To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans his Department has to revitalise the inner cities.

We shall continue to build on the extensive range of initiatives which make up the Government's Action for Cities programme.

I congratulate the Chancellor on his appointment, if not on that reply.

I recall my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, in which he will remember I made two points. First, I am responsible for the programmes and keep closely in touch with my Government colleagues who are concerned with them, but, secondly, the specific issues the hon. Gentleman raised about the Select Committee's report are really matters for the reply of the Department of the Environment to that report. He will understand that I would not want to pre-empt that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmental improvement schemes, often at very little cost, can frequently be the best initiatives to encourage people and businesses into derelict inner city areas? May I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that his Department is keeping in touch with ministerial colleagues at the Department of the Environment to promote initial environmental improvement schemes, often using local labour?

Yes, indeed, in general terms I can give that assurance. I add the hope that the various private sector initiatives, which are now becoming an important and useful feature of inner city action, will also take my hon. Friend's point.

Can the Minister be satisfied with the levels of unemployment in most inner cities? Is he aware that the money that is now going through various Government agencies is having virtually no impact on hard core unemployment in those cities? When will the Government realise that unemployment will not be shifted off the agenda by their silence on these issues?

No, I am not satisfied with the level of unemployment in inner city areas. The purpose of a large number of our programmes is to reduce it. I am happy to say that they are doing so with increasing success against the background of general economic resurgence. I shall not weary the hon. Gentleman with a lot of statistics, but the task forces, for instance, which report direct to me, have already been responsible for the creation of significant numbers of jobs in inner city areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous investment going into the city of Birmingham, almost all of it from private enterprise? About £1 billion is being spent to revitalise the city centre. Does my right hon. Friend agree that good and successful city centres have obvious repercussions for inner cities because they provide jobs and opportunities in the right environment for continuing investment?

I agree with my hon. Friend and would also put the point the other way around. There is now a much better climate of confidence for new investment in our economy, and that is a significant advantage for inner cities and one reason why I am glad to see the private sector beginning to come in behind so many of our initiatives.

On the matter of financing, can the Minister explain the position in Europe about the integrated development operations programmes, especially in relation to article 15 and the local authority element that it contains? Does he not think it stupid that this row has been going on for so long while we are putting at risk hundreds of millions in regional development fund and social fund grants because of the Government's vindictive attitude to local authorities?

In no sense do the Government have a vindictive attitude towards local authorities. I have emphasised many times that where local authorities are prepared to work in a practical way with us, we are more than willing to work in a practical way with them. The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises will be looked at against that background.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications have so far been received for consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the enterprise initiative includes assistance with consultancy projects in key management skills essential for a competitive business. Those skills are marketing, design, quality, manufacturing technology, business planning and financial and information systems. In the nine months since we launched the enterprise initiative my Department has received over 12,500 applications for assisted consultancy, demonstrating strong business support for the service.

In welcoming my hon. Friend to his new job, may I ask him to note that there are more Scots on the Tory Benches at the moment than on the Labour Benches? They are clearly worried about Govan. I should like to ask my hon. Friend about the effect of the enterprise initiative. Was it not originally intended for small businesses, and is it working in that way for the benefit of small businesses, and not for the benefit of medium-sized and large businesses?

The general response shows that we are meeting the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. Over 90 per cent. of the applications for assisted consultancies have been from firms with fewer than 100 employees. We are on target to fulfil the promise in the White Paper of supporting 1,000 consultancies every month. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that that is good news and will carry that message back to his constituency and encourage as many companies as possible there to make applications.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed—sorry, I am jumping the gun slightly. Has my hon. Friend noticed that his enterprise initiative is being emulated as far away as on the other side of the world by the Socialist Government of New Zealand, who are proposing to privatise their state airline? Has my hon. Friend had any representations on that specific subject from anyone on the Opposition Front Bench?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that representations from the Opposition on such matters are few and far between. I think he will agree that their ideas on these matters, if they ever existed, have long since run out and they have come to accept that the initiatives that we are taking under the enterprise initiative have been, and continue to be, a resounding success.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and what was the figure for the same month in 1973.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the output of manufacturing industry; and what was the comparable figure one year ago.

