To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his policy towards shareholders' controls over company donations to political parties.

The law requires a note of donations to political parties to be shown in the directors' report for a company and for the report to be circulated to all members of the company before the annual general meeting. Shareholders may then comment on the donations and put down resolutions on them in the same way as they can for other aspects of the management of the company's funds. The requirement to report political donations in this way was introduced by the then Labour Administration in the Companies Act 1967.

Does the Minister not see even the tiniest inconsistency in the fact that whereas this Government have legislated for trade unions to ballot on the question of political donations, even though trade unionists have the option of opting out, when it comes to political donations from companies they have not legislated because shareholders have the option of opting out? Is not that inconsistency more to do with the fact that most of the shareholders' money goes to the Conservative party?

It has rather more to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman's analogy does not stand up. It is much easier for shareholders to change the placing of their investments than for trade union members to change their union.

Will my right hon. Friend do nothing to discourage donations from the British School of Motoring Ltd. to the Social Democrats so that the saner half of the alliance may continue to survive?

I am not sure that I would wish to intervene in other people's sorrows in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

Is it not unethical for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, for example, to hand over large sums of shareholders' money to the Tory party, especially at a time when the company expects the people of Scotland, who are mainly Labour supporters, to back it in its struggle against Elders? Is that not an important issue of principle on which the Government should make their position known?

I described the position in my original answer. It is open to shareholders to raise such matters along the lines that I described.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perfectly simple for shareholders who object to seeing their companies paying political donations to sell their shares, whereas trade unionists caught in a closed shop would lose their jobs if they acted in the same way?

My hon. Friend puts with his characteristic vigour the point that I made somewhat more delicately a few moments ago.

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give a clear assurance that the Government will not try to overturn a clear decision on the subject in another place? Will he accept that any attempt to do so would give the lie to the Government's protestations about shareholder democracy and reveal it to be no more than a cynical sham being manipulated by the Tory party for crude party advantage?

The hon. Gentleman mentions a point which has no doubt been in the minds of many—the fact that these matters have been the subject of consideration in another place. That consideration is not complete and I certainly would not wish to trespass on their Lordships' discussions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party which truly supports free enterprise, that it is entirely in the interests of free enterprise firms to donate money to the Conservative party and that the present rules are perfectly adequate to safeguard the interests of shareholders?

Obviously, I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. It is a matter for companies to make judgments and for shareholders to raise matter if they wish to do so.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times in each of the last five years consent has been given for companies to omit details of their overseas subsidiaries from their reports and accounts.

:One hundred and fifty-eight exemptions from disclosing the identity of subsidiaries have been granted since January 1984.

Will the Minister tell the House which companies are involved and how many of that large number involve subsidiaries in South Africa? Are not the Government throwing a cloak of secrecy over apartheid connections and thereby deceiving both markets and investors who are concerned about the ethics of what they do?

No, I will not disclose those identities nor how many of the subsidiaries relate to any particular country. In doing that, I am simply following the policy which has obtained for the past 22 years since the provision was introduced in the Companies Act 1967 by the then Labour Government.

In giving companies permission to omit subsidiaries from their reports and accounts, is the Minister aware of the growing criticism about giving positive support for trade with apartheid South Africa? Is he further aware that the Commonwealth and EEC agreements to which we are party are not being observed. When will the Secretary of State honour those agreements and stop giving succour to the South African regime?

The hon. Gentleman talks about giving support to trade with South Africa. He may have forgotten that the last Labour Government sponsored, with public money, no fewer than 62 separate trade missions to South Africa. We no longer do that. As I understand it, companies follow the voluntary ban on new investment with South Africa, so there is nothing for the hon. Gentleman to get so excited about.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has to ensure that regions other than London and the south-east benefit from the European internal market after 1992.

The completion of the single European market by the end of 1992 will affect all regions, directly or indirectly. Our Europe-Open for Business campaign is therefore aimed at encouraging all firms, wherever they are located, to take action now to ensure that they benefit from the opportunities that the single market will bring.

