To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to pay an official visit to the Caribbean to discuss trade and financial relations.

There are no plans at present for my colleagues or me to visit the Caribbean.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in the Caribbean about the effects of 1992 on bananas, sugar and other commodities? As 1992 comes closer every day, would it not be a good idea for a Minister to visit the Caribbean to discuss some of these matters face to face so that people there know where they stand?

I should be delighted to be invited to visit the Caribbean in due course. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting some of the islands next week, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will be leading a delegation to the Miami conference at the end of the month, where they will discuss a number of issues with other countries.

Is the Minister aware that the economies of many of those countries, especially in the eastern Caribbean, will face collapse if there is not a constructive and successful end to the negotiations? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government are committed to ensuring that, come 1992, those islands' interests will be absolutely safeguarded?

I give the hon. Lady the assurance that the British Government will do all in our power to put the case of the islands forcefully. We are well aware of the importance of bananas and other such commodities to their economies. There are already many areas in which the Government are offering help, and we give a great deal of aid to the Caribbean. The hon. Lady may wish to know that we give the highest per capita aid for any region in the world to the Caribbean area because of our strong interest in and concern for the Caribbean islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with United Kingdom defence manufacturers about developing alternative non-military products, in the light of any possible reduction in demand for weapons.

None, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that many of our traditional industries have suffered because they have failed to recognise changing markets in the world? Is it not clear that if the east-west disarmament talks are successful, and there is also a reduction in regional conflict, the world's arms markets will be reduced? Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is only commonsense for the Government to discuss with arms manufacturers ways in which they can look for new products and new markets so as to secure the jobs of those who work for them without continuing to be purveyors of death to the world?

The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, slightly less than candid with the House. The prime motive behind his question is his long-standing commitment to slash defence expenditure. For example, the House might like to know that in July 1983, long before Mr. Gorbachev began his present policies, the hon. Gentleman was seen to be voting against the Defence Estimates. His question exposes the Labour party's long-standing hostility to a credible defence policy.

Does my hon. Friend realise that nothing in his reply applies to me? As the science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly travelled across Russia in September, it discovered that there was a major move within the Russian nation to reverse the current ratio of 60 per cent. scientific and technological research to 40 per cent. civilian. Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the major difficulties in achieving that is getting industry to bring it about in a five to seven-year period? Would not discussions along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) therefore have quite a degree of success for the benefit of our industry, irrespective of the defence aspect?

My hon. Friend is a great deal more persuasive than the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) because his credentials are so much better. The plain truth is, however, that it is for the defence companies to assess where their markets lie. We are seeing an encouraging move in the direction outlined by my hon. Friend—by Racal and Marconi, for example—but we are not in the business of driving people where they do not want to go.

The Minister has been giving singularly stupid replies. Far from making good the cuts in defence research and development that they have made over the past three years—amounting, in real terms, to some 10 per cent.—the Government have added to the problem by cutting their support of civil industrial innovation by 11 per cent. Furthermore, research and development expenditure in 1988–89 was some £40 million below what the estimate provided, so the Government have even cut back on their own plans of just one year before.

That is a singularly silly question, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He must find his party's defence policy extremely disquieting. The Labour party conference committed itself to defence cuts of approxiamately £5 billion, which means a reduction of some 30 per cent. in conventional defence spending. Just think of the unemployment consequences of that!

Does my hon. Friend agree that the many defence contractors in the north of England will be extremely wary of any Government who tell them which products they should be making and which they should be getting out of? Does he agree that defence manufacturers throughout the north and, indeed, the whole country will be very anxious about the future if Labour ever came to power and cut defence by £5 billion?

Indeed, and I can be more specific than my hon. Friend. I have a list of six substantial defence contractors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—Reemploy Limited, Thorn EMI, Oldham Crompton Batteries, Rotunda Limited, Robert McArd Limited and Denton Containers, to mention only the largest. I imagine that employees in those companies will be extremely alarmed by the views of the hon. Member who purports to represent them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

I intend to maintain close contact with all my European Community counterparts, and a whole range of matters will be discussed.

