To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of United Kingdom manufacturing output; what it was on the same date in 1979 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

In the three months to May 1989, the output of the manufacturing industry averaged 118, based on 1985 equal to 100. The comparable figures for the same three months in 1979 and 1981 were 108 and 89·6 respectively. Manufacturing output during 1989 has been at record levels, and in the three months to May was 9 per cent. and 32 per cent. higher than in the same periods in 1979 and 1981 respectively.

The Minister's civil servants, although not the Minister, are to be congratulated on their ingenuity in trying to make a good story out of a disastrous one. Those figures confirm that following the deep recessionary policies of the Government between 1979 and 1981, our manufacturing base has still not recovered to the level that it was when the Government came to office 10 years ago. Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's economic policies and of the damage that those policies have caused to our manufacturing base?

The hon. Gentleman has asked this question in almost the same terms before, and he received a robust answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. The hon. Gentleman may recall, although he was not here at the time, that we experienced a substantial recession, which also affected the rest of the world, since when manufacturing output has increased to a level that it has never reached before. It is a very good story.

It has been 10 years.

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there has been a recession. Growth is now 5 per cent. higher than the previous all-time peak growth in manufacturing output. The hon. Gentleman should remember that if he asks a question once and gets the right answer, it is not worth asking it again.

Although there is some good news in my hon. Friend's answer, does he accept that the news could be even better if industries such as textiles and clothing were faced with fair competition rather than diabolically unfair competition? There has been considerable investment in those two industries in particular, and they have excellent management and have sought to market their goods internationally, yet they are being undermined by unfair competition. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government came into the real world and examined the position of manufacturing industry, the picture could be even better than the one that he has presented to the House this afternoon?

My hon. Friend always speaks vehemently and articulately for the industries in his constituency. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of Trade. who cannot be here today, fights long and hard for the interests of the textile industry in Europe. My hon. Friend makes a fair point, although it is worth drawing to his attention the fact that since the peak of 1979, there has been an 11 per cent. increase in production in textile consumer products. That shows how successful at least part of the textile industry has been.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there have been any changes in the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in recent years.

The principal role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not changed, but its role has been extended over recent years by certain provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Airports Act 1986, the Gas Act 1986 and the Water Act 1989.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary function of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be to identify and prevent possible monopolies from being created and to stop price fixing in industry? Does he think that the MMC has been extending its functions in recent years by proposing how industry and markets should be structured and run? Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of an MMC diktat on how the gas industry should be run, the textile industry in my constituency will face a massive increase in its gas bills? Does my hon. Friend think that the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State had to alter significantly the MMC proposals on the brewing industry illustrates that he believes that the MMC has overstepped the mark?

No, Sir. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission carries out functions given to it by Parliament. It investigates matters that are referred to it either by the Director General of Fair Trading or by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. It makes findings and recommendations. It is within the commission's powers to make the recommendations that it has made. We have implemented those that we think it proper to implement, in the way in which we think it proper to implement them.

Does the Minister agree that we need a complete review of our monopolies and mergers legislation? In Britain, it is possible to have short-term raiding to break up companies and extract money and to detract from long-term investment in the productivity of our economy. That contrasts with what happens in West Germany and Japan, and it means that our industrial future is being destroyed in the interests of short-term takeovers. We need a new framework of law to encourage long-term investment.

The hon. Lady is wrong if she believes that Government action prevents such things from happening elsewhere——

It is the framework of law.

It is not. The hon. Lady is wrong if she thinks that it is the framework of law. We are talking about the way in which markets operate and how companies are structured elsewhere. The hon. Lady is talking about interfering with the right of individuals and companies to sell their shares to a willing buyer. One should not do that unless it is in the public interest. I seem to remember that not all that long ago Opposition Members were complaining about the growth of conglomerates; now they seem to be complaining about conglomerates being broken up.

Does not the increase of between 8p and 10p in the price of beer announced by the brewers yesterday illustrate the importance of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigating the brewing industry and of the action that the Government proposed in their statement last week?

It was right for us to respond to the report in the tough way that we did and to take the steps that we proposed, which will allow 11,000 more public houses to buy their beer at the cheapest price and from whoever they want. I urge pub customers to look round and find the best price for the beer that they want to buy. Not every brewery has increased its prices, by any means. There is a market and I hope that people will look for the cheapest beer that they can find.

