobs were lost. How seriously can we take the list when that sort of thing happens?

Surely all hon. Members know that in order to stay in business a firm has to win sufficient orders. It is unfortunately the case with Self-Changing Gears that its failure to win sufficient orders resulted in job losses.

Can my right hon. Friend give me assurances about the proposals for ISTEL in my constituency? Will he assure me that sufficient weight will be given in considering the management buy-out proposals to the strength of the skills of the existing staff and that those skills will be fully weighed against any financial considerations which might otherwise be considered alone?

As I told the House, I am awaiting the assessment from the Rover Group of its majority interest in ISTEL. I will, of course, bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the Secretary of State please confirm that the instructions given to Mr. Day are to talk to everyone with a view to privatising Austin Rover? Why are the Government in such a hurry to sell off an indigenous car manufacturer? Do they not want a British stake in the motor industry, and are they not worried about the loss of jobs?

The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, I am sure unintentionally. The instructions given to Mr. Day are to run this company commercially and to get it into a good commercial state in the interests of all concerned. The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to privatise the group and our policy remains to seek to return the businesses, together or separately, to private ownership. No doubt that will take a considerable time.

Will my right hon. Friend make it plain to private investors that he is genuinely open to all suggestions for the sale, investment or collaboration in respect of British Leyland and that he is not merely marking time until the next general election?

My hon. Friend will realise from the list that I read to the House of the parts of the Rover Group that are being disposed of that an energetic programme is proceeding on that front. I am sure he welcomes that, and I endorse what he said.

The Government caused deep worry to everyone in the Rover Group when their surreptitious proposals to sell it off to the Ford Motor Company were revealed earlier this year. In view of that, do the Government not owe to the people who work for the Rover Group a solid commitment to see it through to commercial success? Is it not more important to maintain and expand its production than to seek to privatise it? Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that if proposals by Mr. Day are to reduce substantially the volume of production in the Rover Group he will reject those proposals?

I had better wait to see what Mr. Day says before I commit myself to reject or accept anything that he puts forward. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about a surreptitious attempt to sell off the Rover Group or the effect that such a thing would have on the commercial future of the group. The Rover Group, and other car companies in Britain, must depend for commercial success on quality, price, reliability and delivery. Rover has an excellent story to tell on those points and I hope that it will achieve commercial success, because that is the Government's policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many takeover bids have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the past 12 months; with what result; and if he will make a statement.

In the 12 months to date, 14 acquisitions or proposed acquisitions have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Of these, four proposals were abandoned and the references laid aside. One proposal was found by the commission to operate against the public interest, three were found not to operate against the public interest and six investigations are still in progress.

May I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) that the Ault and Wiborg paint company which he mentioned is in my constituency and not in Brent? He ought to know his own constituency a little better. However, I agree with much of what he said. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are under 90 days' notice while the proposed takeover by Hoechst or Bergers is being investigated? Does he not agree that this is unfair to both parties? I hope that he will refuse to allow that takeover to occur. Meanwhile, will he say whether the referral process could be speeded up, in the interests of all parties?

I note the alliance between the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and my hon. Friend. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will expect to listen to the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading if this merger qualifies on assets or market share. I cannot anticipate the result of the director general's inquiries. My hon. Friend also asked about the delay in Monopolies and Mergers Commission procedures. I am certainly prepared to consider whether there are circumstances in which the commission might be asked to report in a shorter period. The current review will consider that.

The Director General of Fair Trading is examining a proposal to take over the British Sugar Corporation. Will the Secretary of State head off that takeover by the Italian company, Ferruzzi? Is he aware that that company seeks, not a monopoly of the British sugar market, but a monopoly of the European market? If it is successful, the interests of the producers in the African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar-producing countries will be severely harmed, and so will the interests of those employed in the United Kingdom's cane sugar refineries.

I note the hon. Gentleman's views. The proposed takeover of British Sugar by Tate and Lyle and Ferruzzi is being investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be quite inappropriate of me to comment at this stage or to anticipate the commission's recommendations.

Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and to set the record straight, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following its successful defence of the Scottish and Newcastle takeover, during which Matthew Brown suggested that Scottish and Newcastle might wish to close one of its breweries, the first thing that the Matthew Brown management did was to close one of its breweries? Consequently, does my right hon. Friend agree that small is not necessarily secure? Does he further agree with the general principle that it is better to have a large domestic industry that is able to compete with European companies than a fragmented industry that cannot do so?

All the questions show that hon. Members have a keen interest in this topic. I shall await their views as to what, if any, changes should take place in our competition policy.

Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that some time, somewhere, this Government will actually defend the interests of British industry?

With respect, that question is untypical of the hon. Gentleman, and most unfair.

I welcome the sterling work done by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but does my right hon. Friend realise that many of my constituents are particularly concerned about the delays in reaching decisions on the Plessey and Allied-Lyons cases? Will he confirm that there has been great concern about the cartel operated by some petrol companies? Is there not a case for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to look into that?

