To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many companies went into liquidation during 1987; and if he will make a statement.

The number of company insolvencies in Great Britain in 1987 was 11,645—about 22 per cent. less than in 1986.

Is the Minister aware that some companies deliberately go bust in order to renege on their commitments to staff, customers and creditors in general? For example, does he know that Glendevon Carpets in my constituency did that not so long ago and that many people suffered? Indeed, the company went out of business and resurrected itself elsewhere under a different name. The people behind that move got off scot free—I do not mean that as a pun, because the matter is too serious. Do the Government have any ideas or proposals that may deal with that problem?

The phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman referred is well understand and, regrettably, does happen. It was addressed in the Insolvency Act 1985, which gives courts the right to disqualify directors if they are found to have been guilty of misconduct such as that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not so much liquidations as new business start-ups that are the important figures? Does he agree that new business start-ups under the Government have been—

Order. The question is about liquidations.

I have a question about that.

Yes, later.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Financial Services Act.

Three self-regulating organisations have now been recognised under the Financial Services Act 1986. In addition, eight professional bodies have obtained interim recognition under schedule 15 to the Act. Two other self-regulating organisations, one professional body, seven investment exchanges — including one overseas exchange—and two clearing houses have applied for recognition, but have yet to be recognised. I intend that the central provisions of the Act will be implemented in April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he has made excellent progress in implementing the provisions of the Act? Given the complex and comprehensive nature of the provisions, it is remarkable that there has not been more slippage. However, will he comment on two matters that will be important after A day in April? First, when will the compensation scheme be introduced; and, secondly, how will we ensure that there are not too many investment businesses that have only provisional authorisation after A day?

It has always been intended that the compensation fund should come into operation three months after section 3 of the Act is implemented in April, and that remains our intention. I fear that there will inevitably be a number of investment businesses that are interim-authorised immediately after A day, particularly at the smaller end of the range. We understand that about 10,000 to 12,000 firms will he applying to the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association for authorisation. It is simply a physical impossibility for all those to receive full vetting treatment before A day. However, I know that FIMBRA has that problem in mind and will seek to keep to a minimum the number of interim authorisations.

The Minister will be aware of allegations of excessive legalism on the part of the Securities and Investment Board and some of the SROs. He will also be aware of the suggestion that the cost of registration, particularly for small firms, is quite excessive. Has he given any consideration to those allegations, and what is the response that he would like to communicate, perhaps through this question and answer session?

We are aware of the concerns expressed. It is important that we should have a full and adequate system of investor protection, but it is equally important, in the interests of investors, that that system of regulation should not be so burdensome on business that choice for consumers of investment services is reduced. This is why we have built into the Act the competition scrutiny carried out by the Director General of Fair Trading.

Is the Minister aware that, although the provisions of the Financial Services Act are necessary, they will impose a great administrative burden on many small firms and individuals, as well as on the organisations dealing with the applications? I understand that many thousands of firms may be in that position. Will he tell us what will be the position of the firms that are unable to register with the self-regulatory organisations or the SIB, simply because of the incapacity of those organisations to process the applications sufficiently quickly?

My message to those firms is clear. If they submit their applications by P day, which is 27 February, even if the organisations cannot fully process the applications by A day, the firms will obtain the benefit of interim authorisation. The message to those companies is clear: to submit their application swiftly and, in any event, before 27 February.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the telecommunication industry in (a) 1986 and (b) 1980; and what was the level of exports in the industry over the same period.

Manufacturers' sales of equipment increased from £953 million in 1980 to £1,750 million in 1986. Exports were 10 per cent. of sales in 1980 and 12.5 per cent. of sales in 1986. There are no comparable statistics for the services sector.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, which shows the kind of improvement in the telecommunications industry and its performance that we all want to see. Some time ago my hon. Friend was quoted as saying that it was easier to export telecommunications equipment to Detroit than to Dusseldorf. Does he still say that today?