Will the Minister advise the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that it would save Government time, and save it much effort in making its recommendations if it took into account company donations to the Tory party?

The MMC might also want to take into account letters such as that written by Norman Willis, the general secretary of the TUC, to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State, in which he urged that all the recommendations of the MMC should be completely ignored. No doubt that was motivated by his well-known concern for Conservative party funds.

Does my hon. Friend share the widespread concern about highly leveraged bids? If so, would it not be desirable for the Hoylake bid for BAT to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, especially bearing in mind what the MMC said about the Elders IXL bid last year, which was similarly highly leveraged?

The House will not expect me to express a view about that case. The Director General of Fair Trading is considering what advice he should give to the Government on whether the bid should be referred to the MMC and while we are waiting for that advice, it would be quite wrong for us to comment.

In the light of today's news on beer prices, might not the Monopolies and Mergers Commission be forgiven for concluding that its major role today is to provoke powerful monopolists to raise their prices so that the public has to pay the costs of successfully campaigning against the MMC's recommendations? Will the Minister at least reassure the MMC that it does have a continuing role? Will he think of saying something like, "I am minded to implement any recommendations that the commission makes in future if my party's paymasters will let me"?

The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party's paymasters who have been lobbying extremely vigorously for us to ignore every one of the MMC recommendations. The TUC, and the Transport and General Workers Union, have been lobbying heavily. When the MMC finds that there is a monopoly operating against the public interest we must take action, and that is what we have done. Even if we had done everything that the MMC recommended that could not have affected what the breweries decided to do in the meantime.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative; and what has been the average cost per take-up.

Expenditure on advertising the enterprise initiative since January 1988 has been about £19 million. Of this, we estimate that some £14·4 million has been specifically directed at promoting the six consultancy initiatives, which would represent an average of about £485 per application.

Will this obsessive reliance on television advertising, which is aimed far more at the electorate than at meeting any legitimate departmental purpose, survive the reign of its architect, Lord Young?

Our surveys show that the advertising is reaching about 70 per cent. of the target market and that it is producing an encouraging response from business people. Inquiries about Department of Trade and Industry services have risen by about 20 per cent. this year. I am strongly in favour of having better services that are better known and more widely used to make British industry stronger.

Is it not a fact that this country's success was founded upon enterprise and initiative? I believe that £19 million is a small price to pay to encourage this country once again and to encourage young people leaving school, colleges and universities to think about running their own businesses. Such initiative and invention will make this country great again.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The advertising is directed not only at the consultancy initiatives, but at the promotion of the education and enterprise initiative, which this year has contributed to 65,000 extra work experience places for pupils and to the recruitment of about 5,000 teacher secondments to industry.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the reclamation of chlorofluorocarbons from redundant refrigerators and freezers.

The recovery and recycling of CFCs used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigerators and freezers is well established and my Department is currently engaged in research into ways of retrieving CFCs from domestic appliances.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the substantial problem relates to commercial freezers and refrigerators and that the problem is smaller for household freezers? The responsible firms that provide large fridges and freezers have been reprocessing for some time, but many small, badly behaved firms have not operated in a similar manner. Something must be done to bring them into line. Some local authorities have started to collect domestic freezers, but as yet they have no way in which to reprocess the refrigerators once they have been collected.

I differ slightly from the hon. Gentleman in that commercial and industrial refrigerators are being retrieved in great numbers, although I accept that there is always room for improvement. The hon. Gentleman no doubt appreciates that the difficulty is that domestic refrigerators use smaller quantities of CFCs and, given that there are about 30 million users of them in the country, a much more sophisticated approach to collection and recycling is required. That is why I said that we are working extremely hard on this matter with the Department of the Environment, as is the refrigeration industry, which has given a great deal of thought and attention to it.

My hon. Friend will remember that I brought a delegation from the refrigeration industry to see him. What has happened since then? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade all Government Departments to change their specifications to ozone-friendly refrigerants and to follow the Prime Minister's advice? Private sector firms such as Sainsbury have set a good example, but health authorities are still specifying R12.

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority because he knows the industry well. As he said, he brought a delegation to me from the refrigeration industry board and the Institute of Refrigeration to talk about those matters. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am in constant touch with other Departments with a view to encouraging them to do much the same as we are doing.

Are the Government considering the introduction of a nationwide CFC recovery scheme such as that which has been announced in West Germany? Does the Minister accept that it is simply not good enough to leave the matter to individual manufacturers who may be unwilling to take on the extra costs for competitive reasons, making a Government strategy and Government measures necessary?