In August 1988 manufacturing output was at a level of 116·9, based on 1985 equal to 100. This is 5 per cent. more than the level of 111·1 for August 1973, but my hon. Friends will appreciate that monthly data can be erratic. A firmer based comparison would be that in the three months to August 1988 manufacturing output was 3·5 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1973. It was also 7 per cent. higher than in the three months to August 1987. Manufacturing output is at its highest ever level.

Does my hon. Friend feel that manufacturing industry has expanded in a satisfactory manner over the past 15 years?

The record shows that, for example, between 1973 and 1979 manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent. However, having gone through a world recession, having restructured British industry and having achieved unprecedented levels of productivity and profitability, we are now well on the way to having an outstandingly successful manufacturing sector.

Are not rising unit labour costs the biggest dangers to manufacturing industry, and are not the essential tasks of the Government to make sure that inflation remains low and that wage increases are kept to a minimum and based on productivity increases?

Yes, my hon. Friend has characteristically put his finger on an important problem, which is that whereas the Government accept full responsibility for keeping inflation as low as possible, and are doing so now, the private sector must bear the primary responsibility for wage restraint. Any increases in productivity may be prejudiced by excessively high wage settlements, which are causing much concern.

The Minister correctly warns about the erratic nature of some of the comparisons on manufacturing output. However, we should not be blind to the errors that occurred between 1979 and 1981, when two massive deflationary Budgets did so much damage and caused so much destruction in the manufacturing base. Is it not significant that many of the Government's figures, as shown by the Minister's response, are based on events since 1981 and not on events since 1979, when the Tory Government came to power?

I agree that the basis of comparison is of the essence, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider both the position that we found when we inherited Government in 1979, and the background of world recession. I hope he will agree that the progress that we have made since then has been remarkable, and the figures on manufacturing output, productivity and profitability show that we are on a long trend of success that will continue, even according to the Confederation of British Industry, into the foreseeable future.

Is it not a pathetic reflection on the Government that manufacturing output is only now back to the level that it was when the Government came into power? Is the Minister proud of the Government's three records in manufacturing industry, which have produced the first manufacturing deficit in our trade, the worst in one single month and, this year, the worst in one year? Will not the privatisation of industries such as steel make things even worse, by allowing firms to go for short-term profit, private closures and more steel imports?

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the world continues to change and progress and that if we do not change and progress with it we have little or no chance of surviving. He must come to terms with that and realise that unless the private sector continues to change, to invest and to improve productivity, we shall have no chance of competing in an ever more competitive world.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he intends to implement to tackle restrictive trade practices in the professions.

The Government have proposed radical changes in the restrictive trade practices legislation. The exemptions enjoyed by professional services and other sectors of the economy under the current legislation will not be carried across into the new legislation without the merits of each having been established afresh.

Are there not still many restrictive practices in the professions, and is it not wholly desirable that they should be subjected to objective scrutiny to ascertain whether they are operating in the public interest? Will my hon. Friend confirm that nothing is to be regarded as sacrosanct? Does he agree that a good professional does not need the protection of a closed shop and that the only criterion that the Government should use is the interests of the customer?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are still a good many restrictive practices in the professions. The purpose of the new system of control that we proposed in the Green Paper earlier this year is to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of those restrictions so that the overall public interest can be established. It is, of course, necessary to balance the need for competition, so that consumers have access to a wide choice of services at the lowest practical cost, with the requirement for professional standards to remain high, and to ensure a proper degree of consumer protection.

Will the Minister examine the position of estate agents, particularly in respect of the practice of gazumping and the selling of houses when the would-be purchaser believes that a sale has been arranged prior to the contract? What will the Government do about that?

The question that I have been asked is about restrictive practices in the professions. [Interruption.] The point made from a sedentary position is right. Estate agents are not subject to any sort of closed shop. The point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) is widely discussed and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs is looking into the matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us welcome the proposal of our noble Friend in the House on Lords concerning solicitors and members of the legal profession, which will come as a shock to some of them, who will have to earn a living for once? Does he accept that what we need to do, for those who are so keen on the Common Market, is to look at an early stage at the restrictive practices that exist in Europe, which, frankly, will be much more damaging to this country than many of the other stupid things that the Common Market wants to do?

Speaking as a retired lawyer, I take my hon. Friend's remarks somewhat amiss, but I assure him that the pressure to review and look afresh at restrictive practices in the professions does not flow from the European Community. We want to establish a proper system of scrutiny for professional restrictive practices, to make sure that the public interest is properly answered.