Does the Minister agree that the loss to a Dutch fabrication yard of a British Aerospace order worth £10 million, to construct six platforms in the North sea as part of an air combat training facility, is an absolute disgrace when fabrication yards in the regions, and especially in my constituency, are crying out for such orders? Does the Minister agree that that shows that the Government have done nothing to prepare Britain for the single European market? Will he undertake to consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and ensure that they will not make any commitment to utilise that British Aerospace facility until they have had the time to discuss in detail with British Aerospace how elements of that order may still be subcontracted to British yards?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am aware of his local concern in this matter. However, this is a decision for British Aerospace to take in the context of the most competitive and suitable tender offered. It is not for the Government to comment or interfere in the commercial decisions of companies. As I understand it, the contract was put out to tender and, in the ordinary commercial way, the best tender was accepted.

Does not the prospect of completion of the internal market by 1992 offer a powerful incentive for inward investment into the Community from third countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that half the current inward investment in the Community is in Britain and that that is having a powerful stimulus on the economic growth of the regions of our country?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a great deal of investment from overseas companies in the United Kingdom, partly for reasons connected with Europe, but principally because the United Kingdom is now the most hospitable and one of the most successful environments for manufacturing business.

Is it not the case that so far we have not done very well out of Europe, but Europe has done very well out of Britain? Does the Minister agree that official EEC statistics show that after 1992 manufacturing will decline in Britain in nearly every sector and that our manufacturing regions will lose out? Does he also agree that the Secretary of State's recent inept briefing of journalists showed that the Government had not taken on board the regional implications of 1992?

The hon. Gentleman could scarcely be more wrong. Britain has done and is doing extremely well in Europe, and will continue to do so because manufacturing industry is now more competitive, more profitable and has a sharper competitive edge than at any time for a generation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from the south-east alone benefiting from 1992, the areas that will benefit most are those areas such as the west midlands where unemployment is falling fastest, manufacturing investment is growing fast and infrastructure investments, such as the national convention centre, are taking place, and which attract nearly one third of manufacturing investment from overseas?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the considerable amounts of investment taking place in the west midlands, in which both he and I have a close constituency interest. The benefits of this massive investment boom are being felt in every part of the United Kingdom, and he is right to draw attention to that as well.

Does the Minister not understand the concern in the north-west that the south-east, which already has a bloated and overheated economy, will be the beneficiary of 1992? Well he therefore do everything possible to support the north-west regional TUC and the Merseyside chamber of commerce proposals for the Landbridge development so that the north-west may take advantage of the internal market when it is created?

I understand the concerns that are expressed, but I believe that they are mistaken. I visited Merseyside not long ago and was most encouraged by the great and widespread optimism there. The optimism and confidence coming from increased prosperity, increased investment and increased economic growth are by no means limited to London and the south-east. They are spread throughout the country. Landbridge is not a matter for me directly, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall pass on his concerns.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the growth in Britain's manufacturing productivity since 1979; and what information he has on the figures for other major industrial countries.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by what amount productivity in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry has increased over the last 10 years; and what has been the comparable increase among the United Kingdom's main industrial competitors.

Comparable figures for major industrial countries are available only up to the third quarter of 1988. These show that in the 12 months ending September 1988 manufacturing productivity, as measured by output per person employed, in Italy increased by 38 per cent., in the United States by 37 per cent., in Japan by 31 per cent., in Canada by 27 per cent., in France by 25 per cent. and in Germany by 20 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it was 46 per cent. higher.

Do not those excellent comparative figures, linked as they probably are with the low corporate tax rate, show that other countries will simply have to try harder? Should not the strong financial position of our companies give them adequate scope for further investment, training, research and development?

My hon. Friend is right. I am not sure that I agree entirely with his invitation to our competitors to try harder, but the statistics prove that the other countries to which I referred have a lesson to learn from our success.