When the Secretary of State meets his EC counterparts, will he be communicating the views of the Prime Minister or those of the deputy Prime Minister on Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

I firmly believe—as, I think, do both my right hon. Friends to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred—that the right position is the one enunciated at the Madrid summit.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend has any counterpart in the European Community —he is unique. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I mean that in a nice way. When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the European Community, does he discuss with them the Labour party's plans for an industrial investment bank to make dud investments with unlimited supplies of subsidy from taxpayers in this country, and does he think that those plans would meet with the European Commission's approval?

As always, my hon. Friend is right in all that he has said. The industrial development bank proposed by the Labour party would, I am convinced, be entirely against the spirit of the single market and the state aid rules of the Community. Indeed, now that we have an efficient industry which is not subsidised, one of the greatest disabilites of British industry is caused by the behaviour of European countries which continue to subsidise their industries, distorting the competition and costing British firms jobs when they do not win contracts. The policy of competitive subsidisation to which the Labour party tends to seek to return would spell absolute disaster for the health of British industry.

Although, for obvious reasons, I disagree with the EEC, will the Secretary of State make it clear to his counterparts in Europe that he and the Government believe that it is in the public interest that public ownership of Ferranti should be supported, preferably with workers' control? Is not that an extension of democracy for which he and others must argue?

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), nationalised industries in competitive environments which make losses and then recoup them from the taxpayer are a great device for avoiding fair competition. That device, which the hon. Gentleman advocates, is costing us jobs and orders and is damaging the British economy.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to reinforce the message to our EEC partners that the British Government take a dim view of the social charter put forward by the EEC, that British business on the whole regards it as a disaster, that Britain has created 2·5 million additional jobs in the past 10 years by deregulating and operating free markets and that we do not intend to reverse that trend?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I could not do nearly as well as he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment did when they attended the relevant council. My right hon. Friend's rebuttal of the principles of the social charter won the argument but, I am afraid, not the vote.

Where does the Secretary of State stand on the vexed question of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? I hope that he will not hide his light under a bushel. Why can he not tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that, "You cannot buck the markets" or whether he supports the view of the deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the CBI that we should join straight away? Could it be that, as on so many other issues, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry shies away from responsibility and has no view whatever?

On the contrary, I take full responsibility for my view, which is that the principles put forward in the Madrid summit are correct and the whole Government agree with them.

Will my right hon. Friend cause to be translated into many languages the transcript of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's interview with Mr. Brian Walden on Sunday? Will he then cause it to be circulated to everyone in Europe, particularly those involved in the ERM?

I shall be happy to bring that suggestion to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I must point out that I have some responsibility in the matter. Until broadcasting is liberalised in the Community, the transcript may not reach all the parts thereof.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he has ceased publication of British Business.

Following the decision that responsibility for the statistical series with which the Department of Trade and Industry was previously concerned should transfer to the Central Statistical Office, British Business magazine lost much of its market and was no longer viable.

Will the Minister admit that British Business, which was an information exercise by the Department of Trade and Industry, was cancelled as part of the Secretary of State's policy to turn the Department into a Trappist order? It is similar to the Secretary of State being barred from the Conservative party conference so that he could not make a speech about the £20 billion trade deficit. Will the Minister give an undertaking on behalf of himself and the Secretary of State that when the Chancellor increases taxes, which would be against the policies of the Secretary of State, he and his hon. Friend will both resign?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be saintly, but I hope that he will not become a Trappist. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) did not listen to my answer, which was very straightforward. There has been a perfectly sensible reordering of activities within Government, with the result that figures which were previously available through the vehicle of British Businesswill now be available in an alternative way. There is nothing particularly sinister or difficult about that.

How would British business, which has been publicised quite frequently by the publication British Business, be affected by the social charter or, as it has been called, the strikers' charter which some Greek lady is trying to impose on Britain?