Is it not right, now that so much damage has been done to British manufacturing industry in the name of competition, to tackle and end the monopoly of barristers in the higher courts, to allow them to set up in practice wherever they want and in whatever combination they want with other professions, to break the restrictive practices of solicitors and to impose effective and powerful competition on estate agents, rather than talking about a mere code of practice?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to publish a Green Paper on the legal professions generally, plus two specific consultation papers on two specific areas, in the new year. I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although consumers can benefit from competition, they are protected by professional skills, qualifications and standards? The consumer wants competence as well as competition. Our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak would not want his appendix taken out by a layman. He would want it taken out by a doctor. Likewise, he would be pretty apprehensive if his will were drafted by someone who did not know what he was doing.

My hon. Friend is quite right. He puts the balance correctly and it is precisely so that such a balance can be drawn between the interests of the public, in having proper high standards and a decent level of competition so that choice is wide and costs are low, that these new procedures have been suggested.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further action his Department is taking to ensure that all parts of Britain benefit equally from the introduction of the European single market.

Economic studies indicate that the completion of the single market will give a significant boost to Community GDP and employment. I expect firms in all parts of the United Kingdom to share in this, and the aim of our "Europe—Open for Business" campaign is to encourage firms, wherever they are located, to take action to exploit the opportunities that the single market will bring.

Will the Minister give me an assurance that, when 1992 comes and those opportunities are available, firms in my constituency of Orkney and Shetland will be competing on an equal basis with similar firms in the south, and if not, why not?

There is nothing in the Government's power to put firms in each part of the country on an equal footing. We cannot alter geography. That lies well beyond our powers, but we can make sure that the opportunities available to firms in the regions of the United Kingdom are accentuated to them and that they are aware of those opportunities and take steps now, as they should be doing, to prepare themselves for it.

Is my hon. Friend able to confirm the embarrassing report on the front page of today's edition of The Guardian, which states that under the Single European Act's majority voting powers the EEC will compel the British Government to spend £6 billion of taxpayers' money on social projects in Labour-controlled inner city areas? Does not this latest Delors initiative confirm the view that the EEC juggernaut is rolling wildly out of control? What do the Government propose to do to stop it?

The general view is that the EC machinery is under better control now than it has been for some time. The steps that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken to ensure that there are proper reforms where they are needed have led to considerable improvements.

The Prime Minister has said that she does not want the European single market, or anything connected with the EEC, to destroy the distinctive character of British banks. To fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge, will the Minister give an undertaking that a European or foreign bank will not be able to take over the Girobank? When are we to have a statement on who is on the short list to buy the Girobank? What is the delay? What has happened?

I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his question. As for the first part, he will recollect that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is now Secretary of State for Health, made an announcement on the issue earlier in the year he set out clearly the terms on which Girobank was being offered for sale.

In helping British firms towards 1992, will my hon. Friend tell the House whether his Department is actively monitoring some of the more unfair trade practices of some of our so-called European allies, especially France?

We try to monitor unfair practices elsewhere, but we depend heavily on British firms which come across evidence of unfair trade practices to tell us about them and supply information. We are certainly prepared to do what we can to investigate such practices. We are pressing hard for action to be taken against them wherever possible. We cannot act unless we know what is happening.

Which sectors of British industry has the Minister identified as being gravely at risk from the increased competition that they will face after 1992, instead of having glowing prospects? Or are the salesmen of the Department of Trade and Industry, including the head salesman, so busy with their advertising campaign that they have not bothered with this essential work?

The days when the Government of the day tried to pick winners in that way have long gone. The record of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported in the 1970s in trying to pick the sectors that would be the ones for the future was a disastrous failure. Highly competitive firms that prepare now for the opportunities and challenges of the single market will do well. Firms that are less competitive will do less well in what will be an increasingly competitive market.

My hon. Friend has said that the Government cannot alter the geography of the United Kingdom. Will he ensure that industry, wherever it is situated, will have equal access through the Channel tunnel, when it is built, and through the transport infrastructure, without unnecessary and bureaucratic red tape? Will he assure the House that when the tunnel is built we shall not substitute a new barrier for northern industry on the Thames?

I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention that when the arrangements are completed the checks and hindrances on transport between the United Kingdom and the continent will be as minimal as is practicable.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with the northern region of the Confederation of British Industry; and when he next proposes to meet the northern region of the Confederation of British Industry.