Regrettably, yes. Non-tariff barriers are still operated in Europe. Some of the post, telegraph and telecommunications organisations in Europe still operate monopoly purchasing practices. It is our view that the European market will have to move towards a more liberal environment. In a number of efforts pursued by my Department, and in bilateral meetings which I have undertaken with other European colleagues, we must do our best to deliver that open market as soon as possible, because our own industry is now well poised to take advantage of it.

When considering the level of output and exports of the telecommunications industry, has the Minister discussed with British Telecom, which is a major component of the matter, the sale of magnetic tapes containing telephone directory and other information, possibly to people abroad, including fanatical religious organisations? Has he had any discussions with BT in view of the widespread concern about such possible sales?

That has not figured on the agenda of any discussions that I have had with counterparts elsewhere. I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's comments and, on the face of it, I share his concern. I shall examine his comments carefully and, if necessary, write appropriately to BT.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to be a little less modest about his efforts in opening up the European telecommunications services market? Is it not the case that his Department has made some headway in getting other PTTs to agree that Mercury, for example, should have access to markets? Will he bring us up to date on where he sees that telecommunications development going?

Most countries in the European Community are looking closely, and some with considerable envy, at the British experience. In bilateral discussions I have found that Spain, France and the Netherlands are now ready to consider applications from Mercury for access and interconnection to such markets. I am encouraged by progress so far. It is encouraging to see that our European colleagues are interested in the sort of competition that has benefited the United Kingdom to such a great extent.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specific steps he has taken to ensure that ballpoint pen manufacturers comply with the recommendations of his Department's investigation into the asphyxiation of children due to the inhalation of pen tops.

The industry was made aware of the outcome of my Department's investigations in September 1986. In a follow-up exercise in April last year several manufacturers reported that they were working on new designs. Members of the Writing Instruments Association are also working in parallel with other European manufacturers in drawing up parameters that should be taken into account in the designs of safer pen tops. In the meantime, manufacturers and importers have been reminded of their responsibilities under the general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Does the Minister mean that manufacturers who put out unsafe pens, as Bic has been doing for so long, are liable to be prosecuted? Is he aware that in recent years 11 children have died through swallowing pen tops? Until we get some real action from the industry, will he arrange for Bic pens with separate tops not to be available in any Government Department? Will he also talk to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and make sure that they are no longer available in or supplied to schools?

I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the effectiveness of his campaign and the manner in which he has pursued it. Obviously it has risen from a case involving one of his constituents, which greatly impressed my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the output of the metals industry in 1987 and in 1986.

The index of production for the metals industry was 110–5 in 1986 and 119 in the first 11 months of 1987, based on 1980 equalling 100.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, after 20 years of going downhill in the manufacturing industry, at long last we have turned the corner? Much of the reason has been the productivity and the work of unions and employers. Would it not be a tragedy if Austin Rover, Land Rover and other companies were foolishly to follow the Ford people and try to export jobs instead of goods? Is it not time that people realised that we all—management and workers—must keep the process going so that unemployment will drop, as it is already dropping in the midlands?

With his usual skill, my hon. Friend has paraphrased the Government's policy on a variety of matters, although his question went a little wider than the answer.

In view of the significant increase in demand for British-made steel in the past 12 months or so, is the Minister having discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to ensure that, whether or not it is privatised, BSC will retain an adequate steel-making capacity to meet any further demand that may arise from, for example, a further increase in the motor manufacturing operations in Britain or from any other source?

We are more than satisfied, as I think most people in this country are, with the management success of the present chairman and board of the British Steel Corporation, and we intend that as a result of that success——

The workers; they are the wealth creators.

The hon. Gentleman is right: I certainly include the workers.

