To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his Department is doing to reduce the number of accidents in the home.

We are doing a great deal to reduce the number and severity of home accidents. The new Consumer Protection Act 1987, and in particular the general safety requirement, greatly improves the protection provided for consumers by introducing tougher but more flexible consumer safety laws. We are now doing more than ever before to educate consumers about potential hazards. In November I announced a series of home safety awareness campaigns designed to make people more aware of the dangers in and around the home. I expect those and other initiatives to reduce home accidents.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the action that was taken on foam-filled furniture earlier in the week. Does he agree that more than 5,000 fatalities a year in the home are still far too many? Because such fatalities occur in different places, often on private property and behind closed doors, they represent the Cinderella of the public protection industry. Will my hon. Friend re-emphasise the importance of starting safety education at school and, at adult level, reminding people of the availability of cheap, effective devices, such as stair guards and smoke detectors, which are now readily available and realistically priced?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, there is a role for regulation, as we showed earlier in the week in respect of foam-filled furniture. However, most accidents in the home occur as a result of people's behaviour rather than because of design faults in products. Most accidents in the home are as a result of falls. The home safety awareness campaign is a series that we are running for three years, and its purpose is to try to influence the way in which people behave.

After the most humiliating climb-down of any Minister in 20 years regarding foam-filled furniture, is it not a fact that there is a major loophole in that legislation because it does not apply to beds? Is the Minister aware that in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and many other places of overcrowding, children often have to sleep in the same room in which they live, and often next to an electric fire? People may fall asleep smoking a cigarette. Such hazards do nothing but illustrate the incompetence of the Minister and the Government.

I do not want to reduce this debate to party political wrangling, because:it would not be appropriate, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are the first Government who have done anything about foam-filled furniture. That danger has been apparent for at least 15, if not 20, years, but the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman supported in the late 1970s did absolutely nothing about it. We accept that there may be a problem with beds. However, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which I mentioned in my first answer, relates to the way in which people behave. It is that behaviour that we need to influence. There may be a problem with beds, and I am looking urgently to see whether further steps can be taken in respect of mattresses.

Does the Minister acknowledge that, whatever the reasons for fires beginning, many of the victims are either the elderly and immobile or children who have no responsibility for starting those fires? Now that we have secured regulations covering foam-filled upholstered furniture, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no logical reason why we should not extend similar protection to foam-filling in bedding, cushions and other types of domestic furniture?

There are already regulations — the toughest in the world — in respect of upholstered furniture, and those will remain in force. Mattresses and other bedding components are covered by the general safety requirement that we introduced in the Consumer Protection Act. We are in the process of improving standards for items such as mattresses, which will set the benchmark for safety in that area. However, we are looking urgently to see whether we can take further steps.

Would my hon. Friend care to remind Opposition Members that, far from doing a U-turn, he has acted expeditiously, because the new trial foams have been on the market for only eight months and so far are untried and untested by consumers') My hon. Friend has acted precipitately because it is not yet known whether those foams will be commercially viable. If my hon. Friend is to be consistent, he should also consider bedding, curtains, loose covers and other flammable items.

There is a serious danger that the effect of all this regulation may be to induce in people a false sense of security, because there is n o way in which we can create complete safety in the home by regulation and legislation. I reiterate that safety in the home depends, and will continue to depend to a large extent, on the way people behave. Nothing that we do should in any way serve to relax the vigilance that people should show at home.

I welcome the action that is proposed, even at this late stage, and share the Government's anxiety that steps should be taken to improve safety in the home with respect to foam-filled furniture. Will the Minister inform the House whether he has yet consulted the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland householders receive similar protection in future?

We shall certainly talk to the Northern Ireland Office about the impact of any regulations on Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman talked about action being taken at a late stage, but I must tell the House again that we already have in force the toughest regulations anywhere in the world in respect of foam-filled furniture.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met his COCOM colleagues; and what matters were discussed.

I have not met my COCOM colleagues recently, but the Department's officials participate regularly in COCOM meetings. Matters discussed recently have included the review of the control lists and efforts to improve the operation of COCOM.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing number of cases of British exporters of high technology being set up by the CIA under the guise of the COCOM rules? Is he further aware of the high volume of American technology illegally sold to the Soviet bloc, most notably through Norway? Does that not suggest that we should have an urgent fundamental review of the working and enforcement of the COCOM rules?