I have not yet met the northern chamber of the CBI, and have no present plans to do so. However, when I was in Newcastle on 21 September I met the chief executive of the Newcastle initiative, the first of the special CBI task forces to enhance the private sector contribution to regenerating rundown inner city areas.

As the same task force has identified Newcastle as a future centre for Japanese-based financial services, and as the Japanese and Australian Governments are talking about having a fully cabled technocity in Australia, will the Minister give such a scheme for Newcastle his personal leadership and commitment?

The whole point of the encouragement that we have given to the CBI and other private sector initiatives is to do with our belief that the active and wholehearted involvement of the private sector is the key ingredient in the regeneration of inner cities. I have given my encouragement to the CBI in that respect, but I do not wish to imply specific Government backing for a specific scheme, for which I have not received details.

If my right hon. Friend should have such a meeting with the northern region of the CBI, will he discuss with it the importance of industries that are based in the region, which have head offices in the region and which have invested great sums of money in employment schemes in the region? In particular, will he discuss the case of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, which is now facing a major threat from Elders IXL, which could have the most deleterious effect on employment prospects in the north-east?

I assume that the main thrust of my hon. Friend's question was the second part of it. I can say only that the proposed acquisition is being examined in the normal way by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the question of reference in due course. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, any representations that he or anybody else wants to make should be made to the Director General of Fair Trading at this stage.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his "Action for Cities" breakfast presentations.

Of the 1,200 senior business men who attended the six presentations held between mid-April and the end of June, about a quarter made specific offers of help. Those offers included managed workshop space, industry-education links, secondments and free advice to inner city businesses, and are all being followed up.

I am grateful for that reply. Is it not encouraging that the private sector's response to "Action for Cities" has been so positive? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI's recent publication "Initiatives beyond Charity" and the work of business in the community are particularly helpful in that regard?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to add a few words about the work of Phoenix and, not least, the work of chambers of commerce up and down the country. All those signs of private sector involvement and a recognition of the economic advantages, as well as other factors, to the private sector are very welcome.

Does the Chancellor agree that for the Government to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on giving free breakfasts to business people while Bradford Tory council is increasing the cost of school dinners to 80p a day tells us all that we need to know about Conservative party values and priorities? If he wishes to dodge answering that question, will he tell the House how the Bradford Tories' plans to sack 9,000 men and women will revitalise Bradford's inner city areas?

Order. That has very little to do with breakfast, I would say.

I would not wish to dissent from your judgment, Mr. Speaker, that the question had very little to do with Bradford. Having visited Bradford and seen the major redevelopment now under way by Gratton of what was formerly a collection of derelict 19th century sites—and which is one of the most impressive pieces of housing renovation that I have seen—I have no doubt that the Government's programmes are having their effect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to get business enmeshed in the initiatives has been a most useful exercise? However, will he carry out an important task? Will he liaise closely with the Department of Education and Science and his ministerial colleagues there to ensure that the third city technology college gets off the ground in the near future? It is promoted mainly by a large national retailing group in the Bradford area and it will do a lot of good for general urban regeneration in the area as well as for initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend's Department.

I shall continue to liaise closely with my colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science and with other relevant colleagues, and I shall draw their attention to what my hon. Friend has said today.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders Ltd; and what subjects were discussed.

I last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 17 October. We discussed a range of issues of current interest to the corporation, including the position on the disposal of its subsidiary companies.

It is not for me to praise the chairman of British Shipbuilders—he might suffer a wage cut as a result—but may I say to the Minister that one of the proposed sales, Clark Kincaid, would be aided immeasurably if the yard were to secure the Kvaerner engine order? Will the Minister give every support to Mr. John Lister with regard to the order for the Mauritian ferry? I believe that there is aid and trade provision agreement funding to be obtained for that ferry. Both these questions are of critical importance to my constituents who work in Kincaid and Ferguson. May I remind the Minister that when those yards are sold off, as with other acquisitions, people's lives are bought by the purchaser, so let us have decent terms and conditions for the employees?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are going on with Kvaerner about the engine to which he refers. I cannot comment on the exact position in the negotiations, but I am sure that his words will have been noted. As for the ferry for Mauritius, I had some discussions recently with the Mauritian Government, which touched on that matter, among others, and it is clear that there is a real interest in the possibility of that ferry. Undoubtedly there will be keen competition for it. If, as we all hope, privatisation is successfully achieved, the terms and conditions of the work force after privatisation must be a matter for negotiation between the parties.