Has it occurred to the Minister that these welcome improvements have taken place in the one part of British manufacturing industry that is substantially under public ownership, and in which, accordingly, the requisite investment has been made? Can he now give a guarantee that a similar improvement will be made and sustained under private ownership? If he cannot, what is the point of privatisation, other than to hand over to the Government's friends in the City a return on investment which is rightfully that of the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman will hear more examples of good news in various other industries during today's Question Time. Steel is not the only one. The hon. Gentleman forgets the criticism that was rightly levelled at the British Steel Corporation for losing up to £3 million a day in the years preceding the changes that have recently been made. He should recognise that British Steel is a success story derived from having built on and understood the changes in European and world markets. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will not continue to attack the British Steel Corporation for the changes that it has achieved.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the increase in dollar export prices in the United Kingdom and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the latest year for which figures are available.

In the year to June 1987 United Kingdom dollar export prices increased by 6 per cent., compared with an increase of almost 11 per cent. for the industrial countries of the OECD taken together.

Does the Minister agree that the rise he has described has been a major disincentive to British industry and has reduced our competitiveness? Does he agree also that, because of these policies, British industry is becoming less competitive under this Government than it was in previous times? Is that not a major reason for the crisis in the balance of payments, which showed a record deficit in 1987?

If the hon. Gentleman has a research assistant, I suggest that he sacks him, because the facts are precisely the opposite. In fact, our exports to the United States rose by 7 per cent. in sterling terms—and by 19 per cent. in dollar terms. That was achieved against an appreciation of the currency of 14 per cent.

Will the Minister confirm that every one of the commonly used indices of competitiveness shows a loss of competitiveness of British industry under this Government? Will he accordingly refrain from repeating the false claims made by the Prime Minister on this front, and will he advise his ministerial colleagues to do likewise? What is the point of producing Government statistics and then systematically misrepresenting them?

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that you were extremely tolerant to allow the hon. Gentleman's question, which had nothing to do with exchange rates. However, I am quite prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not subscribe to the view that British exports are best served by a steadily depreciating currency. He should know that the two countries with the largest trade surpluses are those with the hardest and fastest appreciating currencies. The country with the largest deficit is the one whose currency has depreciated by one third in the past 18 months.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about new regulations on the fire safety of upholstered furniture.

The proposals for new upholstered furniture regulations announced to the House on 11 January have been generally well received. A number of firms and other bodies have raised matters of commercial concern and technical detail, which we shall deal with in the drafting of the regulations.

I welcome the new regulations, but will the Minister bear in mind that an estimated 300 lives are lost every year because of the presence of killer foam and other combustible materials in household furniture? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the proposed timetable for introducing the new regulations is adequate, in view of the likelihood that another 300 lives will be lost between now and February 1989 and a further 300 before February 1990, when the new regulations are due to come into effect?

I am broadly satisfied that the measures announced last month will satisfy nearly all the concerns of the House. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he will understand that it is occasionally excruciatingly difficult to balance the paramount needs of consumer safety with a practical way of achieving them. The time frame of 1 March next year for foam and 1 March the year after for the covers is achievable. When we publish the draft regulations at the end of the month, as we agreed to do, we hope, and I think that we can fairly confidently expect, that the industry and the consumer associations will broadly welcome them.

My hon. Friend's proposals to improve the quality of foam in furniture will be widely welcomed, but will he assure the House, first, that the quality of imports will be monitored to ensure that they meet the specifications, and, secondly, that his Department has not lost sight of the need to remind consumers of home safety, because even the higher quality foam will still be combustible and the new regulations will not solve the problem of fires in the home without individual control and responsibility?

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members who have been concerned about this matter, that the regulations will bite on imports. The trading standards officers will be invited to take action on goods from wherever they come. The performance of modified foam, which could be acceptable under the test, will be continually monitored, but, having introduced the most rigorous set of regulations anywhere in the world, we should give the draft regulations a chance for the time being.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, at a time when sales should be at their highest, but are at their lowest, the industry requires certainty in respect of the regulations? Will my hon. Friend consider how to clarify the regulations so that retailers are clear about the quality of goods being sold, because at the moment nobody is certain about the regulations?