The hon. Lady should have realised from my answer that the Government are taking a lead in that respect. However, collection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am keen to encourage any local authority initiative in the collection of refrigerants. As I said, the industry is taking many measures to try to improve the position.

Should not the Government be praised for having raised public perception of this important matter? Will my hon. Friend congratulate Gedling borough council on the specific initiatives that it has taken, on its own or with other local authorities, to organise the collection and reclamation of old domestic refrigerators and other domestic and commercial freezer units?

The answer to both questions is yes, Sir.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to assist the British motor car industry.

The Government's policies are designed to improve the competitiveness of business as a whole. The improved output and exports of the British motor industry are a clear sign of their success.

Does the Chancellor recall that at the time of the acquisition of Rover Group by British Aerospace, the EEC Commission was concerned to restrict overall car production capacity within the EEC? What discussions have there been with the EEC since then, and with what result? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Honda's output from Swindon will have access to all EEC markets and that it will be in addition to, not in substitution for, production at Cowley?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the issues at Cowley are separate from the announcement that was made last week about Honda development at Swindon. Our experience with the Commission on Nissan car exports to Europe is a sign of what we can expect on Honda or, for that matter, Toyota exports. The EEC car market has undoubtedly proved rather more buoyant than was expected at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least in Britain. The EC's current regime seeks not to restrict capacity but to prevent the payment of state aids except on a level playing field basis. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of Toyota and Honda no Government aid is being paid.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members welcome the Government's measures, particularly in relation to Honda? Has he noticed that only 10 days ago the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was urging the Government to restrict the relentless use of cars? Better the sinner who repenteth, perhaps, but the hon. Gentleman repenteth because he thinks that it will help him with votes.

I had not noticed the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), but I am sure that he will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.

The Minister will recall that when the statement was made about the Honda plant being installed it was said that his Department would help British component manufacturers to obtain a share of the component capacity in that factory. What means will he use to do that to help Hepworth and Grandage in Bradford, the foremost piston and gudgeon pin manufacturer in Britain, to obtain some of that capacity? If Honda manufactures its own engines it will erode the opportunities for British component manufacturers.

The most helpful thing that we can do is to continue what we have been doing—creating a climate that assists the development of efficient and competitive enterprise and the opportunities for it.

When we take into account the misguided Government-sponsored mergers of the 1960s, the huge subsidies and trade protection in the form of a pernicious gentlemen's agreement which limited the choice of cars for consumers, has not the British car industry already had far too much help from Government? The best help that the Government can give is not to cosset or guide it, but to tell it to go out and make products that the public want to buy.

We have created such a climate and that is why many people are coming here to make cars, thus strengthening our economy.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

I receive many representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. We carefully consider those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act 1986 which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters that are the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board or of another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

Does the Minister agree that there is enormous disquiet in the country, in the House and in the City in particular about the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair? Does he agree that when the public pays for a report it is entitled to see it? Is he aware that the reluctance of his Department to publish reports gives the impression that it is trying to operate a secret society instead of a major Department of State? Will he give an unequivocal undertaking to the House to publish the inspectors' report on the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair so that we may raise it, as appropriate, in the House before the recess?

We shall certainly publish the report as soon as we possibly can.

Is my hon. Friend monitoring the extent to which the Financial Services Act, which was designed to protect the consumer, is in fact resulting in the rapid disappearance of independent financial advisers and intermediaries who are rapidly being sucked into being paid agents of given products? Will this not leave the public bereft of the protection of independent advice under the guise of protecting their interests?

I hope that it will not have that effect. I regard the existence of independent financial advisers who can give unbiased advice about which financial products customers should purchase as quite important. At the same time, it is important that people who hold themselves up as being competent to provide such advice should in fact be competent to do so. The operation of the Financial Services Act in the past 15 months has led to the withdrawal of some applicants to join FIMBRA, the regulatory body for intermediaries. Many of those were withdrawn because the applicants had stated on the application form things that were untrue. It is desirable that people who indulge in such behaviour should be prevented from offering their services to the public.

Will the Minister enlarge somewhat on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has received the inspector's report on the Blue Arrow Manpower takeover involving County NatWest and some other leading institutions? Does he propose to publish it before the recess, or does he propose to stifle discussion on the matter?