In recent years, the Minister's predecessors used to tell the House that British shipyards had to close because they had no orders. What does the Minister believe the British people would think of a Minister who closed a shipyard that had the imminent prospect of two orders worth over £200 million, one of which had been withdrawn from a shipyard in Korea to be built at North-East Shipbuilders Ltd. in Sunderland?

Part of the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked me is that it would depend on the prospects of those ships being built at a profit rather than a loss, against a background where the history has been one of massive losses incurred by British Shipbuilders over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that.

Does the Minister accept that there is now unmistakeable evidence of an upturn in world demand for shipping and that the NESL yard in Sunderland is the European yard that is best equipped and best placed to take advantage of it? In those circumstances, does he not accept that to close that yard now would be an act of industrial vandalism?

Part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman is precisely that which I have just given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). One must judge the position against the background of the likelihood that the ships will be built so that a profit and real jobs are provided. One must also look at the longer-term prospects, not just at the reports that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioned.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairmen of British Aerospace and Austin Rover; and what subjects were discussed.

Neither my predecessor nor I have met either chairman in recent months.

Will the Minister arrange a meeting with the chairmen of British Aerospace and Rover to discuss future plant closures? Will he remind them that when the Government sold British Aerospace to Austin Rover at a giveaway price of £150 million it was to produce a British motor industry using British components and providing employment, not to enable British Aerospace to engage in asset-stripping on a grand scale?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee that has been examining the matter. I think that, if only as a member of that Committee—which I understand is considering some further interviews—he might well consider it improper were I to respond to some of his questions.

The Labour party is critical of British Aerospace for selling some property which is in excess of its requirements, the proceeds from which it will presumably then use to invest in and improve its business and that of Rover. If Rover were still in the public sector, however, Labour would be calling for more money to be put in by the taxpayer. Is that not typical of Labour's double standards, given that the effect of both would be the same?

It must also be said that for everyone discussing the matter the key consideration must be to do everything possible to ensure the long-term viability of all the operations for those who work in them. It is to that that we must direct our main attention.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Aerospace, will he raise with him that company's behaviour towards its subsidiary Royal Ordnance plc, and in particular the closures at Patricroft and Bishopton? Does he not agree that it is ludicrous for the manufacturing industry in this country to be hit in this way again, so that we become dependent on outside suppliers for munitions?

I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that plans which I understand are designed to improve the long-term viability and competitiveness of Royal Ordnance are against the interests of those who work in the industry. Obviously there are points of argument about whether such plans work towards that objective, but, as I have said, it is the objective that we should all have in mind.

I hope that discussions between the Minister and the chairman will be less frequent following privatisation, and that they will be confined largely to matters in which the Government can act, such as the removal of trade and institutional barriers. But may I ask what progress has been made in discussions in Europe about the French threat to ban imports of cars made at Longbridge for Honda?

I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact and up-to-date report, but if I may I shall write to him about it.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Aerospace, will he ask what is his view of the British Airways decision to buy the American Boeing aircraft instead of the European Airbus, in which British Aerospace has a 20 per cent. share and for which the British taxpayer provided a substantial amount in launch-aid? Will he also ask what the decision will do for the long-term job prospects of those employed in the Airbus programme in British Aerospace? Does he not think that British Airways' decision is damaging, unpatriotic and a kick in the teeth for British industry?

If I have the opportunity I shall be more than happy to ask the chairman of British Aerospace for his views, but I shall also want to ask the chairman of British Airways for his views and his assessment of the effects on the company of its decisions.

I call Mr. Patrick Thompson, No. 16.

What about No. 13?

Order. I have had notification that No. 13 is not to be asked. I call Mr. Patrick Thompson.

rose—

rose—

rose—

Order. I have had notification that Question No. 13 is not to be asked. [Interruption.] Mr. Thompson.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the response to his Department's research and technology initiative.

There has been a very encouraging response —[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. It is perfectly in order for an hon. Member to remove his question. It is not a matter for me and it is in order.

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has been got at.