Despite the considerable progress since 1979, does not a great deal remain to be done, as evidenced by the fact that recent OECD figures show that we still have a productivity gap of 30 per cent. vis-a-vis the United States and 25 per cent. compared with the rest of Europe?

My hon. Friend speaks with authority on these matters—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but my hon. Friend is regional director of the Confederation of British Industry and knows what he is talking about. In those circumstances, they should pay attention to what he says. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, while we have improved, we can always do better.

Should not the Minister, too, pay attention to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) as the hon. Gentleman was talking about OECD figures which show that we are 16th out of 21 in the productivity league tables and are ahead only of countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey? Far from being a success story, is that not a story of failure?

I am fascinated as to why the hon. Gentleman always insists on bringing doom and gloom to all our discussions about the successful statistics that I offer to the House, which are a demonstration of what this country has achieved in 10 years of Conservative Government.

Does the Minister accept that those figures are no use at all to my constituents because 300 job losses have been announced since Christmas, and 650 jobs were lost last year after the KP closure? When will he accept that certain industries are under dire threat and that his figures mean nothing to the textile industries and the engineering and machine tool works in my constituency, all of which are under threat because the Government do not seem to have a coherent policy?

I must take issue with the hon. Lady largely because, as she knows, I represent a northern constituency. In the north-west the signs are that while, of course, there are always problems in a competitive economy, none the less we have tried our best to ensure that the future for industry is bright. The statistics, facts and views that I have received from business men the length and breadth of the country seem to confirm that.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the best response by companies across the country to the challenges of 1992 is to improve productivity in the future in line with past increases so that they can face European competition not merely on equal terms but as leaders in important areas such as productivity?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that the recent figures from the P and A management consultancy, which show a decline in jobs in manufacturing and in the service industry in Northern Ireland, are a cause for concern? As we approach 1992, what can the Government do to improve the situation?

Matters relating to Northern Ireland are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of Hotol.

British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are pursuing the possibility of international collaboration on Hotol. The Government remain ready to assist in the search for potential collaborators. As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 7 December last, I have raised this question with the United States authorities. The companies have initiated relevant contacts in the United States.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend accepts that such a high technology can be realised only by international collaboration. Does he agree that this country has a sad history of letting such inventions go with little return? Will he confirm that Hotol technology remains in British hands? Does he agree that a similar American project, WASP, for which Sheffield university recently received a development contract, offers a way forward for collaboration on our Hotol technology to be realised?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The substance of my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) which I repeated today, was that the discussions that I had last year in the United States with the space adviser to the President were along those lines. The national aerospace plane, which the United States Government and American companies are trying to develop, is a project in which British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are having preliminary discussions. 1 hope that those discussions will prove successful.

When the proof of concept study has been completed, will the Minister support the recommendations made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which examined United Kingdom space policy? The Committee stated:

"HOTOL development costs, perhaps of the order of £5 billion, would be far too large for its development to be a mainly private venture, indeed it could be undertaken only as a major inter-governmental collaboration project."

In relation to Hotol, we have said all along that the amount of money required to keep the project going at the moment is relatively small and could be afforded by British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. However, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the long-term development will require many billions of pounds. That is why the Government have said that they are happy about collaboration and are positively encouraging it. However, a limited number of countries have so far said that they want to collaborate because they are not sure of the technology being developed in those countries. We are still considering the matter although, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have said that we are not prepared to provide the funding because we believe that it must come from a much wider collaboration. Nevertheless, the matter is constantly under review.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the European Commission, with some justification, recently expressed grave concern that western Europe as a whole was falling behind in space matters by comparison not only with the USSR and the United States but with Japan. The Commission suggests an elaborate programme of co-operation within western Europe to remedy that deficiency. Have the Government made any response?