Yes, there is something in what my hon. Friend says. The COCOM list is composed of three categories—the munitions list, the atomic energy list, and the industrial list, which is the longest. I feel sure that the House would not wish to see anything done that would prejudice the strategic controls on the munitions and atomic energy lists, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that the industrial list could be overhauled much more often than it is. We have had a rolling review since 1984, which considers a quarter of the list every six months, but my feeling is that a great deal of material that is obsolete and does not deserve to be included remains on the list. Unfortunately, COCOM must have unanimity before an item can be removed from the list, and it entails an arduous negotiating process to achieve that.

Why does the Minister not turn round to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and tell him that there is now a different ball game between the Prime Minister and Gorbachev? He is the bloke with whom she says she can do business. She gallivants down the streets of Moscow with him and meets him on the tarmac at Brize Norton. The world has changed in the past few months, and the Minister should tell his hon. Friend that.

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support and endorsement. He will be glad to hear—the reasons that he cited may have something to do with this —that the United Kingdom takes the lead in trying to have the COCOM list simplified and reduced in size.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on forecasts for sales by Austin Rover in Japan in 1988 and as to how the figures compare with those for 1985.

Registrations by Austin Rover Japan, which also markets certain non-Austin Rover products, increased by more than 200 per cent. between 1985 and 1987. Continued improvement is expected in 1988.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures explode the myth that British companies cannot sell in Japan, despite non-competitive taxation in Japan on motor cars? Does he further agree that they augur well for Austin Rover exports and therefore for employment in the west midlands, and ultimately for the Government's intention to return the company to the private sector?

My hon. Friend is right. This is an excellent news story, because the figures have increased from 2,261 in 1985 to 6,445 in 1987. That is an excellent story and we should congratulate Austing Rover Japan on it.

Having heard his answer, I warn the Minister against complacency. Does he know that his Department told me this week that Japanese car imports to Britain amounted to 191,000, representing £569 million? What will the Government do about that wretched balance of trade?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the proportion of imported cars in this country is dropping year by year. We must take into account the fact that people in this country wish to buy cars, and we cannot stop them doing so. He must recognise that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman represent a small proportion of a large market.

Is it not true that many of the cars sold by Austin Rover in Japan are Peugeots and that many others are Rovers assembled in Japan? Is it not strange that, although we accuse Japan of protectionism, we have an 11 per cent. gentleman's agreement to prevent the Japanese exporting to Britain? France limits Japanese imports to 3,000 cars, as do Spain and Italy. Is it not the Europeans who are now the protectionists, because they have unfortunately lost the will to compete with the Japanese by making competitive goods?

My hon. Friend must recall the figures that I referred to a moment ago. This is a good news story.

As one who has always driven Austin Rover cars and found them absolutely excellent due to the great craftsmanship of the workers involved, may I ask the Government to begin to ask some of the motoring correspondents on occasion to write that these are good cars that should be sold abroad with our support?

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him.

I welcome any improvement for Austin— and even for Rover—but can the Minister tell us why, in his opinion, the production of cars of 2·8 litres and more, which constitute the major part of exports to Japan, is only three quarters of what it was in the early 1970s? Why are our exports of cars only half what they were in the early 1970s, and why has the import penetration of cars into our market risen from less than 40 per cent. in 1979 to more than 50 per cent. today?

I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that in past years there were question marks over some British manufacturers and the cars that they produced. Since then things have improved beyond all peradventure, and increasing numbers of cars made in this country are being purchased. None the less, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in Japan at the moment, and everyone else will continue to push the case for an increasing share of the Japanese market.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people in his Department are engaged in export promotion work.

Approximately 730.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many companies in Basildon have achieved excellent export results over the last year and that they have certainly been helped in their endeavours by his officials? Will he join me in congratulating two companies in particular, Fisherman's Friend, which now exports to 37 countries and has recently won a West German order for £1 million, and a much smaller firm, Uniscan, which, after inventing a walking frame for the disabled, now exports to six countries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the officials in my Department. 1 am glad to extend congratulations to the companies that he mentioned. Of course, my Department will always do its best and, under the enterprise initiative announced yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we shall be able to do more, especially for small businesses. In the end, success is due to the efforts and the commitment of the private sector itself.