My hon. Friend is right. We must publish the draft regulations quickly. Ignition source 5 of BS 5852 is the test that we are minded to use on foam and we shall come to a view quickly on the direct match testing or the code of practice testing for covers.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on unit sales of compact discs in (a) 1987 and (b) 1986; and what value the sales represent.

In the first nine months of 1987 the British Phonographic Industry Ltd. reported sales to retailers of 11 million compact discs—[Interruption.]

Order. What goes on in the Gallery is not a matter for us.

In the first nine months of last year the British Phonographic Industry Ltd reported sales to retailers of 11 million compact discs valued at £73 million. In 1986, 8·5 million compact discs were sold, valued at £56 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those are remarkable figures, and will he join me in congratulating the work force and management of the EMI CD plant in Swindon on taking a major share of that increased growth? Does he also recognise the genuine concern within the record industry about the practice of rental and copying of CDs and the advent of digital audio tape, both of which could damage this rapidly increasing contributor to British exports?

I willingly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those of his constituents who have contributed to that excellent record of growth in the industry. In regard to copying, I hope that those in the industry will be reassured by the rental right that the Government have introduced by tabling an amendment to the Bill in another place. That will go a long way to meet current concerns.

Will my hon. Friend resist the entreaties of those who produce compact discs and who seek a ban or other form of restriction on the import or sale of digital audio tape machines? Does he agree that such an action, if attempted, could only be described as Luddite?

We are not persuaded that measures are desirable to prevent the importation of DAT recorders or to require them to be fitted with spoilers to prevent home taping. I take my hon. Friend's point, but a lively debate is developing on this topic.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the paper industry in 1987 and, in 1986.

The index of production for the paper industry was 102.6 in 1986, and 109·1 for the first three quarters of 1987, based on 1980 equals 100.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents excellent news for British industry, and in particular for the paper industry in which employment has gone up by some 11,000 in the past 18 months? Does he also agree that the prospects for the paper industry are excellent, bearing in mind the unified market in 1992?

My hon. Friend gives the lie to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) earlier by confirming yet again that in the paper industry, as in many others, we have a great success to show to the world.

Does the Minister accept that the strong performance of the paper industry is most welcome, but will he acknowledge that there is concern within the industry about the implication of energy charges in the context of the privatisation of electricity? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Energy to recognise the importance of keeping energy charges down to ensure that that industry will recover? Will he also make representations to ensure that when electricity is privatised, firms such as Thomas Tait in my constituency, which has made great investments to produce the right quality of paper, have the opportunity to tender for the substantial contracts?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the matter of energy cost is a matter for the Secretary of State for Energy. He must pursue that with him.

May I advise my hon. Friend, that leading members of the paper and board industry—

Order. It is Question Time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that leading members of the paper and board industry are strongly opposed to the proposed removal of the Patents Office from London to south Wales, not least because that will create huge additional costs for the smaller sector of the industry and clearly could adversely affect the bid of this country to get the Trade Mark Office located in the United Kingdom?

Order. I am interested in this matter, but I find it difficult to relate it to the paper industry.

I related my question directly to the paper industry. I have received direct representations from the paper industry, which is concerned about the proposed transfer of the Patents Office to South Wales.

Good enough.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will no doubt have heard my hon. Friend's question.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the response has been to the launch of the new enterprise initiative.

The response has been excellent. We have received more than 30,000 inquiries on the DTI freephone number, and 100,000 enterprise initiative booklets have now been distributed.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative on behalf of the many thousands of firms on Teesside that will directly benefit from the thousands of small projects set up each month, and the doubling of research and assistance to small businesses. Does he intend to maintain the presence of the DTI in its present form on Teesside? If, as has been announced, the regional development office will disappear from Billingham, will he give an undertaking to redeploy the staff elsewhere in the region?