I believe that my hon. Friend refers to what was previously known as Euromart and related matters. We took a decision to participate strongly in that venture, although my hon. Friend will recognise that it is a wide-ranging area and one about which it is difficult to make predictions. Since Euromart has been subsumed into Brite Euram, we are supportive of it and are monitoring developments very closely. I hope shortly to be in discussion with industry representatives who are concerned about the matter so as to ensure that we represent the British case to the best of our ability.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will acquire "Not With Honour", an account of the Westland affair, by Magnus Linklater and David Leigh, for the library of his Department.

My Department already holds a copy of the book to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

I have two questions to ask the Secretary of State, of which I gave notice to Sir Brian Hayes' office. First, with reference to page 158 of "Not With Honour", is it true that Sir Brian Hayes and senior officials were against Leon Brittan going, and did they say so at any kind of official meeting? Secondly, with reference to page 143, knowing of the Prime Minister's displeasure that the Law Officer's letter had been leaked, did Leon Brittan use that information to demand a knighthood, as a token certificate of clean political health?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving notice of his supplementary questions, but even with that notice I can add nothing to the full statements made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman expects otherwise, his optimism exceeds even his persistence.

While I do not recommend that the book should be publicly burnt I hope that my right hon. Friend will take its conclusions with a pinch of salt. One of its authors, Mr. David Leigh, is hardly a dispassionate observer of the political scene but an embittered, Left-wing propagandist employed by Mr. Tiny Rowland. Mr. Leigh has just been taken to the cleaners by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for having written a pack of lies about my hon. Friend which were published in The Observer, which has just resulted in Mr. Leigh losing a libel action in the High Court.

The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for the further intelligence that he has been able to give about that matter.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Toyota; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and noble Friend recently held a meeting with the vice-president of Toyota, Mr. Tatsuro Toyoda, during which he made it clear that, were the company to decide to locate its project for a car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom, it would receive a warm welcome from the Government. Toyota has been invited to work closely with our officials in pursuing its feasibility studies.

Given that welcome news of Toyota's interest in locating a plant in Britain—and that, if the venture is successful, there can be only one winner in terms of the fortunate site or region of the country that is chosen—what assessment have the Government made of the likely spin-off to the components industry, for example? Has Toyota given any indication of the type of trade union agreement that it would wish to reach for such a plant? Many of us in Scotland who witnessed the sad, sorry and disgraceful episode at Dundee, do not want a repeat performance of the Ford fiasco and the lost opportunity that occurred there.

I am sure that very nearly the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remark. I am not in a position to speculate about Toyota's intentions, and I cannot make any authoritative estimate of the spin-off effects, but having seen some of the spin-off effects of Nissan's plant in the north-east it is clear that there would be substantial secondary business.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the interest shown by Japanese companies such as Toyota in investing in the United Kingdom is a reflection of the Government's economic policies, but what advice would he give areas such as Lancashire in which the rising sun has yet to be seen?

I would give them the advice, indeed the information, that the present significant amount of overseas investment is reaching all parts of the United Kingdom, which is very encouraging for the country and for its future in the single market.

Apart from the fact that the populist hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr Kennedy) does not know the first thing about what actually happened at Dundee, will the Minister bear in mind that Toyota is the only Japanese company that sponsors a pipe band? Is that not a good basis on which to hope that, when Toyota locates its new plant in Britain, I shall be able to welcome the company to the Central region of Scotland, where I assure the Minister that they will be very welcome?

I shall ask for the position of the pipe bands in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to be drawn to Toyota's attention in any further contacts that may take place.

Is it not encouraging that countries all over the world are considering investing in the United Kingdom? Is that not because buying British now means travelling first class? It means obtaining goods of the right quality at competitive prices, delivered on time and with a good after-sales service.

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, broadly speaking, yes.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to industry of the rise in base rates since April 1988.

The cost to industrial and commercial companies to date of the changes in bank base rates since April 1988, compared with the cost if bank base rates had remained the same since April 1988, is estimated to be about £0·8 billion. The hon. Member should bear in mind, however, that a 1 per cent. increase in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, costs companies far less than a 1 per cent. increase in pay settlements.