I share my hon. Friend's concern, but I believe that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has done a magnificent job so far in drawing to the attention of the people of this country and of Europe the patent shortcomings of the social charter. I am sure that all Conservative Members will continue to do that so that people may be clear in their minds that the kind of principles enshrined in the social charter will damage employment throughout the European Community and also the Community's competitive trading position in the world. That is why we are against it and that is why we shall continue to be against it.

Putting the Department of Trade and Industry in the charge of the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the collection of freebooting free-marketers sitting alongside him at a time when all our competitor countries are engaged in close collusion between industry and government is an act equivalent to putting King Herod in charge of a day nursery. Is not the particular act of vandalism in closing down British Business symptomatic of an approach which will send British industry naked into the Euro/chamber?

Even allowing for the hon. Gentleman's tendency to hyperbole, that was a bit over the top. We are talking about a publication which, excellent though it was, was attracting only about 5,000 subscribers towards the end of its life.

I was one of them.

One could hardly say that that made it a major British institution. Nor, however excellent it may have been, was it the main or only vehicle of communication between the Government and business. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the figures which created most interest in the business community will be available in very much the same format through Central Statistical Office publications which will fully replace what is no longer available through British Business.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations on the creation of near monopolies resulting from the takeover and break-up of United Kingdom industrial groups by Bermuda-based companies.

I presume that this is a reference to the bid by Pembridge Investments, a Bermuda-registered company, for DRG. I and the Director General of Fair Trading have received various representations from hon. Members and others about it. The director general is still considering the bid before giving his advice.

My hon. Friend's assumption is quite correct. Does he not agree that there is room for concern when the only basis for a bid is the subsequent break-up of a group, with the resulting sale forming virtually the creation of a monopoly of several parts of the group? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend reassure me that the potential monopoly is taken into account while the bid is continuing rather than waiting until he is presented with a fait accompli?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point because I know that he has a constituency interest in the matter and he is right to make representations in any way possible. Were there to be a subsequent sale of an asset after a bid had been successful, that itself would be subject to investigation by the competition authorities and to any advice that the director general might see fit to give my right hon. Friend. I cannot give any further information about the current bid. My right hon. Friend will make his judgment on the basis of all the representations and submissions in the light of the director general's advice.

Will the Minister declare his opposition to this type of junk bond funding of the destruction of British companies, of which DRG is the latest victim? He is quite right to say that in Bristol the takeover of that company will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the engineering industry—not just in DRG but in associated companies. Is it not time for the Government to step in and say once and for all that junk bonds and high leverage bids against thriving British companies are not to be permitted?

Junkiness is in the eye of the beholder. The Government believe that these decisions are best made by shareholders and bankers, who have to make important judgments on behalf of the companies in which they are investors or which they are financing. The Government's competition and monopoly policy is clear and consistent. It was last stated in the blue paper on mergers, and was restated subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a speech and by myself in a speech to the House on the BAT-Hoylake bid. I recommend that the hon. Lady reads the statement of Government policy, which is clear and gives shareholders and bankers the powers and opportunities that they need to make the right decisions on behalf of the companies in which they invest.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Sea Containers is a Bermuda-registered company. It announced today that it will be selling its Isle of Wight ferries. My hon. Friend will be further aware that in May I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) about a possible bid for the Isle of Wight ferries. I regard it as a considerable injustice, as do my constituents, that British Rail's board of management sold those ferries in the only privatisation in which employees were not allowed to purchase shares in their own company —an incredible reward for many years of loyal strike-free service to the Isle of Wight. Will my hon. Friend keep a weather eye on the sale of the Isle of Wight ferry routes, which are so essential to us, to ensure that this time a United Kingdom-registered company can purchase them and that the employees will have the opportunity of sharing in the wealth that they create?