The change in the nature of the services offered by our Department will obviously involve some changes in the deployment of the staff. I assure my hon. Friend that we certainly will retain a regional office in Billingham. We shall open a new satellite office in Middlesbrough. It is possible that we shall require additional personnel in the region as a whole, so long as the response is strong enough. There will, however, be some changes, because the staff previously employed in the routine checking of automatic regional development grants at Billingham will no longer be required in the same numbers. We shall look at the possibilities of redeploying them elsewhere in the region as far as possible.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity to reassure those firms seeking to locate or expand in the north that the new grants and other measures which he has announced will enable them to get quickly through the bureaucracy—this reflects one of their main fears about the loss of RDG—and that the overall amount of money going into the north next year will be not less, but more?

We believe that the new package of grants and support that we are able to give industry in the northeast will enable us to attract new investment to the region with the same success, if not more, as we have achieved in recent years. We plan to spend more money on DTI grants and services in the regions than we planned when the last White Paper was produced. Obviously, the eventual outturn of expenditure will depend on the response of firms in the regions and those who wish to go there.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will warmly welcome the consultancy advice offered to small and growing businesses. thereby increasing their professionalism and heightening their success rate, while reducing their failure rate? Is he satisfied that the fees offered to the consultants for which the Department will look will be adequate to ensure that there is an adequate supply of consultants to deal with those firms that would like to take advantage of the services?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remark. The level of response from small firms throughout the country shows that we have identified a genuine need and that we can provide a valuable service. The representations that I have received on consultants fees vary, depending on the type of consultants about which one is talking. At the moment we are particularly recruiting the business advisers who will carry out the initial company audit and decide what form of consultancy is required by the company. We find that the level of fees that we are offering is getting the right sort of people to apply. The fees for the eventual consultancy will be in line with those that we have recently been using satisfactorily for our existing consultancy services.

How many of the messages of support have come from business consultancies which undoubtedly will be the prime beneficiaries of the enterprise initiative? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that what is good for business consultancies is necessarily good for business?

The messages of support have come from representative organisations of business and chambers of commerce, both north and south of the border, and from large numbers of business men, who accept the need to make our businesses ever more competitive in ways other than just price competitiveness, at which British industry is getting very good. There will be an increase in the amount of consultancy provided, but we are determined to ensure through our contractors that it is good quality consultancy that achieves the job of raising the management performance of the companies that will benefit from it.

Referring to Teesside, will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the fact that, however great the Government's grants, the swingeing increase in rates by Cleveland county council by an additional 30p this year, bringing it up to 282p at county level, will negate much of the Government's good action in their initiatives? Will my right hon. and learned Friend speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and draw attention to this terrible impost on business in that area?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a feature in recent years that those local authorities that complain most about the difficulties of attracting new business in their areas go on to impose the highest possible rates and deter new investments. Fortunately, the Government have a proposal to introduce a national non-domestic rate across the country, which will rescue business from those local vagaries and be especially beneficial to industries in the north, in the type of constituency represented by my hon. Friend.

Is it not the case that the welcome given by industry — certainly north of the border — has been qualified? Industry says that it welcomes the White Paper only if it will not mean a decrease in the overall level of resources. Is it not the case that the business development initiative, which is one of the main items on which the Government hang their hat when saying that they are maintaining resources, applies nationally? Will the Minister tell the House how much of the money will find its way to the hard-pressed regions of the north, Scotland and Wales, rather than to the regions that are already well off?

The initiative does, indeed, apply nationally, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are giving a higher rate of grant to companies that apply under the enterprise initiative in the assisted areas, which include large parts of Scotland and Wales. We are determined to plan and work on the basis that we shall achieve the same level of expenditure, at least in the regions, as we have achieved in the past. Our success depends on the take-up in the areas in question. That is why we are promoting the new initiative so heavily to business men in Scotland, Wales, the assisted areas and the urban programme areas. We wish to ensure that the level of take-up is achieved, benefits produced and the level of expenditure maintained.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the keen interest that is being shown by the Labour leader of Lancashire county council in the excellent enterprise package? To assist her in her further understanding of these exciting measures, will the Minister tell me when the DTI satellite office is due to open in

The new realism is affecting quite a lot of councils, although, to be fair, some of the councils in the north-west have always been fairly pragmatic and have worked with the Government in helping to promote new enteprise in their areas. I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact date for the opening of the new office. I rather thought that it had already opened, but if it has not, no doubt it will open in the next few weeks.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the deficit on the balance of payments in 1987.