The Director General of Fair Trading has looked at that latter point several times. I have already said that we shall try to find ways of speeding up such decisions, although I think that that will be difficult without further legislation. The GEC-Plessey matter was decided this summer, and I seem to remember that most of the House agreed with the decision reached.

Is the Secretary of State aware that today several redundancies have been announced at the Royal Ordnance factory in Leeds as a direct result of Vickers buying out its sole competitor? Would it not have been better if that takeover had been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I followed the recommendation given to me on that occasion by the Director General of Fair Trading, that there would be no detriment to competition. Consequently, I thought that it was unreasonable to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet received an application from British Aerospace for launch aid in connection with the Airbus A330/A340 project; and if he will make a statement.

My Department received an application from British Aerospace for launch aid in respect of the proposed Airbus A330/A340 programme on 20 October. A detailed appraisal of the application has been set in hand.

If my hon. Friend accepts that Airbus can be truly competitive with the large American aircraft manufacturers only if it can offer airline customers a broad range of products, is he aware that several of us hope that the Government will react favourably towards the application from British Aerospace, especially as launch aid was provided for the A320?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. He will recall that the success rate of the A320 programme appears to be very encouraging, offering the prospect of a reasonably early repayment of that launch aid. We understand the case being made about the family of aeroplanes. At present, Airbus is engaged in a marketing operation on the A340 in order to establish the level of airline interest in that aeroplane.

Can the Minister confirm that a decision on the application by British Aerospace is expected before the end of this year? Will he take that decision irrespective of any collaboration with McDonnell Douglas? Will he confirm that the British Aerospace and Airbus Europe decision stands on its own right and will be considered in that light, that the £750 million launch aid is acceptable in principle to his Department and that we can expect a decision before the end of the year?

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me at this stage, when 1 have just told the House that the detailed appraisal has just been set in hand, to say what level of expenditure is likely to be acceptable to the Government. We have to take into account the market opportunities for one of the aeroplanes in particular.

Has my hon. Friend seen the forecast of the expected market for aeroplanes of the size of the A340 up to and including the year 2005? Does he agree that the forecasts are extremely encouraging, and will he bear them in mind when evaluating the application for launch aid?

Yes, I have seen the forecasts. Those are precisely the types of factors that we want to take into account to see whether those forecasts accord with the forecasts that we and others are making.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements his Department makes for the monitoring of progress of companies privatised from British Leyland where that company retains an interest.

There are no special arrangements beyond the normal role of the Department in its sponsorship of private sector companies.

I am tempted to ask why not. Coventry Climax was privatised from British Leyland in 1981 and it has lost 80 per cent. of the original 3,000 jobs, with not a penny being paid to British Leyland by the consortium that took it over. Do the Government not feel any responsibility for such a conspicuous failure of privatisation? When the Government promise a secure future for workers, should they not monitor before failure occurs? Why was such monitoring not exercised by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the British Leyland position in regard to the problem is fully protected. Coventry Climax has been through a difficult time in the sale and marketing of its products and it is currently in the hands of the receiver. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to make any further observation about the existing company.

Does my hon. Friend agree that companies privatised with British Leyland, as well as those that are still within the group—for example Leyland Trucks—have done everything asked of them by the Government in terms of quality and marketing support, but that, none the less, the market is too small to take the number of products produced? Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of giving Government support for export sales through loans, credit arrangements and in leading an attack into the market that is so important for companies such as Leyland Trucks?

I accept my hon. Friend's point in relation to Leyland Trucks. He will be aware that there is substantial over-capacity in the trucks business in Britain and probably worldwide. That is why he will, no doubt, welcome, as I did, the arrangements announced by Mr. Day in Paris vis-a-vis the Daf company. In relation to overseas exports, the Export Credits Guarantee Department stands behind many British companies in their fight to obtain a fair share of overseas markets.

As Coventry Climax is now in receivership, and as, at the time it was sold off from British Leyland a bright future was promised to the work force, should not someone who initiated that privatisation give an apology to them for what has happened? In so far as it is now the receiver's proposal to sell off the business, perhaps in parts, is it the Government's intention to permit the receiver to sell to the highest bidder irrespective of the consequences for the west midlands economy of the loss of substantial engineering industries?

I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's natural anger at the fact that the privatisation of the company has not proved successful, but I must confess that it surely is right to see that a company can market its goods and services without subvention from the taxpayer. In the case of Coventry Climax, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, there have been difficulties for it in achieving its sales performance. That could happen to any company, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well what the consequences of that would be. The receiver's task is to seek to dispose of assets and to obtain a realistic return for the creditors of the company, and that is in his and the creditors' best interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations about restoring Land Rover to the private sector.