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is a good constituency Member of Parliament. I know that he has taken a strong interest in the Isle of Wight ferry service because he rightly wants a first-class service for his constituents. I understand that officials at the Office of Fair Trading are making preliminary inquiries into ferry services for the Isle of Wight under the competition legislation. Anyone who has views on the subject should write to the director general, as I believe that my hon. Friend has done. Any possible buyer of the ferry services, which according to press reports today are on the market, will be considered in the usual way by the competition authorities, who will make their advice available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the Minister saying that the Government do not have a view about high leverage junk bond bids against succesful British companies? He will be aware of the problem that this method has caused BAT Industries recently. The leveraged bid for DRG is causing the problems referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Is he saying that the Government do not have a view, when successful British companies are being attacked by companies formed offshore in Bermuda with the sole purpose of breaking up British companies and making money for individuals rather than shareholders?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my previous reply. The Government have an extremely clear mergers policy, which has been stated on several occasions, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads it. The aim of merger policy is to ensure that the public interest is not damaged. Public and private interests most usually diverge, but not uniquely, where competition is adversely affected by the proposed merger. All considerations can be taken into account by the director general, who gives his advice on any particular bid in the usual way. The question whether people should borrow to buy things is largely a matter for them, for shareholders and for bankers. Where will the hon. Gentleman stop in his investigations into people borrowing to buy things? Does he believe, for instance, that borrowing to buy certain kinds of houses is wrong, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was saying in the Walden interview?

Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no national interest in this? How does he define national or public interest? Is it correct for people based overseas, who can remit profits overseas, to take over and break up British companies which are of great value to the economy merely to make money for a few people and not for the general public, bearing in mind that most such companies are owned by institutions rather than the public in general? We must have a national industrial strategy.

My hon. Friend should take note that the central point of Government policy is to allow shareholders to decide in most cases. They are the proper people to make those decisions and there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that they are bad at making them. Shareholders should be allowed to make up their own minds. By all means if there are major matters of importance, draw them to the attention of shareholders, the company and the institutions concerned, perhaps through the press and in the normal way. In most cases it is right that people should be free to buy or to sell their assets as they see fit. The public interest is defined in various ways, depending upon the situation, and the director general will give the necessary advice to my right hon. Friend.

rose——

Order. I understand the importance of Trade and Industry questions, but we are making very slow progress. We must get on more rapidly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the status of the engineering profession; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to supply a good, well-trained engineering profession for the future we need to raise the status of that profession perhaps to the same level as it is on the continent?

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important issue, not least because engineers are tending to move out of that profession into other occupations. Having read the 1989 survey by the Engineering Council, I am glad to say that I see considerable grounds for optimism, partly in terms of increased remuneration for engineers, partly because of satisfaction with the profession and because of the increasing number of chief executives who are qualified engineers.

Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, the status and image of engineering, notably in the west midlands, has become associated with building rubble and empty sites where there were previously thriving engineering concerns? Can the Minister give the latest Government estimate of when the number of engineering apprenticeships will reach the level that it was when the Government came to office?

I am able to give the hon. Gentleman good news. Comparing 1986–87 with 1978–79 he will find that students with first degrees in engineering and technology have increased by 26 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the recommendations put forward in the Kemp report on status option for the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

The interdepartmental working group of officials formed to consult interested parties and to advise Ministers on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD has just submitted its report to me. No decisions have yet been taken.

Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to reject the doomwatch notions of those who suggest that the Government are merely using this review to cut dramatically finance for projects business on the premise that only large companies benefit from it? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is bunkum, particularly against the background of a recent northern engineering industries' report which suggests that a recent Indian order benefited 2,600 small United Kingdom companies?

I have not come to any decision about the report. I will do so as soon as I possibly can. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the Kemp report asks the Government to take a large-scale risk while introducing private investment into the insurance by ECGD of safe countries? Surely that must be wrong and surely state agencies should be allowed more flexibility to operate so that they can take large risks and benefit from taking the easier option as well?