It is difficult to discuss the matter until it is published. I can confirm, as I think the hon. Gentleman already knows, that we have received the report and that we shall publish it as soon as it is proper to do so.

Is the Minister able to give an assurance that, under the terms of the Companies Bill, clients of insurance brokers will be as fully protected as all other clients of financial advisers?

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is no reason to suppose that what he suggests should not be the case.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the comparative success of the Financial Services Act 1986. Notwithstanding its many critics, does he agree that it is surprising that the one financial transaction that is undertaken by most of us at one time or another, which is perhaps the most important in a lifetime—obtaining a mortgage—is outside the ambit of the Financial Services Act 1986? Why does the Minister not give some consideration to future legislative change to embrace that within its sphere?

The lending of money is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Financial Services Act 1986 was framed to regulate the provision of investment services and is designed to require all those who conduct investment business to be authorised. The borrowing of money on a mortgage is not an investment. Buying a house may be an investment, but borrowing the money is not. They are two different regimes, and it is proper that they should be. I see no reason to change that.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the United Kingdom is running a trade surplus.

In the 12 months to May 1989, United Kingdom visible trade was in surplus with Australia, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Canada.

I thank the Minister for that answer. He listed five countries with which the United Kingdom has a trade surplus. Will he confirm that we are in deficit with the 19 other countries of the OECD?

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is correct.

One of the slight problems that the Government have is the balance of payments deficit. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the bases for that problem is the predeliction of the British consumer sometimes to buy foreign goods when British goods are equally good, if not better. Although my hon. Friend himself may not wish to use them, will he tell the House what powers he and the Government have to encourage people to buy British goods?

My hon. Friend is well aware—if anything, he knows it better than I do—that as a member of the European Community we are not able explicitly to encourage the purchase of British goods in the public sector. What private companies or concerns do to encourage customers to buy their products is entirely up to them. The Department and the Government generally have always emphasised that when a company makes a product of good quality at the right price, there is no reason why the public should not flock to buy it. One of the things that the Department has tried to do in various ways, and with many policies, has been to give as much support as possible to industry to make good products so as to encourage people to buy British.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to increase the level of civil research and development spending by British industry.

The Government have created a favourable economic climate, which encourages companies to invest in research and development themselves. Industry increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1987.

Even taking that into account, at present British industry is enjoying record profits, mainly off the backs of the workers in industry and those who lost their jobs. Directors are giving themselves massive wage increases. Instead of putting money into research and development, they are putting it into their own pockets. That is quite different from what is happening with our major competitors abroad. They are putting a percentage of their output into R and D, which we are not and we are stagnating.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons. Largely because of the volume of noise—probably of approval for what I said—coming from Opposition Members, the hon. Gentleman did not hear me when I said that industry had increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent.——

We do not believe the Government's statistics.

in real terms between 1983 and 1987.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) call the Minister a liar.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw that to my attention. I did not hear it. I hope that the hon. Lady did not say that, but if she did I am sure that she would be prepared to withdraw the remark.

I said that we do not believe the Government's statistics. They lie to us all the time about statistics. That is my view and I think that that is allowed.

Order. Can the hon. Lady help us to get on and confirm that she did not accuse the Minister of being a liar? That is all that I ask her to do.

I have just made it clear that I said that it was impossible to believe the Government's statistics because they lie to us all the time. I did not accuse the Minister of lying to us—I was referring to the barrage of statistics that we are given.

Perhaps we can accept that and get on.

On the hon. Gentleman's other point. he claimed that we are behind other countries in civil research and development. We are ahead of some, at about the same level as some, and behind others. There is nothing wrong with that. It is hardly reasonable to expect us to be ahead of everybody.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all this concentration on research and development can be misleading, bearing in mind that in the world's most successful economy—in Japan—private industry and the Japanese Government spend relatively little on R and D, preferring to concentrate their resources on buying in licences from others, improving their technology and concentrating resources on manufacturing production and marketing?

Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. Interestingly, Japan is one country in the league table suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) which invests less than we do. We must try to maximise the effectiveness of the research and development spend in this country. The Department of Trade and Industry has many programmes to encourage collaborative research between higher education and industry, between different companies and within the European Community framework. That is the way to proceed and it will be much more useful to consider the effectiveness of our research and development spend in those terms than to look at the overall figure.