The rate has increased from 7·5 per cent. to over 13 per cent. in nine months, and the Government's own financial statistics have shown that that has penalised British industry by over £6 billion. Does the Minister agree with the latest CBI survey, "Economic Priorities for 1989—Building on Business Success", which says that such a policy has a very detrimental effect on investment in British industry and gives an added twist to the inflationary spiral? How can the Minister possibly say that he is helping British industry with such a simplistic and blunderbuss monetary policy?

First, there is little doubt that most people in British industry would regard a major resurgence of inflation as a significantly greater risk than the present level of interest rates. Our policy is directed at ensuring that we maintain low inflation, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such has been the transformation in company liquidity since the early 1980s that many companies now have substantial amounts of cash in the bank? For instance, GEC has £1,500 million. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figure of £0·8 billion that he gave the House is a net figure, and that many companies are actually better off?

I can certainly confirm—without going into detail for which my hon. Friend asks—that companies' profitability overall has increased considerably. That, of course, has been one of the main sources of funds for the recent rise in investment.

May I add a little original thinking to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution? Is it not true that penal interest rates are no more than taxes paid to financial institutions and the private sector, as distinct from direct and indirect taxes which are paid to the Government and the public sector? What is the difference? Do not interest rates constitute no more than a form of taxation?

I am having some difficulty in following precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Interest rates represent the price of borrowing money, in the same way as other prices, including taxes levied, measure the cost of acquiring products. I do not understand what conclusion the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw.

Is it not true that the average gearing of British companies has fallen from a near peak nine years ago of something like 45 per cent. to little more than half that today? Is not that an eloquent testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies towards the corporate sector as well as an important identification of the fact that companies will be well able to withstand the current temporary high level of interest rates?

I certainly agree with the general proposition that underlies my hon. Friend's question.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are running a larger trade deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

In 1987 Greece, Portugal, Turkey, Spain, Austria and the United States had larger visible trade deficits than the United Kingdom in relation to their gross domestic product.

It seems strange that the noble Lord Young and the Department of Trade and Industry seem to have ignored or not noticed that our trade gap for 1988 is some £13 billion. That gap is so great that it will require a reduction in demand of about £40 billion, or about £30 per week per household to bridge the gap. Does it not follow that safe supply measures should be taken to increase the ability of British industry to meet the demands of the British economy?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had read more copiously from his notes as I did not entirely follow his question. There is no dispute over the component elements of the deficit. Presumably the hon. Gentleman would not wish to restrict the import of semi-manufactures which feed British industry. The import of consumer goods is a function of consumer spending and it is well know that Opposition Members wish to restrict that by credit controls, wage controls and, for all I know, by exchange controls.

Does not one important key for reducing the trade deficit and making British goods more competitive rest in the hands of employers and employees throughout the country in this year's wage round and all future pay settlements?

It is a factor certainly, but I am never comfortable arguing that work people should be paid less in the interests of some wider objective. If their productivity and the quality of the goods that they produce measure up, they have every right to negotiate separately and independently with their employers on the appropriate rate.

Is it not a fact that one of the major problems that has led to our incredible balance of payments deficit is that we have lost the capacity to manufacture in many areas, and that areas such as mine, which used to be the powerhouse of the country where we could manufacture and produce products that were sold all over the world, have now lost the capacity to do that? The Government ought to be involved in increasing investment in manufacturing particularly in areas such as the north where we do it well.

Government involvement in manufacturing is the last thing that the manufacturing industry wants. In fact, there is absolutely no reason why something should not be made from scratch, providing that it is competitive and is of the required quality. One has only to look at the production of Nissan cars in a green field site to see that if the product is competitive and meets a demand, it will immediately take a piece of the market.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures he has for the productivity levels in manufacturing industry.

Productivity in manufacturing industry, as measured by output per person employed, in the three months to November 1988 averaged 121·4, based on 1985 equal to 100. Productivity has grown by 7½ per cent. in the last year and by 52 per cent. since 1979.