The Export Credits Guarantee Department does two things. There is the projects group and the insurance services group. It is suggested by Kemp that they should have different futures and that they should go in different directions. It is important to discuss one or the other of those suggestions but we cannot discuss them both at once.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the best support he can give British industry on overseas projects and sales is to create a worldwide international level playing field? Will my right hon. Friend work towards that goal? While doing so, will he support the present ECGD aid and trade provisions that are consistent with competition until he achieves that goal of fair international competition?

I agree about the objective which my hon. Friend describes. Our objective in the European single market is to create just that. As for projects outside Europe, it is difficult to align the different forms of aid and credit subsidies that different countries put together. There is no consensus on how they should be constructed. This is a most difficult matter on which to get a playing field without any bumps.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the competitiveness of British industry.

Most contacts which my Department has with industry and commerce involve matters having a bearing on United Kingdom competitiveness.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, measured in terms of unit labour costs, the competitiveness of British industry declined by 9 per cent. in the first quarter of this year? Since the Conservative party came to office it has declined by 21 per cent.—a worse record than for any other country. As it is now official Government policy to crucify British industry with high interest rates, why does not the hon. Gentleman take a leaf out of Government policy in other Departments and simply abolish all figures on competitiveness and anything that is inconvenient on the ground that the situation will get so bad in the next two years, he will have to do that?

It is very nice to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because I know that his external interests detain him elsewhere rather a lot.

Will not industrial competitiveness suffer if the claim by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions for a 35-hour week prevails, because every hour worked over 35 will incur overtime rates, thereby pushing up the cost of goods sold?

I agree, but it is much worse than that. Anyone who has the misfortune to study the Labour party's review will find on page 21, for example, a commitment to a payroll tax. One merely has to contemplate the consequences of that on British competitiveness.

Given the Minister's comments on competitiveness, can he explain the £20 billion trade deficit and reveal the present trend of bankruptcies among small businesses?

I can only suppose—indeed, I fear it to be the case—that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt precisely with that issue.

Is it not a competitive reality on which jobs depend that the country cannot afford engineering employees to have a shorter working week than employees in West Germany or in many other European countries as long as productivity in Germany is so much higher than ours?

I agree. It would be extremely helpful if the Labour Front Bench would stop backing inflationary pay settlements in the public and private sectors.

Does the Minister agree that our loss of competitiveness has meant that the share of imports of manufactured goods in our home market has risen from a quarter to a third in the past decade? Does that not show that we are so uncompetitive that we cannot even compete in our home market? Would the cut by the hon. Gentleman's Department of 30 per cent. in support for industrial research and development have anything to do with that?

Here is another hon. Gentleman who was not paying much attention to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday when he drew careful lessons from the strength of growth, especially in investment and output, since the Conservative Government came to power. However, as the hon. Gentleman has got to his feet, may I ask him what he supposes that a substantial increase in national insurance contributions will do to competitiveness? In case he has not read that proposal, it is to be found on page 33 of his miserable policy review.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on credit cards; and if he will make a statement.

I have received 370 representations following my request for views on the "no discrimination" rule, which requires traders to charge the same price for purchases made with credit cards as for those paid for by cash or other means. I am still considering these before reaching a decision.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. As and when a decision is taken, will he ensure that the interest of the consumer is paramount? In this context, the consumer is not only the individual who uses the credit card, but the supplier who looks to the credit card company for payment.

I agree that the interests of the consumer are paramount. The difficulty in this case is to decide which alternative best serves the interests of the consumer.

Would the Secretary of State like to comment on the suggestion that credit cards should be made available to 12-year-olds?

If they have sufficient credit, it would be possible, but I doubt that they would have.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that outstanding credit on a monthly basis in relation to credit cards equals only 6 per cent. in comparison with the total credit outstanding? Will he note, therefore, that the Labour party's attempt to penalise credit in relation to credit card holders is extremely marginal, like the rest of Labour policy?