The position has not changed since my right hon. Friend's statement on 24 April.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the problems overhanging the volume car market in Britain, about which we all know, there is really no reason to leave Land Rover in the same embrace? Will my hon. Friend be speaking to Mr. Graham Day about the possibilities of offering that company to the British shareholder?

I understand my hon. Friend's views and I witnessed his robust performance on television recently. However, my hon. Friend and I should await the corporate plan proposals that Mr. Graham Day is now preparing.

Would it not be better to leave Land Rover where it is, with British Leyland? Does not all this selling off and disturbance, particularly of the profit-making parts, mean that all that will be left is a loss-making rump, parts of which will either go out of business or face vast redundancies? Does the Minister not care at all?

The hon. Gentleman must be patient. It is important to see that all parts of the Rover Group are profitable, and I hope that they will be. That would be the ideal objective, hence the massive effort being made by Mr. Day and his colleagues, not just to restructure the company, but to make a massive effort on the commercial development of the range of products that they possess. Some of the success stories within the volume car group, including the 25 per cent. increase in the Rover 200 sales compared with a year ago, show that they have been successful.

When my hon. Friend is considering questions relating to the privatisation of Land Rover, or, for that matter, of British Gas, will he bear in mind that the Japanese authorities are not permitting foreigners to apply for shares in Nippon Telegraph and Telephone when it is floated later this month? Does he agree that it is an important point of principle that there should be reciprocal openness in financial markets? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues be willing, as circumstances may require, to invoke the reciprocity clauses of the Financial Services Bill?

I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in tacking that supplementary question on to a question about Land Rover. However, I take his point that there should be a free market in investment as well as in sales.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Director General of OFTEL to discuss competition in the telecommunications industry.

My right hon. Friend last met the director general on 16 October.

I thank the Minister for that answer. When he next meets the Director General of Oftel, will he tell him that in the course of a recent adjudication on a competitive tender by British Telecom in the Ivory Coast, one of my constituents, Jonathon Wash, part of the personnel of BT, was killed in doubtful circumstances, and I suspect foul play? Will he, through the Director General of Oftel, prevail on BT to lift the conspiracy of silence on the matter?

I am sure that the first thing that the House would want me to do is to express sympathy to the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent who has met his end in that way. We have no locus in the matter of requiring BT to make information available to him. However, I know that the chairman of BT reads the proceedings of the House with particular care, and this exchange may well produce the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the supply of telecommunications equipment to British Telecom, system Y was won on merit by Thorn-Ericson, and will lead to the creation of 700 to 1,000 jobs in my constituency? Will he also bear in mind that GEC, despite having numerous friends on both sides of the House and in high places, failed to win the contract because of the failure of system X? Will he ensure that the Director General of Oftel is not subject to undue pressure from any quarter?

Anyone who has met the director general will know that he is unlikely to take lightly pressure from any quarter. I am sure that it is best to leave the merits of prospective systems to be tested in the market place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what current proposals he has to privatise British Shipbuilders.

The long-term objective is to return as many of British Shipbuilders' yards as possible to the private sector when circumstances permit.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he comment on the rumours that are sweeping Teesside that the Cuban order, which was likely to keep Smiths Dock open, is now going to the Wear shipyards? Is there not time, even now, for Smiths Dock to be reprieved in view of these rumours?

I am aware that rumours have been circulated to that effect, but I cannot comment upon them now because I do not have the up-to-date information. My information was that negotiations on the Cuban order had still some considerable way to go. My hon. Friend will know why it was that British Shipbuilders decided that it saw no further need for the capacity of Smiths Dock. That is why it deemed it right to dispose of it and to sell the assets that it contained.

Will the Minister accept that so far the privatisation of the shipbuilding industry has meant job losses in the privatised sector and has threatened the viability of the public sector? Will the Minister face his responsibilities to an industry which has gained less than 1 per cent. of world orders this year? In the negotiations over the European intervention fund, will he stand up for a better deal from the fund than the one that is foreshadowed in the draft directive which the Government seem prepared to accept?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall fight extremely hard in the negotiations over the European intervention fund, which I believe to be a crucial component for United Kingdom shipbuilding. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be careful before he suggests that the industry's problems can be solved by shipbuilding remaining in the public sector. He knows well that a number of significant orders have come to sectors that have been privatised. I trust that he welcomes the announcement made today that the Atlantic Conveyor will be stretched at the Scott Lithgow yard.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman's point of order arise directly from questions and not amount to a continuation of questions?

It arises directly from questions, Mr. Speaker.

Very well.

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to be critical, but is it right that an hon. Member should come into the Chamber when a question is being asked and thereafter rise in his place and be called to ask a supplementary question?

Yes, that is perfectly in order.

I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which refers specifically to the last answer given by the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for—

Order. That matter could come into the category of a continuation of Question Time. I do not think that I can take it because, as the hon. Member said, it refers to an answer given by the Front Bench, which patently cannot be a matter for me.