In view of that answer, will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain now has the fastest-growing manufacturing output? Will he speculate on how that compares with where Britain was in the two decades prior to 1979?

My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger on the comparison. The truth is that productivity in this country is growing and has been growing at record levels. We are now outstripping all our major competitors. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s the position was quite the reverse—we were then a picture of miserable failure. We are now a gigantic success.

When will the Minister realise that in my constituency the hosiery and knitwear industry could increase its productivity if the Government did something about the massive imports? Those imports are crucifying that industry. When will the Government do something about it?

I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last consulted the consumers in his constituency on whether they would appreciate his removal of their freedom of choice in what they purchase. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that he would arbitrarily deny people the right to choose freely what they purchase. It is a matter of some regret that the hon. Gentleman undervalues the contribution being made by the workers and management in his constituency in their efforts to make their industry more competitive.

Will the Minister confirm that in the north of England—where there is a significant part of our manufacturing industry—confidence is at an all-time high? The productivity gains that he has mentioned have been higher there than the national average.

My hon. Friend is correct. My colleagues and I often visit companies in the north and throughout the country and we find nothing but confidence in the present and in the future. I believe that that is something from which we should take great heart, and we can be confident that it will continue.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, following the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report, "Post Office Counter Services", he will ensure that the board of Post Office Counters has received prior commitments from its major clients that its services will continue to be used by them before a multi-million pound investment is made in automating the network; and what are the implications of the absence of such long-term commitment for this investment.

The Post Office will conduct a comprehensive financial appraisal of the proposed investment before deciding whether to seek the Government's approval to proceed. The appraisal will be based on a full evaluation of a pilot scheme, to begin later this year, and will take into account the possible future use of counter services by existing major clients.

I appreciate all that, but surely the point is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was quite explicit in saying that we must safeguard this public investment by ensuring that, if automation goes ahead, the DSS, the DVLC at Swansea and other users will guarantee that they will use it. Otherwise, public money will be wasted. Why has that recommendation not been accepted by the Post Office?

For the reasons set out clearly in the Post Office's response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission it thinks that it is entirely right to seek the maximum possible commitment from potential customers, but to fall short of the absolute prior commitment of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Frankly, I believe that few businesses would not wish to take account of customers' intentions as declared in investment decisions, but they would not regard firm commitments as an absolute sine quo non before making any such decisions.

I note what my right hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that the Post Office counter services are by and large quite disgraceful? It is ridiculous that members of the general public should be kept waiting in some cases for hours at the only times when they are able to get to the Post Office to get what they need. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the results of the investigation, he will ensure that services are greatly improved?

I note what my hon. Friend said. The Post Office is seeking ways of improving the efficiency of its services, including, as my hon. Friend will doubtless be aware, proposals for the future involving a number of offices being organised in a different way. I will certainly encourage the Post Office to pursue every way in which better services can be provided.

Does the Minister recognise that since major changes have taken place in financial services in recent years, Post Office Counter Services has been operating with its hands tied behind its back? Does the Minister agree that if the Government want Post Office Counter Services to become more competitive in the high street marketplace, he should authorise an expansion of services to include such things as travel, financial services and ticket agency services?

We are prepared to look at specific proposals, if they make sense, on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that I have recently agreed to the part of the Post Office dealing with television licensing taking on subscription management services in relation to satellite broadcasting because that was a sensible proposal. In general terms, one of the important things is the proposal to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) referred in his initial question, and we have authorised the pilot scheme for the automation of some aspects of counter services.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any proposals to further the establishment and development of science parks.

Science parks are already well established and growing fast in the United Kingdom. There are now nearly 40, with the likelihood of five more this year. Some help is available in the assisted areas for the development of science parks from Government development agencies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of such parks is the symbiosis they create with existing and new high technology industry in the area? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of Emersons Green science park just outside Bristol, which will not only benefit existing high technology industry but will draw fresh industry to the area?