The deficit was £2·7 billion in 1987. This is less than that forecast in the Financial Statement and Budget Report for the year.

Will the Minister explain how we will pay our way in the world after oil, in view of the huge deficit which now exists and which is clearly soaring?

How we pay our way. The hon. Lady may remember that all our overseas assets were sold during the war to pay the United States for armaments and raw materials. Those assets, if used now to pay our deficits each year at the present rate, would last until the 22nd century.

If people want to improve the balance of payments in car and truck manufacture, should they not seek to persuade the trade unions at Ford to end the strike at once and start to renegotiate wages and conditions? Does that not apply particularly to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?

One of the most praiseworthy features of our export performance has been the great improvement in industrial relations over the past two or three years. Therefore, I very much regret the dispute at Ford and hope that it will be settled very soon.

Does the Minister realise that the deficit will continue to grow as long as he presides over agreements such as that reached on the import of acrylic yarn from Turkey? Was he surprised that, when he answered my question last time and lost his temper, he received a great deal of angry correspondence from the manufacturing employers in the industry, who feel that he is prepared to sit and let the industry go to rack and ruin before he accepts that the agreement is damaging?

I did not lose my temper with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I have great sympathy with the case that he argues. As I have told him, both at the Dispatch Box and in correspondence—at some length, I hope he will admit — the evidence that I needed to take a different position in the negotiations began to come forward only halfway through those negotiations. If this evidence is to be accepted in Brussels, it must satisfy and conform to very strict criteria. Anecdotal evidence simply about reductions in the work force is not sufficient. The evidence must relate to falling output and falling orders and to a clearly defined set of statistics about which the industry is well aware. I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the industry and made all that plain to them. I accept that the situation has deteriorated since the negotiations were concluded. I have asked the industry for a clear statement about what is happening. When that is to hand, I hope that I shall be able to put a further process in train.

is my hon. Friend aware that in 1986–87 corporation tax was nearly £13 billion—about £9 billion more than in 1981, despite a corporation tax reduction from 52 to 35 per cent.? Given those facts, does he agree that reducing taxation gives an increase in productivity and in enterprise and leads to the largest overseas investments of any country? That is the way to close our trade gap, and no other method will succeed.

Certainly taxation policy has a lot to do with it, but I remain convinced that other factors such as price, quality and delivery are all important.

Last year the deficit on manufactured trade on a balance of payments basis was about £7 billion. Ten years ago there was a surplus of about £12 billion at today's prices. Can the Minister tell us how many jobs that appalling turnround of £19 billion represents? How many jobs have been exported as a consequence? Is that not the new "jobgeld" that we are paying as tribute to Tory incompetence towards manufacturing industry?

Unemployment figures have continuously improved over the last 14 months. The trade gap is a per cent. of our gross domestic product compared with 34- per cent. of the United States gross domestic product. I remember the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends up to about a year ago further proselytising the deficit financing policy of the United States. Look where that got the United States.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on moves to increase competition in the telecommunications sector in the European Community.

The Commission's Green Paper on telecommunications, which was laid before the House on 17 July, contains a range of proposals for the development of a competitive Community market in both services and equipment. In a series of meetings with telecommunications Ministers of the Community I have underlined this objective and exchanged views on methods of increasing competition in this sector.

Is my lion. Friend aware that there are still complaints about the difficulties of access to a number of national markets in the European Community? Is he satisfied that rapid enough progress is being made towards the achievement of a single common market in telecommunications equipment? Is he aware that numerous parts of Britain, including Somerset, depend for job and wealth creation on that being achieved, and that we cannot wait until 1992?