There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published in the Official Report today—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. A point of order does not arise on this.—[Interruption.] Order. However, I think that it would be helpful if an hon. Member who is not moving his question is not in the Chamber. Mr. Forth.

There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published—[Interruption.]

Order. This takes up time at Question Time. I have already ruled that a point of order cannot arise on such a matter. Mr. Forth.

There has been a very encouraging response to the research and technology initiative since its launch on 12 January. I have arranged for a short note to be published in the Official Report today, outlining progress on the programmes in more detail.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the encouraging news. Does he agree that if we are to compete successfully in Europe and elsewhere much more needs to be done, not least in the education and recruitment of skilled scientists, engineers and technicians.

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware of the education and enterprise initiative, recently launched jointly by three Government Departments, the principal aim of which is to do precisely what my hon. Friend has asked—to bring industry and education more closely together, to encourage understanding and mix their skills so that we may progress further in the development of the required skills in industry.

Will the Minister comment on the difficulty that he is experiencing in the privatisation of the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride? Does he agree that, given those difficulties, it would be better for NEL to remain in the public sector, where it has successfully served industry for the past 40 years?

The future of NEL is still being considered and discussions are still continuing. I believe that it is right that we should continue to explore the best possibilities for giving NEL, and any other facility, the most promising and positive future. That is what my Department and the Secretary of State have in mind as we continue to look at the matter.

As part of the research and technology initiative, will my hon. Friend consider—[Interruption.] As part of the research and development initiative will my hon. Friend consider the technology enterprise—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us settle down now, as we have important questions to consider.

Will my hon. Friend consider the technology enterprise trust, which is now operating in Manchester, and which is funded by private enterprise? As a result of that trust, teams of experts go into universities and advise academics on patents, registration, product licences and on obtaining further research funds to expand with a view to going into production. That is an idea that could be spread throughout the country, and private enterprise has an important part to play in that.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the attention of the House to something that is obviously a good example of the way in which the private sector can work positively together with further and higher education, to the benefit of all. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that that is in tune with the developments that my Department is trying to encourage.

In considering the proposals received under the research and technology initiative, does the DTI try to pick winners, or does it try to sabotage them? Surely the fiasco of the attempted sale of the national engineering laboratory shows the ignorance of the Secretary of State, the true state of engineering research in this country and its need for serious support.

I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should so criticise a move designed to recognise that those closest in their work to the requirements of industry should be given greater freedom and flexibility to work ever more closely with industry, to the mutual benefit of all. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would also recognise that it is to the long-term benefit of employees involved in research-related activities that they should be given the freedom and responsibility to work more closely with their customers who pay for their work. I hope, in recognising that, that he will understand that the future of NEL will be more secure against that background than it has been in the past.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recent quarterly figure for investment in manufacturing; and what percentage change this represents since the second quarter in 1979.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for investment by manufacturing industry; and what were the comparable figures one year ago.

In the second quarter of 1988, investment in manufacturing industry, including leased assets, is estimated to have been £2·9 billion at 1985 prices and seasonally adjusted. That represents an increase of 13 per cent. over the figure of £2·6 billion for the corresponding quarter of 1987 and increases of 3 per cent. and 56 per cent. respectively over the second quarter figures for 1979 and 1983. The figure of £2·9 billion is the highest ever recorded for manufacturing investment in a single quarter.

Is not the true picture very different from the one painted by the Minister, as in constant figures the investment has only just reached nationally what it was in 1979? Is it not a fact that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs said last week that since 1979 investment in constant terms is 38 per cent. down in the north-west region? Is not most of the investment going to the south-east and the London area? What will the Government do for the regions, and what will high interest rates do for the future of investment?

I would rather look to the future than to the past, which is what the hon. Gentleman is in the habit of doing. I draw his attention to the fact that the recent Confederation of British Industry quarterly industrial trends survey shows that of 1,200 manufacturing companies, 40 per cent. plan to increase spending on plant and machinery over the next 12 months. That does not suggest to me that there is a problem. It is clear to all that, given the record levels of profitability of United Kingdom industry, the levels of investment are not only at record levels, but are likely to remain so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will concede that we have liberated regional policy from the groove of automaticity where it has been stuck—to which Opposition Members are so devoted—by giving it a new impetus through our consultancy initiatives, which are spread throughout the regions.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Will he remind the whingers and prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches that if they want a good example of international confidence in manufacturing industry in this country they should look to Ford in Wales?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and for bringing to the attention of the House the fact that, such is the continuing confidence of major businesses such as the Ford Motor company in the future of the United Kingdom, and such is their confidence in our economic stability and the productivity improvements that we have seen recently, that they—unlike Opposition Members—are continuing to express confidence about the future of our economy and continuing to invest at record levels.