My hon. Friend is correct. Science parks are a success story of considerable magnitude up and down the country. He is right in welcoming the prospect of a science park near his constituency so that people in the area will be able to enjoy the benefits that have been enjoyed by others already associated with science parks.

Does my hon. Friend have any information on the number of jobs that have been created directly or indirectly by science parks? Can he compare those figures with the position between 1974 and 1979?

It is difficult to give my hon. Friend an exact figure, because the nature of employment in science parks is variable and difficult to define. I will endeavour to give my hon. Friend an accurate figure if he will allow me to write to him. It is evident to everybody that the science park venture has helped to combine education institutions and the world of business to bring us the best hope for growth in employment in the future.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the surplus or deficit in trade in manufactured goods with the European Economic Community and the rest of the world, respectively, over the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

In 1988 United Kingdom trade in manufactures was in deficit by £12½ billion with the European Community and by £2 billion with the rest of the world.

As the deficit with the EEC has increased steadily in every year since 1973 to its present horrific level and as that puts at risk the Government's successful economic policies, does the Minister agree that there is a case for a special detailed inquiry into what is going wrong in our trade with the EEC, whether it is non-tariff protection or something else? Does he agree that in view of the December 1988 figures, which were the worst in recorded history, with £3 of goods coming in for every £2 going out, there might be a case for replanning the Channel tunnel to have two tunnels going in one direction and one in the other?

Over the years I have got into enough trouble by commenting on the Channel tunnel to prevent me from doing so on the Floor of the House. The circumstances to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention cannot persist indefinitely. After 1992 the imbalances in that form will no longer exist. There is a school of thought which argues that after 1992 and the completion of the internal market, deficits will disappear in that form and the imbalances will be simply regional and sectoral.

Does the Minister understand that we know that he does not believe those views any more than we do? How do these disastrous figures square with the rosy picture that has just been painted about the alleged confidence of manufacturing employers in this country? When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs says that his Department has received nothing but views of confidence from manufacturers, should not the hon. Gentleman tell him of the views he has received from textile manufacturers who, despite the increases in productivity and the investment that they have made, now find that this Government are the worst they have ever had to work under?

The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the situation. Almost half our manufactured exports go to the Community, which is by far our largest single market. The level of confidence in the United Kingdom's economy and the amount of internal investment from, for example, the United States and Japan that it is drawing in, continuously—and now sharply—raises our level of manufacturing. It is probable—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed this opinion as recently as in the Autumn Statement—that this deficit will diminish over the medium term.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas private enterprise, particularly in the north of England, is well advanced in plans to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by 1992, the Government seem to have a long way to go yet in that direction? Adequate infrastructure should be in place by the time the Channel tunnel opens, so that we can run high-speed freight trains and passenger services. We also need an adequate motorway system to enable us to enjoy, and capitalise on, the benefits offered by the single European market. Will my hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that proper progress is made?

I shall do so, but my right hon. Friend answers questions on this topic from time to time and I suggest that my hon. Friend addresses his questions directly to him.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which regions there is a lower investment in constant terms in manufacturing industry in the latest year for which figures are available than in 1979.

The latest available regional data are for 1986. In real terms, capital expenditure in manufacturing industry in 1986 was lower than in 1979 for all regions in the United Kingdom, largely due to the world recession in the early 1980s. Since 1986, manufacturing investment in the country as a whole has risen sharply, and is predicted to rise even faster.

Will the Minister recognise that, in the north-west region, investment in manufacturing industry for the period he mentioned was down 38 per cent., jobs in manufacturing industries were down 38 per cent. and output from manufacturing industries was down 18 per cent.? Are not those figures appalling for a key manufacturing region of the nation? Will we not further suffer as a result of the Channel tunnel and 1992, unless the Government act positively to assist our manufacturing regions?