I think that the Minister should check his figures. Since the German and Japanese industries spend 50 per cent. more of their own money on research and development as a proportion of their domestic product than British industry does, and since after 10 years of this Government British industry is plainly not increasing its research and development fast enough even to narrow, let alone close, the gap, with Germany and Japan, does the Minister agree that it is necessary for the Government to increase their support and incentives for research and development rather than reduce them, as they have, from the peak level by 20 per cent. in real terms?

It would be particularly futile and not a good way to spend any of our time for me to bandy figures with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). If he would care to write to me, I am perfectly prepared to indicate—[Interruption.]

Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time and hon. Members want to ask questions.

If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me I am perfectly prepared.

This is question time.

Order. The Minister should be able to complete his answer. If he intends to write a letter, perhaps we can progress more quickly.

If the hon. Gentleman would like to do as I have just suggested, I shall be prepared to give him the correct figures, which I am sure he would find reassuring. We believe and continue to believe that by having a low tax regime and an environment in which companies can be profitable, we leave the decision of how to invest in their hands, rather than confiscating money from companies through taxation and imposing our decisions on them about how they should invest. That surely makes sense in a vigorous, capitalist economy.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the volume of British exports to India; and if he will make a statement.

British exports to India have risen steadily over recent years reaching a record £1·1 billion in 1988. My Department is actively promoting trade with India and we expect to see further increases, including earnings from inward investment and joint venture collaborations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while many British firms are successful in winning export orders in India, some, sadly, face difficulties in getting paid because of delays in the Indian courts. Is he aware that one firm in my constituency won its court case against nonpayment in 1981, but has not been paid because of delays in hearing the subsequent appeal? In view of the delays and the impact on general exporting to India, what help can my hon. Friend and the Department extend to British companies which find themselves in that position?

I am fully aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know—or perhaps I can inform him if he does not know—that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is pursuing the case strongly with India. We understand that at the moment there are still some difficulties, but we shall pursue the case that he has raised—it concerns a product which is perhaps unmentionable here—with full vigour and in due course, no doubt, there will be a satisfactory result.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the levels of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988–89, the contribution of the Government by way of regional selective assistance and the number of jobs created.

According to the latest information available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, there were 277 inward investment decisions during the financial year 1988–89 which were expected to create 24,000 jobs. Many of these investments came without specific financial assistance, but during this period about 90 foreign-owned companies received offers of regional selective assistance, which is available only in Great Britain, worth around £140 million towards projects expected to create 18,000 jobs.

That is excellent news, and a great share of that investment is going to Lancashire, particularly Skelmersdale, with investment in Longulf from the Yemen and Garrett Air Research from the United States. Can my hon. Friend confirm that over the past five years, among EC partners, Britain has achieved one of the largest proportions of inward investment, which has created a large number of jobs? He will know that Ministers from his Department, from the Scottish Office and from the Welsh Office constantly tour the world advocating the British cause and attracting new investment and jobs.

I can confirm virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said. We estimate that over the past four years inward investment has created or safeguarded the better part of 200,000 jobs. A quarter of all United States and a third of all Japanese investment in the Community has come to the United Kingdom in recent years, and there have been some outstanding successes in my hon. Friend's part of the world. In addition to those that he mentioned, there is also Sanko Gosei, a leading Japanese manufacturer of moulds and plastics, which is to establish a £6 million plant employing 120 people at Skelmersdale.

Is the Minister content that regional assistance is now virtually exclusively through inward investment, certainly in the north-east? His decision last week and the incompetence shown by his Department in dealing with the European Community in the case of North-East Shipbuilders in Sunderland and the announcement last week about the closure of a factory in Newton Aycliffe mean that the 2·5 per cent. of firms in the north-east which are British based are being undermined even more. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that he supports British investment in the regions?

Our purpose is to support the regeneration of the economic base of the north-east and other parts of the country. Nissan is achieving a great deal and providing additional opportunities for locally based industry, and Fujitsu is soon to arrive at Newton Aycliffe. The case for the success of what we are achieving makes itself.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will take no notice of the whingeing from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Is not the north-east now booming far better than it has done for many years, and is that not reflected not only in the voices of the chambers of commerce and industry, but even in those of trade union leaders in the north-east who are admitting that that is happening?

It is happening not only on Tyneside, but on Teesside, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope to have an opportunity later in the year to visit his part of the area.

The Minister paints a glowing picture of the success story, but the figures for forward investment are rather different. Although that amounts to £7 billion, does not the export level of £15 billion in direct investment and £10 billion in investments in portfolios abroad show that there is a massive vote of no confidence?