Does the Minister recall that memorable day last year when we had all his huffing and puffing at the Dispatch Box about exports to Japan? Is he satisfied that since then there has been movement on this matter and, if so, could he tell us what movement there has been?

The puffing, which was not only from the Government side, related to exports from, not to, Japan. Alas, they are not in balance. However, exports to Japan have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year.

What evidence does my hon. Friend have that the export promotional activity of his Department is being hindered by the rise in the value of the pound?

None.

Are the 730 people who are assisting in export promotion making any dent in our massive balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods? When they assist British Leyland, for example, to recover a paltry proportion of exports to Japan, do they do it to help British manufacturing industry, or to fatten up British Leyland simply so that it can be sold off to the contributors of funds to the Tory party? If British Leyland is ever sold off it will be an outrage because of the vast quantities of taxpayers' money that have gone into that company. The citizens of Britain expect the Department to play its part in making sure that British Leyland is successful.

I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's questions. He rather lost his way, I suspect deliberately, in that question, but I shall answer the first part of it.

Will my hon. Friend and some of his staff of 730 look at the help, advice and encouragement given to firms that are not in big city areas, which are often covered by chambers of commerce and trade and the like, but are perhaps in small rural areas, and enable them to take part in international trade fairs?

That is very important and it is one reason why, under the new arrangements, a further 60 members of staff of the Department are going into the regions. The British Overseas Trade Board has an active and effective role to play in assisting small companies to attend trade fairs and exhibitions abroad. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases that he wishes to raise with me, I shall, of course, closely follow them up.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much the trade balance in chemicals changed between the second quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1987; arid what are the comparable figures for the average, best and worst performing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much Britain's share of world trade in chemicals changed between 1979 and 1986; and what was the comparable figure in the best, average and worst performing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country.

Britain's trade balance in chemicals, as measured by the ratio of our exports to our imports, fell by 9 per cent. between 1979 and 1986. This was much the same as the OECD average. Among the top 10 OECD exporters of chemicals, France saw a 4 per cent. increase in her export-import ratio and the United States saw a fall of 39 per cent. Throughout this period the United Kingdom has had a substantial surplus on her trade in chemicals.

Is not the true situation that over the period imports have risen twice as fast as exports? Is this not yet another example of Government neglect of a wealth-producing manufacturing industry?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. This is a success story, again. There are many success stories that we do not hear about. The United Kingdom has a substantial surplus on her trade in chemicals. It is the number one export industry in the manufacturing sector. We ought to tell the world, as I am doing and as the Opposition ought to be doing, that we are doing well.

What about No. 7?

Order. No. 6 comes before No. 7.

Is the Minister not misleading the House by simply saying that we have a surplus in chemical exports as opposed to imports, when that surplus is rapidly diminishing? Since 1979 imports have increased by over 50 per cent. The Minister should give both sides of the story. He should point out to the House that the chemical industry's share of the British market is steadily declining and that, because of very low investment in chemicals, we are gradually falling behind the rest of the world.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in chemical matters, but in this instance he is wrong. In proportionate terms, as I said in the previous answer, we are comparable to many other OECD countries. This is an important industry, and it is doing well. It is achieving great success at home and abroad, and we ought to congratulate it on its success rather than whinge about it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite attempts by Opposition Members to poor-mouth the chemical industry, it is showing consistent success? If they are worried about lack of investment in the industry, will he draw to their attention the investment of well over £100 million by ICI, on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope)?

My hon. Friend is quite right. ICI has achieved a great deal of success. I opened a plant in Fleetwood not so long ago, which again indicates a very great success. I repeat that this success story ought to be told to all who can hear.

Mr. Charles Kennedy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. No points of order at Question Time.

On a point of order—

Order. No points of order at Question Time.

The Liberal Benches are empty. Mr. Speaker: I know. I cannot help it.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the state of the industry.