My hon. Friend is right. The point here is not credit control, but what is in the best interests of consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said in his supplementary question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest intentions concerning the future of North East Shipbuilders Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

British Shipbuilders will continue discussions with those who have shown interest in purchasing parts of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security who was then Chancellor of the Duchy, on 13 July, with a view to a speedy resolution of the future of the NESL sites.

Does the Minister accept that it is nonsense for his Department to tell British Shipbuilders that in the case of the Anglo-Greek bidders, who are bidding for the North Sands yard for ship repairs and conversion, they have to sign a legally binding agreement not to construct ships there until December 1993 at a time when they require no subsidy from the Government to build ships, as they want to build them on their own account? Britain has a rapidly mounting trade deficit which will be made worse by the closure of our shipbuilding capacity. Given that the Minister admitted a fortnight ago to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry four different points that the Government had got wrong about this tragedy and farce, is it not time that he recognised that he has got the whole thing wrong and allowed people who want to build ships to get on with it, and to re-employ workers in Sunderland?

Until the hon. Gentleman reached the penultimate and last parts of his question, he was doing rather well because he was asking a perfectly respectable question. It is nonsense to attribute four errors to me and it is even more foolish to attribute a total error to the Department.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the amount of money that taxpayers lost since the shipbuilding industry in Sunderland was nationalised?

I do not have the exact figure in my mind, but I know that no contract has been built to cost in the recent past, and during the past five years Sunderland was losing 50 per cent. on each contract.

Does not the Government's latest provision finally prove to the House that they have been trying to assassinate not only Sunderland but all British merchant shipbuilding?

The hon. Gentleman does not do himself credit. If he had listened to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in December 1988, he would recall that the remedial package that was put in place provided for about £45 million worth of expenditure or forgone tax, most particularly an enterprise zone, and £10 million for retraining for the assistance of small business. To try to characterise that as assassination is plain nonsense and does the hon. Gentleman no credit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any new plans for stimulating industry in British regions.

Changes in the focus of our regional policies were made early last year. There are no plans for further changes.

In the Derbyshire, North-East constituency in recent years, there has been a decline in coalmining, which will be exacerbated by the ports Bills that hon. Members are due to discuss and a reduction in employment caused by declining railways. The decline in employment is due also to the steel industry in the travel-to-work area and the rationalisation that is taking place in the chemical industry. What has the Department of Trade and Industry done to help my constituents and similar constituents? The Government have cut regional funding by 72 per cent. since 1979. Will they alter their policy in the run-up to 1992, or are we to expect the same policy from the free enterprise fanatics on the Government Front Bench?

Once again we have a case of an hon. Gentleman who has not reflected on his question before asking it. I was disappointed that he did not pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, who managed to get the Chesterfield travel-to-work area made eligible for European structural grants. It would have been at least charitable to reflect on that. The Government's substantial instruments of policy are selective and effective. The principal Department of Trade and Industry instruments are regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants, the consultancy initiative and the ability of English Estates to build in deprived areas. That is a powerful and carefully targeted arsenal of policies.

Does not the Opposition's pose as the friend of manufacturing industry in the regions wear a little thin when hon. Members bear in mind that the Opposition have opposed every one of the Government's supply side reforms aimed at increasing the competitiveness of manufacturing? Manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government, whereas, under this Government, it has risen, particularly in Derbyshire, where manufacturing output and employment have risen faster than in most other regions.

My hon. Friend is wholly right. It is because we have adhered to our policies that we have seen dramatic downturns in unemployment, which would have gone up had we accepted the policies of the Labour party. Between March 1986 and September 1989 in the northern region unemployment fell by 18·1 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. In the north-west region it fell from 16·6 per cent. to 9·2 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it fell from 15 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. That is a tribute to the Government's regional policy.

In view of the potential importance of projects in companies such as Nissan and Toyota, does the Minister accept that one way of trying to stimulate employment in manufacturing in areas of high unemployment is to encourage joint ventures between those companies and component manufacturers within the United Kingdom? Does the Minister accept also that it would be particularly helpful if there were positive incentives to locate such developments in areas of high unemployment?