No, I would not agree with a word of it. Historically, the United Kingdom has benefited from an open and liberal trading and capital movement system. It is clear that we are benefiting from that now.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the volume of Britain's (a) food and (b) automobile exports in each of the past eight years.

Between 1981 and 1988 the volume of United Kingdom exports of food increased by 34 per cent. and that of passenger motor cars by 25 per cent. The full set of figures will be included in the Official Report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the food manufacturing industry employs more than 500,000 people, produces 6·4 per cent. of manufacturing industry output, and continues to serve the British economy extremely well?

My hon. Friend is right. Since 1975, the industry has doubled its exports in volume terms. It makes a major and welcome contribution to our export achievements.

Is the Minister aware that in these two sectors, as in others, there will be a tremendous impact come 1992? Has he read the EEC report which states that 2 million jobs will be lost due to the effect of 1992? Some sources say that 200,000 of those jobs are in the United Kingdom. If the Minister does not know the answer, will he write to me?

I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When I do so, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be in when I do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the work of improving the export performance of the British motor industry has been outstanding by companies which I know are dear to his heart? Leyland-DAF, through its van subsidiary, has dramatically expanded its export potential within the Community. As for the Rover Group, one third of its production goes overseas. Jaguar is well known for its exports both to the United States and to Europe. The news that Peugeot is to start exporting cars to Japan must be a clear sign that we are in the car business to stay.

My hon. Friend never ceases to sing the praises of the motor industry, about which he speaks with such considerable authority—[Interruption.] Unlike many Opposition Members, my right hon. and hon. Friends know what they are talking about, usually from personal experience. My hon. Friend is rght to draw the attention of the House to the success story of the motor industry. Following are the figures:

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in response to question 7.

Given the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West when he expressed great doubts about the working of the regulations, will he accept that an error was made when the regulations for the City were not made statutory? Does he agree that there is an abundance of evidence that when Governments meddle with legislation and make regulations permissive rather than mandatory, they find themselves in trouble? The Government are running into trouble, and the Minister should make that confession to the House.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard correctly the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, which had nothing to do with the Financial Services Act 1986 but related to a different kind of investigation under a different piece of legislation. He did not express any views about the efficacy or otherwise of the Financial Services Act. I can reassure the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the issue of whether financial service regulation should be statutory. His question can be answered satisfactorily—it is indeed statutory.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the EEC proposals for a single banking licence? Would not the creation within the Community of the largest unified market in the world for banking services present the City with considerable opportunities?

It undoubtedly would. We hope that the Community will move swiftly to complete the single market in life insurance and in investment services as well. The banking directive, to which my hon. Friend refers, will make the Community a more open market for banking than the United States.

Is the Minister aware that despite the authorisation requirements of the Financial Services Act, a number of the big, rogue fish who were responsible for running companies—a number of which had to close—are now surfacing in other guises in various parts of the City? Why are they not being cleaned out of the City, especially as FIMBRA, the Securities Association and a number of self-regulatory bodies are cleaning out their employees, who were only taking instructions from those rogue fish?

Since the Financial Services Act came into force it has been illegal to carry on investment business without being authorised by the Securities and Investments Board or one of the regulatory bodies. It is impossible for any of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to operate a legal investment business without being authorised. Anyone with a record of misbehaviour can be prevented from operating. If the hon. Gentleman knows of anyone who is operating without authorisation, I should be grateful if he would supply me with details immediately.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the overtures from the Opposition, the Government have struck the right balance between total free licence for the City and total state regulation? While the Government cannot anticipate future needs, I am sure that they will respond as necessary. Is it not true that experience both of companies legislation and of financial services legislation has already shown that the Government's middle-way approach of encouraging and supporting the self-regulatory process in the City has been a great success and should be continued?

My hon. Friend is right. It is essential that financial services legislation has full statutory backing, but it is equally essential that it should be flexible and responsive because the regulatory bodies need to be sufficiently fleet of foot to keep abreast of the changes in the market place.

May I ask the Minister a question that he has ducked twice already? Will he publish the County NatWest report before the end of the Session and in time for the House to question Ministers on it?

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman can find it in himself to quibble with the reply that I have already given him. I said that we would publish the report as soon as it was proper to do so. It would be a remarkable proposition to suggest that we publish it before it is proper to do so.