I last met the chairman on 16 December. No date has yet been fixed for our next meeting. When we meet we discuss a wide range of issues relating to BSC and its prospects.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the £190 million half-year profit that BSC has made? Is that not a wonderful tribute to the management and men, who have shown great sense in not standing in the way of privatisation of the steel industry?

I congratulated Sir Robert Scholey and all his colleagues on their excellent half-yearly results. We are looking forward optimistically to the full-year results that will be announced in due course. I agree with my hon. Friend that the results are a tribute to everyone working in the corporation, including the work force, who have achieved remarkable changes in the competitive position of the industry over the past few years.

When my right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Steel, did he discuss regional development grants? Did the chairman inform him that British Steel has often used regional development grants to rationalise and shed labour? Is it not a fact that regional development grants have often resulted in growing distortions in the economy and that the puny have been victimised to pay for the mighty? Is it not a disgrace that hon. Members cannot ask questions about the regional development grants because the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was not present in the Chamber as the white smoke has not yet come out of Cowley street?

Regional development grant was very useful in its time and no doubt British Steel made use of it. As I explained yesterday, the time has come to make better use of our money. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a pity that I could not answer earlier questions tabled on the regional development grant. However, I understand that the Liberals and Social Democrats have taken an interest in policy. That is quite a novelty for them and they have not yet brought the results to the Floor of the House.

Is the Minister aware that, like the Liberals and Social Democrats, we in Lanarkshire have a major steel problem—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will temper my remarks.

In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am responsible only for privatising the steel industry. I suspect that the other Steel is about to be privatised by his colleagues, but that is not a matter for me. With regard to the serious question about Lanarkshire, in my statement on the preparations for privatisation I was able to announce that the corporation in its commercial judgment had said that, subject to market conditions, there was a future for steelmaking on the Ravenscraig site for at least seven years. That should give considerable comfort to those in Lanarkshire. That is a tribute to the success that they have helped to achieve. The future of that plant will inevitably depend on those commercial judgments and the ability to compete in the market, regardless of who owns the industry.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that among the many letters that I have received from my constituents involved in the steel industry on Teesside there have been a number of messages of support for the Government's privatisation line and a widespread wish by the work force to be involved in the share issue and to take full advantage of an industry in which they believe and to which they are fully committed for the future?

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend receives that reaction in his constituency, because the Redcar works are very successful and profitable. The workers can see the benefits of the greater commercial freedom that the Government have already given to the management in recent years. Therefore, they have no fears about a privatised company free of Government controls. At the moment we are preparing for privatisation, but the Government are committed to the policy of giving shareholding opportunities to workers in their own industry wherever that is remotely possible.

As the Minister has now made it clear that he accepts responsibility for the privatisation of British Steel, will he ensure that all reports from his discussions with British Steel are brought back to the House for debate by hon. Members? Will he ensure at his next meeting with British Steel that he asks whether it has a strategy involving a move to a one-plate mill concept within the United Kingdom, which is of particular interest to the workers at Dalzell? Finally, will he ensure that the exact problems of Scotland are taken into consideration in any privatisation moves in order to ensure that Scotland does not continue to be seen as being on the periphery, as we need to have a Scottish steel headquarters to guarantee our jobs and futures because steel is so vital to our manufacturing base?

The statement that I made before Christmas was a serious and considered report to the House of the Government's proposals and of the corporation's commercial judgment of where the business stood. I shall ensure that the House is kept up to date and informed.

In view of the real advantages, not least to the people who work in British Steel, of bringing forward privatisation, when will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to present the Bill to the House to speed this up?

The Bill should come before the House in the next month or two. There will be considerable other preparatory work, and I cannot see privatisation being practicable or possible before the second half of this year at the earliest.

Will the Minister tell the House what investment proposals he has before him from the British Steel Corporation? If he has none, will he explain to the House whether that causes him any concern, as the last raft of investment proposals from the BSC were made just over two years ago and are coming to an end? If anyone in the City is contemplating investment in the industry, or if the workers themselves were to believe that one could have a steel industry that could rely on past investment and not have investment proposals for perhaps two or three years, to have a healthy-looking balance sheet with a nice-looking bottom line just for the period of privatisation, would he not agree that that would be a serious confidence trick to play on any investor in the steel industry?