Such joint ventures are indeed, extremely valuable and they may well be eligible for, for example, regional selective assistance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most destructive policies for industry in the regions would be if the Government were to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, a policy advocated by the Labour party? Does he realise that such a policy would throw hundreds if not thousands of engineering workers in Yorkshire on to the dole queue? Will he assure the House that the Government will never adopt such a destructive and counter-productive policy?

This afternoon we have identified two policies of the Labour party which would be extremely damaging in that respect. The first is its policy on defence cuts and the second its policy of economic sanctions against South Africa. The mainstream policies of the Labour party would result in a substantial increase in unemployment.

In the absence of any co-ordinated regional policy, is the Minister aware that all the reports from Europe clearly show that the industrial regions of the north will feel the winds of 1992 quite adversely? Is he also aware of the Audit Commission report "Urban Regeneration and Economic Development" which in its conclusion says:

"Government support programmes are seen as a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasies. They baffle local authorities and business alike."

The hon. Gentleman's longwindedness does not improve his argument. He and his hon. Friend's were clearly not paying attention when I identified the carefully chosen selective instruments of policy which we have put in place. The consultancy initiative in particular is directed to the problems that will arise in 1992 and thereafter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to regulate the conduct of loss adjusters.

It is the responsibility of the professional associations of which they are members to maintain the professional standards of loss adjusters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that loss adjusters acting for insurance companies frequently browbeat and bully innocent claimants? Will my hon. Friend remind insurers that their duty is to recompense people who have suffered losses that are covered by insurance policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that practices of the kind that I have outlined should be drawn to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading?

I am disturbed to hear my hon. Friend's accusations. If he has a particular case in mind he should refer it to the professional body concerned because such bodies have disciplinary powers over their members. If my hon. Friend thinks that the abuses are widespread, he should talk or write to the Director General of Fair Trading because he has powers to negotiate a code of conduct with the professions if he thinks that that is necessary.

Many Opposition Members would like to be associated with the genuine compliments paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by his Conservative colleagues because we have found out that such compliments are the political equivalent of the last meal of a condemned man. The Secretary of State is not only unique, he is quite brilliant. I would have said "unassailable" but I think that unsaleable——

Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance to ask a question about loss adjusters.

Is the Minister aware that if a loss adjuster visited the Clydesdale tube works in Scotland he would find that less damage had been caused over the past five years by accidental death, burglary and fire than by the absolute refusal by British Steel to invest in that tube works? Will the Minister encourage British Steel to put in some investment?

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a trade surplus or a smaller trade deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product than the United Kingdom.

All OECD countries except Portugal, Greece and Spain were in one or other category in 1988, the latest year for which complete figures are available.

Is it not an appalling comment on 10 years of Thatcherism that we are almost at the bottom of the world league and that we have the largest balance of payments deficit of any advanced country and the largest in our post-war history? Why is the country so economically weak and defenceless against that invasion of imports? How will the Government's policy of high interest rates and an overvalued pound help us out of that mess?

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should highlight that particular issue rather than the many good issues that should be highlighted about the state of the economy. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest figures show that the unemployment rate in the Carmarthen travel-to-work area is down to 3·5 per cent? That is a fine tribute to the success of the Government's economic policies and I should have thought that he would want to say someting positive about that.

Order. We should have the answer to the question.

How long will it be before the import penetration in the automobile industry is reduced as a result of the massive investment, particularly from Nissan, Toyota and Honda? What effect will that have on the balance of trade?

I was hoping to come to that in answering the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) more fully. Export volume has grown by 11 per cent. in the past three months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) rightly says, major investments have been announced by three large Japanese motor manufacturers, which will make a substantial increase to car manufacturing capacity in this country in the early and mid-1990s. As a large element in the deficit on manufactured goods lies in the vehicle sector, my hon. Friend is right to look forward to much better trading conditions in manufactured motor vehicles as a result of that positive inward investment.