The short answer is no, I am not satisfied by the rate of progress. That is why I have arranged so many meetings with my European counterparts. We have all agreed that we should make the fastest possible progress towards a truly common market in telecommunications equipment. I am encouraged that the Commission's directives on the liberalisation of the terminals market borrows a great deal from British experience, and that many of the principles in the Commission's Green Paper borrow very directly from United Kingdom experience. In the meantime, we must see that our companies have access to what are, in practical terms, closed markets.

Is the Minister aware of the concern about the growing importation from the continent of pornographic material by premium service operators of British Telecom? Many of us are fed up to the back teeth with the material that is being put out on the telephone and are sick of the "rent a knee trembler" performances that are being put out.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we looked into that matter and associated issues during the Adjournment debate in the early hours of this morning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is content that the action that the Director General of Oftel is currently taking with a considerable degree of urgency will meet some of his concerns. Both DG Oftel and BT share a number of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We want to see fast action, but it must be for DG Oftel to implement that action, if necessary through a licence change.

While recognising that the Minister is not responsible for the approval of equipment that can be fitted to British Telecom lines in homes, may I ask whether he is aware that Telecom, or someone, is obstructing the approval of diverter equipment that can be used on telephone lines? It seems that that is because Telecom can gain far more by renting than by allowing people to buy. Will the Minister now look into that, make the necessary representations and clear the blockage?

Yes, Sir.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the level of output in the publishing industry in 1987 and in 1986.

The index of production for the United Kingdom printing and publishing industries was 105.6 in 1986 and 116.3 in the first three quarters of 1987, based on 1980 equalling 100.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is that not a remarkable tribute to the publishing industry and to the economy as a whole? I know that the policy of the Labour party is to increase choice, but with over 52,000 titles being published every year in this country, is that not a mark of the range of choice provided by capitalism?

My hon. Friend's general philosophy is quite right. However, I am delighted to say that he was slightly wrong in the number of titles. The number of book titles published in 1986 was 58,000, which was an all-time record and yet again evidence of a success story.

To which of the hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues should our congratulations be sent for the boost that they have given to the publishing industry by the use of injunctions?

It would seem, as ever, that the lawyers always win.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the proposals to denationalise British Steel.

I have received a small number of letters from various parties about points of detail. I have so far received very few representations about the principle of privatisation itself.

Is the Minister aware that there is much concern among those who are employed at BSC at the moment because no details have yet been put forward about the way in which the privatisation will take place? Is he aware that the trustees of the BSC pension fund recently announced a £41 million payout over and above their income because of the sale of part-owned BSC shares in steel companies? Will he give some assurances to the people who rely on BSC pensions that their rights will be protected?

We hope to publish the Bill turning the corporation into a Companies Act company shortly. Obviously, more details will begin to emerge during the debate on that. Meanwhile, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about pension rights. It is an important matter and we shall have to reassure the employees—I am sure that we shall be able to—that their pension rights will not be affected by the change. When I have taken previous privatisation measures through the House, we have always been able to address that point successfully and I am sure that we shall be able to do so again.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread demand that that measure proceeds as soon as possible, and can he tell us when he expects the Bill to be published, so that the House can get on with its consideration of the details?

I expect the Bill to be published shortly. I advise my hon. Friend and others who are interested to wait for the business statement that follows this period of questions.

Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster think that the present levels of efficiency of the British Steel Corporation could conceivably have been achieved if it had been left in private ownership for the past 20 years?

It could have been achieved at any time by good management, with the co-operation of a good work force in making the necessary changes in working practices and the necessary investment in new plant and equipment, which British Steel Corporation has done so successfully. Now that it is such a successful corporation, there is no need for it to remain under the constraints of the Treasury and Government ownership, and we are ready to return it to the market.

Will the Minister state whether it is correct that he has appointed merchant bankers, brokers and account managers for the flotation? If it is correct, why could he not tell me that in his answers to my written questions, and why does he presume that the Bill will pass through the House?