A continuous process of investment is required in the steel industry and investment is taking place in various plants, including Ravenscraig. I have no proposals before me requiring the Government's formal consent, but they are likely to come in the near future and we do not intend to stop investment in the run-up to privatisation. Any proposals for further investment in continuous casting in Wales, for example, would be considered favourably by the Government, provided that they satisfy the usual commercial tests that we have to apply.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to note, when he next speaks to the chairman of British Steel, that the North Skelton brass band in my constituency, sponsored by British Steel, has just made a record with Mr. Acker Bilk and that some of the proceeds from the record will pay for schoolchildren from the Grangetown school in Redcar to go to Australia for the bicentenary celebrations? They will be the only musicians from this country. Well done, British Steel.

I am glad that British Steel scores success stories, other than just returns on capital. British Steel is an important part of the community in the north-east and I am glad that it is helping to take north-eastern music down under.

In the light of the absence of major investment proposals, just how responsible is it to flog this major national asset back to the private sector, which has such a bad record on investment, particularly in steel? How irresponsible is it to do so when stock exchanges are falling?

British Steel has an extremely good record of investment. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he assumes that, because there are no formal proposals requiring the Government's consent at present, British Steel has stemmed its investment effort. That is not the case. This is a continuous process and major schemes of investment must come forward for Government approval, which will be readily given, provided that they make commercial sense. That is something that we leave largely to British Steel in the first place.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he is doing to reduce the business burdens currently facing British exporters.

The Government are committed to promoting enterprise and to minimising and reducing burdens on business. As part of the new enterprise initiative announced yesterday, the Department's export services will be made more attractive and more accessible to firms, particularly smaller firms.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, whatever the Government do, the most important thing for exporters is free and fair trade? To that extent I welcome his earlier answer about the improvement in sales to Japan, but does he agree that, however much the Government may help now, more must be done to ensure free and fair trade throughout the world, including the Japanese economy?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way back from Japan. The House has long recognised his gifts in combining courtesy and firmness, which he will have deployed in Japan. However cordial the atmosphere at those meetings, he will have told his hosts that we shall judge them by the results in the aftermath.

Does that answer mean that the Government now recognise the importance of getting manufacturing industries into export surplus? On 10 December 1986 the Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it it was neither the business nor the responsibility of the Government to get manufacturing industries into export surplus.

The Government have a role to play, principally in an advisory capacity. The Government must help manufacturers, especially small firms which have not yet broken into export markets, with guidance and encouragement on how to break into those markets, how to cope with form-filling, how to assess the possibilities of different markets and how to maintain themselves in the difficult early periods. In all those categories the new enterprise initiative will be extremely helpful, beamed as it is on smaller businesses.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent excellent export figures announced by the British Textile Confederation, which show that last year British exports to most major European countries increased by 15 to 20 per cent. and exports to Japan increased by 23 per cent.? Is he equally aware of the grave disquiet of many carpet manufacturers about the illegal subsidies given by one of our major competitors—Belgium—to its carpet manufacturers? I have in mind especially the payment by the Belgian Government of £3·5 million to Beaulieu, the biggest carpet manufacturer in the world, which, despite a recent European Court ruling, has not been repaid. Will my hon. Friend make representations at the highest level to make sure that it is repaid and that similar practices do not recur?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the achievements of the textile industry, which has made a notable recovery from its serious difficulties — a recovery in no small measure due to our maintenance of the multi-fibre arrangement, which I hope will continue to exist for some years.

Will the Minister be more specific about how the new Government gimmick, the department of enterprise, is supposed to help export promotion? Can he point in this document to one penny of extra cash resources committed or to a glimmer of a new idea?

The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has not yet surfaced during this Question Time, so we must be content with the repetitious performance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He has mentioned the matter several times. The fact that there is no additional money may upset Opposition Members, but it is a source of satisfaction to Conservative Members that we are achieving those results without additional expenditure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we must adapt to changed circumstances and introduce more sophistication and selectivity. We believe that the results will justify our actions.

Will my hon. Friend consider the impact of the dock labour scheme on the country's exporters?

That is a subject for my hon. Friends at the Department of Employment, which I vacated not all that recently.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy weof Lancaster what further action he intends taking to promote and safeguard British interests in the space industry.