Given the appalling deterioration in our trade performance, which the Minister has been obliged to reveal in his answer—incidentally, that gives the lie to the blusterings of his hon. Friend the Minister about the competitiveness of British industry—what explanation does the Minister offer the House for what has happened, or in common with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does he have no view to offer?

I thought that Opposition Members were complaining that I had too many views as there is a lot to say about the strengths of the British manufacturing economy. I repeat that it is a sign of strength that people want to invest here. We have had a deficit in recent months because demand has outstripped supply in the short term. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the prudent course of raising interest rates to slow the rate of growth in the economy, so that the supply side can catch up. I am sure that, in due course, that policy will be successful. I am also sure that inward investment will make an important contribution to changing the balance of payments position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding alleged unfair competition in the timber industry as a result of subsidies to sawmills in Wales.

Save for my hon. Friend's letter of 31 August, I am not aware of having received any other representations about unfair competition in the timber industry.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is documented evidence that shows that elements of unfair competition have been introduced into industries, notably the timber industry in this case, as a result of decisions made under regional policies? Will he take this opportunity to deprecate those instances of interventionism?

I cannot do that as I believe that there are powerful economic and social arguments in favour of our regional policy that I outlined in answer to an earlier question. I recognise that when deciding whether to grant aid in particular cases a number of criteria must be taken into account. One of them is, necessarily, the effect on indigenous industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has concerning manufacturers' obligations to provide United Kingdom consumers of motor vehicles and major household appliances with reliability and after sales service; and if he will make a statement.

The consumer contracts with a supplier, who is normally a retailer not a manufacturer, and it is against the supplier that the consumer has a right of action under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for defects in the goods supplied. Manufacturers who provide consumers with guarantees of reliability or with after sales service, do so voluntarily and in addition to the consumer's statutory rights against the supplier.

My hon. Friend's reply will be most welcome. However, will the legislation incorporate the proposals which have been prepared by the National Consumer Council and will those improvements be harnessed to serve the needs of the consumer?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can certainly confirm that we are studying the recommendations of the National Consumer Council most closely, as we do all the work of that excellent organisation. I am not yet in a position to say what, if any, elements of its recommendations will be incorporated in future legislation. I am aware that when we legislate we should put together the most effective and up-to-date package in the consumer's interest, and that we shall do.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that at the end of the list of questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry there are no fewer than 14 questions about this country's trade deficit which have been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand from a spokesperson at the Department of Trade and Industry that this is because the Central Statistical Office is now responsible for trade figures. First, hon. Members should have been notified, and secondly, these questions should rightfully be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This is yet another attempt by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to evade answering questions. When I received a written answer to my own question it was an answer about the deficit in the balance of payments, which was not what my question was about. Right hon. and hon. Members have a right to have trade deficit questions answered by the Minister responsible, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

I should like to be able to help the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the 21st edition of "Parliamentary Practice" which has just come out. On page 286 it states:

"It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene."

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that a significant number of Labour Members have put down questions on today's Order Paper and then failed to turn up. Would you be good enough to deprecate that because it is not only an insult to you in the Chair, but unfair to hon. Members from both sides of the House who, having seen a question on the Order Paper, hope to catch your eye on a supplementary question but find that the original questioner is not here?

It is a courtesy to the House if the Chair is told when Members are unable to be present for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the fact that some hon. Members are not here today has meant that we have been able to reach question No. 20, which was a bit of good luck for the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard today the utterly outrageous statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that 12-year-olds should be able to use credit cards. I wonder whether—[Interruption.]

Order. That is a clear continuation of Question Time and not a matter of order for me. An Opposition day prayer has been set down and if it were possible for me to limit speeches I would do so today because such a large number of hon. Members wish to participate. Points of order which are not points of order are a disservice to the House.