The financial services sector takes a great interest in the Barlow Clowes affair. When does my hon. Friend expect to receive the ombudsman's report on that?

I cannot do that because I do not answer for the ombudsman. He must conduct his investigation in the way that he thinks proper. I am sure that he will want to complete his investigation as soon as possible.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he is giving to the importation of 800 tropical rain forest trees for the protection of the beach at Bournemouth.

There are at present no controls on the import of tropical timber into the European Community. It is therefore for the judgment of the local authority concerned whether or not a purchase of such timber is appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that Bournemouth needs 50 new groynes, which requires three acres of rain forest trees? Is he further aware that Bournemouth has already consumed 2,000 acres or more, an area the size of Epping Forest? Is it not folly to destroy the ecosystem of rain forests and leave them to global warming, so that the sea defences deteriorate and more protection is needed for coastal defences? Should there not be a policy of using metal or concrete groynes rather than mahogany groynes?

I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and will ensure that it is considered by the relevant Ministers. The key issue is that we do everything possible to ensure the proper management of the rain forests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has recently been discussing that matter with the Brazilian Government. We are also seeking to make progress in a number of ways through the International Tropical Timber Organisation. The hon. Gentleman and the House may rest assured that the British Government will continue to do all that they can to achieve that broad, essential objective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot mummify the forests but should manage them on a sustainable basis, which may occasionally necessitate felling mature trees?

That is another way of conveying the point that I tried to make. We are trying to focus on the proper management of the forests.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the countries within the European Community with which the United Kingdom is in a trade deficit.

In the 12 months to May, United Kingdom visible trade was in deficit with West Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal.

What do the Government intend to do about that?

The Government have in place a number of policies to make industry even more aware of the opportunities presented by the single European market and the 1992 campaign. We are following up our spectacular success in increasing awareness with a number of policies aimed at persuading British industry—only British industry, and no one else, can affect our trade figures—of the potential offered by the single European market and the markets beyond, so that industry can gird its loins and sell British products throughout the Community and beyond. We are confident that it will do so. In the three months to May, for example, exports to the Community grew strongly—by 8 per cent. over the previous three months—while imports fell by 1 per cent., so we are already on the right track.

Is not British private sector well ahead of the field in investing in manufacturing and service bases in the Community? Is not that the logic of the Community, and will not the profits made overseas be turned into dividends for the benefit of shareholders and workers in the United Kingdom?

Yes. My hon. Friend, who has unparalleled knowledge of such matters as a result of the service that he has given to the European Parliament over the past 10 years, is correct to point out that Britain has already made moves to take seriously the opportunities and challenges that the Community market presents. By investing throughout the continent, Britain is placing itself in a strong position to meet that challenge as we move towards the fulfilment of the single market.

Is the Minister aware that Britain's deficit in visible trade with the rest of the EEC has increased fivefold since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979? Does he think that that increased deficit is a product of what he described earlier as a free and vigorous capitalist economy?

In a very real sense, any deficit is obviously a product of a free and liberal trading regime. It is always up to the wealth creators and those in trade and in business in any one economy to make the best of the trading opportunities available to them. I have attempted to describe how seriously we take those opportunities and what we are doing about them. I stress again that it is not the Government but business that can improve the trade position. We are confident that the business community will do so.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future availability of tied loans from breweries to clubs and voluntary associations.

As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in his statement on 10 July, we do not propose to prohibit new tied loan agreements. However, we intend to impose the requirement on national brewers that tied loans should be restricted to beer sales and must be capable of termination by the borrower without penalty on no more than three months' notice.

I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the welcome announcement of our right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in confirming that the traditional source of finance available to sports clubs and to other clubs and associations in all our constituencies will remain open.

We took the view that tied loans are a particularly useful source of finance for clubs. The only danger arises when clubs or pubs are unable to repay the loan without penalty, and we are taking steps to ensure that that cannot happen.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Business in the Community; and if he will make a statement.

I attended the Business in the Community president's committee on 7 March. In addition, I regularly meet representatives of BiC and its member companies in the course of carrying out my duties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the village, town or city in which a business or industry operates depends very much on the contribution that that business or industry is prepared to make to the management of schools, the training of unemployed people and the cleanliness and general quality of the environment?

Yes, I agree. That is one of the reasons why the Department's enterprise initiative, which is harnessing and encouraging all those elements, makes such an important contribution to the development of our towns and cities.