I am discussing with United Kingdom companies the space projects to which they attach importance, and we are taking a fresh look at United Kingdom civil space activities, both nationally and in the European Space Agency.

When will the Minister be able to tell us exactly what he intends to do? Some of us supported him when he came back from his meeting in Europe. He will recall that he said at the time that he was going to revamp the British National Space Centre. When can we hear the proposals, and when will those working in the industry know what those proposals are, so that they can start planning to deal with the losses which they say they will incur as a result of being excluded from programmes in Europe — regardless of whether those programmes are good or bad—because of the decision not to participate?

We have made no cut in our present plans. As I have said, I am discussing with companies how they see the future Indeed, I have arranged meetings with the managements of two important companies tomorrow.

Important as it is to listen to the views of commercial companies, it is for Governments to have a strategic vision of the importance of space activities, for their strategic interest and also for their commercial benefits. That is the case in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Indian sub-continent, Japan and 13 of the 14 countries in the European Space Agency—particularly, of course, France, which has kept Europe in the space business.

The strategic view that the Government have to take must have some aims, and those aims must be commercial, scientific and consistent with the public interest. With respect to my hon. Friend, it is not good enough to point to other countries and say that if they spend a certain proportion of their gross domestic product on space we must do the same. India is always cited. I believe that it spends its money on education satellites, for understandable reasons. We are already spending large sums in the space industry, and we are committed to continuing to do so, but, talking to private companies, we find a wide range of views on what our commercial and scientific objectives should be. We must also explore with them the prospect of the private sector putting a bit more money into the efforts that it wishes to pursue.

The Minister is only too well aware of our views on his recent performance at The Hague. They are not very complimentary. Notwithstanding that, however, will he tell us what Government policy will be in respect of companies that are currently being funded for, and are engaged in, work on European Space Agency projects—particularly Logica, which is a leading multinational team of companies developing software for all of the Columbus programme, not just the polar platform? What will happen to projects such as that, and those developed by British Aerospace, in the future, given his statement at The Hague?

We decided at The Hague that we were not going to join certain optional programmes. I have met the executives from Logica, which is one of the organisations affected. We shall get work in those projects in which we choose to participate, and not in those in which we choose not to participate.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend's Department believe that Hotol has commercial potential?

Work is just about to be completed on what is called a proof of concept study. When we have the results of that to hand, I intend to have further discussions with the companies that have been involved with the Government in taking the project so far.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people in his Department are employed on inner-city policy.

Inner-city policy is an important part of my Department's responsibilities and all members of staff take account of it in their work. Policy is coordinated by the inner cities unit, which employs 26 staff. There are also 88 people in the inner-city task forces, as well as some staff in my regional offices who work with the interdepartmental city action teams.

What policies does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to assist the outer cities?

The outer cities are benefiting considerably from the general revival in the British economy and the rapid fall in the level of unemployment. I agree that there are outer estates of some cities where social problems and the problems associated with unemployment are just as severe as those found in inner-city areas. Any lessons found while we develop new policies in inner cities which promote the physical redevelopment of cities and training and employment opportunities for their residents can happily be applied to outer-city districts as we go along.

My right hon. and learned Friend's reply will be a great encouragement to those of us who represent rural constituencies which nevertheless contain towns which have similar social and economic problems to those experienced in some inner cities. I am delighted to hear that he will pass on any solutions.

We help with the development of employment—creating activity in rural areas through such organisations as the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the problems in rural areas are sometimes different in nature and background from those in cities, but anything that we develop which speeds up the physical redevelopment of cities and the creation of new work and business opportunities ought to be applied wherever it is relevant.

I do not know whether to offer the Minister congratulations or commiserations on the announcement that was made just before Christmas, now that he has responsibility for co-ordinating all the Government's inner-city policies. In that position, will he address the problems of ignorance and utter confusion in inner cities about grant regimes and the Government's policy towards inner cities? Will he respond to the ever-growing calls, which now embrace the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, local authorities and the churches, which produced "Faith in the City", and the Prince of Wales, who only a few weeks ago said that the Government must take account of local authorities and respond to local needs and opinions? Will the Minister produce a White Paper in the near future setting out how policies for inner cities will be coordinated?