Does the Minister accept that whereas manufacturing investment may certainly have brought down unemployment in counties such as Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, where the unemployment rate is about 3 per cent., in areas such as north-west Wales unemployment still approaches 20 per cent.? When are we going to see some of the manufacturing investment which is apparently working such miracles?

I am disappointed, as ever, that Opposition Members persist in wanting to point out the difficulties rather than the opportunities. Unemployment throughout the country has been falling now for a record period. It is falling in all regions of the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in trying to attract investment to his area as well as to the rest of the country, so that everyone can benefit in the boom in the economy and the boom in investment.

My hon. Friend makes his points well. Does he agree that since 1979 investment has been productive, which is shown by the fact that we are producing more in manufactures today than in 1979, and that that increased production is being achieved by a labour force of 5 million instead of 7 million, helping Britain to become more competitive and successful in the world economy?

Yes, indeed. It is a welcome change to hear from the Conservative Benches—something that is positive and encouraging. [Interruption.]

Order. Such interruptions are hardly fair to other hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.

When what I just said is punctuated in Hansard it will make a lot more sense.

As we are talking about investment in manufacturing, will the Minister consider the plight of those who invested unintentionally in various dubious manufacturing activities through Barlow Clowes? Does he agree that it is shameful that Conservative Members are prepared to issue press releases about that, but are not prepared to have their Minister questioned in the House of Commons?

As you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is always entirely up to hon. Members whether to put their questions. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine today's Order Paper in more calm than excitement, he would see that for varying reasons many hon. Members have not been in a position to put their questions. Therefore, to single out any one from the Order Paper is invidious. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were absent."]

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest position regarding the French Government's allegedly illegal subsidy to Filature du Hainault to manufacture polypropylene filament yarn.

The EC Commission announced on 27 July that it had approved the French Government's proposed aid to Filature du Hainault and that that aid did not conflict with the objectives of the Community's synthetic fibres discipline. I wrote to my hon. Friend about the Commission's decision on 15 August.

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay and disappointment at the decision? Is this not another case where the French Government have pulled a fast one? Does he not realise that this will result in unfair competition for two firms, F. Drake and Company of Golcar and Drakes Fibres, in my constituency? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that such an illegal subsidy is not allowed in future?

As my hon. Friend will recall from the detailed correspondence that we had on this, there were, apparently, technical distinctions between the type of polypropylene yarn being produced by the company at Valenciennes and existing production, where there is over-capacity and where the Commission does not allow aid. However, I have told my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety and doubts about this. It would be easier for me to comment were the Commission's reasons to be made available. Although the decision was announced on 27 July, and although the reasons are encompassed in a document only five pages long—

What is the Minister going to do?

If the hon. Gentleman would let me explain, I would welcome his comments. Although the document is only five pages long, it is not yet available for comment because of delays in the Commission's translation section.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to meet representatives of the aerospace industry to discuss the development of a new British launcher rocket.

No, Sir, and no such meeting has been requested.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the advance technology engine work that the Royal Ordnance rocket division of British Aerospace has recently completed for the European Space Agency? Is he also aware that it is in a very strong position to obtain that contract, but for a lack of funding, and can he say whether that funding will be forthcoming?

I cannot give an answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall look at what he has said in the light of his obvious keen interest in the matter.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet with representatives of the Scotch whisky industry; and what matters will be discussed.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted an invitation to lunch next week from the Scotch Whisky Association. Discussion is expected to concentrate on overseas trade matters.

While being sure that the Secretary of State will have a very hospitable lunch with the Scotch Whisky Association, may I ask that he deals in particular with the issue of Japanese taxation of Scotch whisky imports? Is the Minister satisfied that progress is being made in the light of the recent GATT negotiations, and can we expect further progress?

Yes, we are satisfied that the Japanese proposals for reforming their liquor tax system, when and if implemented, will greatly improve the ability of Scotch whisky to compete in the market on fair and equal terms. The date for implementation is agreed as 1 April 1989.