As a north-west Member, I resent most strongly the hon. Gentleman's attempt to do down the north-west when he knows as well as I that the facts on the ground, in his and my constituencies, and in those represented by my hon. Friends, give the lie to what he suggests. Manufacturing investment and productivity are at an all-time high, and the gap caused by the recession in 198–182 meant that any delay in the increase was to be expected. He knows as well as I just how good the position is.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that once small manufacturers in the regions—such as Reebok in Bolton-have succeeded in developing into large international trading concerns and have brought great wealth to this country? Will he do all that he can to assist international companies with headquarters in the regions, instead of listening to the small-minded views of Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend, along with many other Conservative Members who represent northern constituencies, spends as much time as I do trying to encourage people to come to our region, to build headquarters of companies and to invest there. The activities of Labour Members in doing down our region do not help.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many standards set under the development of the internal market are based on British standards; and how many are based on (a) German standards, (b) French standards and (c) those of other European Community countries.

The European standards bodies, Cen and Cenelec, adopt wherever appropriate agreed international standards. Very few European standards are based on an existing standard of any one Community country.

Does the Minister accept that there is concern in the United Kingdom that other European countries appear to have more success in influencing EEC standards and that this can have significant consequences for industrial costs? Will he try with greater urgency to ensure that at least one EEC standard is based on a United Kingdom standard?

One European standard based on an existing standard is, for example, the commonly used BS 5750 on quality assurance. I am aware that there is concern about this issue and that it is, as the hon. Member says, an issue which matters. Industry in this country has not taken the standard-setting process as seriously as it should, and certainly not as seriously as it has been taken by industry in Germany. But in the last year, since we have been urging industry in this country to do more in this respect—and it lies with industry and not with the Government to do it—the situation has improved greatly. But I join the hon. Gentleman in urging particularly those in manufacturing industry to take this matter extremely seriously and to attach as high priority to it as does industry in Germany.

Now that we have been involved with the EEC for nearly 16 years and are gradually getting used to working constructively with our foreign friends at long last, is the Minister satisfied with the developing regime for origin marks and trade marks in the Community on the basis of being voluntary and not compulsory in each country, but with an agreed EC standard if necessary?

A directive and regulations on Community trade marks are being negotiated. Those will have the sort of beneficial effect to which my hon. Friend refers and will, at the same time, reduce costs to business and make life easier for it.

What confidence can British industry have in a Government who have themselves failed lamentably to make adequate preparations for 1992? Is the political briefing prepared by the Minister's civil servants in response to the Labour party's analysis of the Giacconi report the best they can do, and why were civil servants involved in that exercise in the first place?

The hon. Gentleman has so little of substance to offer that he has to make use of that tawdry little effort. I sympathise with him, because he has no experience of Government and has so few colleagues with such experience, that he will not understand that it is not only proper for civil servants, but that it is their duty, to brief Ministers on any report that comments on Government policy. The document to which I believe he refers mentioned two reports about 1992. One was by the London business school and was rather good. The other was on behalf of the Labour party and was rather bad.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for the most recently published trade statistics of the practice of United States-owned car manufacturers importing into the United Kingdom cars assembled outwith the United Kingdom.

The complex pattern of trade between national plants is subject to so many variables as to rob any estimate based thereon of tangible significance. [Interruption.] I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that I wrote that personally.

Will my hon. Friend accept that that is intellectually interesting but politically unsatisfactory? Does he agree that the label "British", as applied, say, to cars manufactured by American-owned companies and assembled in Belgium, Spain or West Germany, is inaccurate? Does he agree also that, for example, Japanese cars, which are also foreign-owned, are at least being built in this country? In view of the constant advice to "Buy British", is it not important that the statistics that he does not know should be known so that we may use the phrase "Buy British" to mean something?

There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says. The mass manufacturers have a comprehensive interchange of component supply which entails some confusion. The engines for the Fords that count in the German production total are made in the United Kingdom, just as the engines for the Vauxhalls and Peugeots that count in the United Kingdom production total are made in Germany or in France. It depends how narrowly my hon. Friend wishes to draw his definition. It might mean that the British consumer, if he really wanted to buy British, would be left with a choice of only Jaguar, Range Rover or Morgan.