I am not sure about the questions, which I have not handled myself. It is certainly the case that we have appointed our advisers and issued a press notice on that matter. I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the fullest details of whom we have appointed: the Government merchant bank advisers are Samuel Montagu, the Government brokers are Rowe and Pitman, and the reporting accountants are Coopers and Lybrand.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much in real terms was spent on all aspects of Government regional aid policy in the financial years ended in April 1979 and April 1986 in (a) Bridgend, (b) Wales and (c) each of the standard planning regions of the United Kingdom.

Total expenditure in the United Kingdom at constant 1986–87 prices on the main schemes of regional assistance in 1978–79 and 1985–86 was £1,377–8 million and £784.7 million respectively. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will arrange for the full set of figures requested to be published in the Official Report.

I am sure the Minister will agree that it is absolutely astounding that at a time when unemployment was more than doubling, regional aid should have been virtually halved. Will the Government now make a commitment to reinstate regional spending in real terms so that areas with high unemployment, such as Wales, Scotland and the north, can receive an additional boost to attract new jobs?

For the ensuing year regional aid expenditure will be comparable with what we spent last year, albeit spread into a variety of different initiatives and regional assistance.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new plans he has for lifting bureaucratic burdens on business.

Active work continues in every area of government to lighten the load of regulation and improve the delivery of Government services for business. We propose to issue a White Paper reporting progress and the next steps in the summer.

In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in 1979 we had one of the most wizened and shrunken small business sectors in the Western world? Does he accept that due to the Government lifting the bureaucratic burdens it is now starting to grow? What does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to relieve the load on small businesses of company law, particularly on the audit facility?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most impressive achievements of the British economic recovery has been the rate at which small businesses have set up and that sector has expanded. It is important that the Government continue to deal with small business in such a way that they do not waste management time or erect obstructions in the way of people intending to expand their business. We are now looking at several detailed proposals on company law reform and particularly aim to lift bureaucratic burdens in our changes. We have informed interested parties of the details of our intended reform of annual filing requirements for company accounts, and we are certainly giving detailed consideration to the small company audit and account requirements, to which my hon. Friend referred.

If lightening bureaucratic burdens on small firms is so good, why is it so good to increase them for trade unions in Act after Act? Since we lose more days every year from industrial injury than from strike action, can the Minister assure us that the proposals to remove the bureaucratic burdens on small businesses will not extend to the removal of health and safety obligations—which most small firms of any decent standard welcome—to ensure that loss of life and limb is not increased?

Trade unions can have their own bureaucracy, but I am sure that nothing that the Government have done puts more bureaucratic restraints on them. This is a matter, not for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are seeking to strengthen the ways in which members can enforce legal rights, which this House has provided, against trade unions which might otherwise be unwilling to concede them. That does not conflict with the other general aims of our policy. The Government have no intention whatever of reducing the standards of health and safety achieved in the British workplace.

I sought to be called on question No. 1 as I represent Lancaster——

Order. I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not called then, but she has her chance now on question 21.

I am now dealing with question 21, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that companies which come to Lancaster, despite any bureaucratic restrictions, rarely go into liquidation, because of the assistance given to them by local business men and the local city council. Anyone who comes to Lancaster will do exceedingly well.

That is a very welcome message for us all. It is confirmed by my experiences of Lancashire, where the co-operation between the local business leadership and the local council, and the use they make of the assistance from the Government, is very effective and is showing up very well in the recovery of the economy in that area.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received in response to his recent statement on competition policy.

My Department has received a large number of representations in the course of the recent review, and I expect to receive more in response to the proposed Green Paper on the new restrictive trade practices law, due for publication shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the possible takeover bid for British Bakeries in my constituency? Is he aware of a move by comparatively small companies to take over large companies, which then go in for asset-stripping on a big scale, which involves job losses? What will my hon. Friend do about this wicked practice?

Asset-stripping is a highly emotive and quite often misleading term. If any merger qualifies under the legislation, it falls to my right hon. and noble Friend to decide whether it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He does that on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. The proposed merger to which my hon. Friend referred is, I believe, in the process of being considered by the Director General.