By making the appointment my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly felt that we needed to explain more clearly the policies that we are developing. The Government know exactly what the relationship is between urban development corporations, inner-city task forces, city action teams and enterprise zones. We work well together and will continue to do so. Where coordination is called for, as I work for the Prime Minister, I look forward to being involved. There will certainly be a White Paper, which we hope will encourage yet more private sector companies to become involved with us and local authorities which want to take a positive view of these matters. In my work so far I have worked closely with Conservative-controlled city authorities in Nottingham and Wolverhampton, and Labour-controlled ones in Birmingham and Hartlepool. The hon. Gentleman knows, given where he stands in the Labour party, that there are some councils where it is rather more difficult to work.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the key to a successful inner-city policy is not the number of people employed in his or any other Department, but the extent to which successful coordination, now, I am glad to say, organised by my right hon. and learned Friend, encourages private sector investment in inner-city areas and the jobs that go with it?

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Some Opposition Members judge any policy by how many staff it employs and how much public money it spends. We judge these things by results, and they are best achieved by bringing private sector business, initiative and employment back into inner cities. That is what we are trying to do.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

In the first 11 months of 1987 there was a deficit on trade in manufactures of £6·5 billion.

Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth, which is that his Government have managed the remarkable feat of turning a surplus of over £5 billion in 1978 into a deficit of over £6 billion in 1987, that this deficit is the worst ever recorded in Britain's industrial history and that it is a direct consequence of the abysmal failure of the Government's economic and industrial strategy?

It is not a function of economic policy at all. In fact, half the deficit is comprised of semi-manufactures and intermediate finished manufactured products which are used for production in this country and contribute to employment. Approximately the other half is accounted for by consumer choice. The Government are not some giant purchasing agency on behalf of the British consumer. Why does the hon. Member not speak to his own constituents? Why does he not ask them why they prefer foreign goods? Why does he not admonish them? It would not put his vote up, but he might learn something from it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best hope for manufacturing industry is the creation of a genuine internal market in Europe by 1992?

The creation of the internal market will give us a consumer market of some 330 million people. It will be the largest in the world, larger than the United States or Japan. Progress is being made towards the removal of barriers, which should bring about that market by 1992. The Internal Market Council on which I represent the Department, meets every month in Brussels or Luxembourg.

Is the Minister aware that the textile industry's contribution to the balance of trade will be severely damaged by the recent very liberal agreement reached with Turkey on the import of yarns into this country, which appears to me to undermine the MFA of which he spoke so warmly a few minutes ago? Is his Department looking at that?

I have looked at it very closely and would be very glad to do something about it, but unfortunately the industry cannot produce evidence of injury. If it produces evidence of serious injury, it will enable me to take action to reduce the volume of imports from Turkey. I have been at great pains to try to secure such evidence, but none has been forthcoming.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members, at any rate, do not take the stone-age view that nothing matters but manufactured goods? We are surprised that Opposition Members have no interest in the output of hundreds of thousands of people who work in tourism, insurance and many other non-manufacturing industries.

Yes, that is true, but I will not go the whole way with my hon. Friend. I attach great importance to the performance of manufacturing industry and I regret very much that we are still in deficit in that sector. It is the only sector in our whole trade balance where we are in deficit. I am optimistic that it will slowly be corrected, because exports are rising faster than imports, but I attach importance to the sector and I do not believe that the service sector, however successful and however many people it employs, can ever be an effective substitute for it.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what figures he has for the level of exports and imports of light commercial vehicles in the first half of 1987.

I have run off the dial, so the House should be prepared for some extemporisation in the answer.

Is it not true that many of the problems suffered by the commercial vehicle industry were caused by Government meddling in the 1960s and 1970s, which forced factories to go to uneconomic parts of the country and which forced Leyland Trucks to cross-subsidise Austin Morris cars? Is it not also true that there was poor management and appalling labour relations? Is it not encouraging that under the more profitable economic climate which the Goverment have helped to produce our commercial vehicle industry is beginning to produce better results?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I regretted it very much when Leyland Trucks, which was one of the finest truck makers in the world at that time, lost its independence. It has taken some time to effect the recovery which is now so clearly evident in the figures, which show, as I said, an improvement of some £30 million over last year.