To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989.

The level of United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to Japan in 1989 was £1,938 million, an increase of 29 per cent. over 1988.

Does not that welcome answer show that the standards and quality of British manufacturing are very high? Is not that why we sell so well to countries such as Japan? Is it true that the British kitemark on British products is taken as a symbol of that quality? Would not those who are trying to export to Japan be well advised to have the kitemark on their products because people recognise it throughout the world?

My hon. Friend is right. The great growth in our exports to Japan is gratifying and, I believe, based on greatly improved British quality—which was not the case some time ago. The more that can be done to underline that quality in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, the better.

Is not it true that Japan has a massive trade surplus with Britain, and has had for many years? The amount to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is a flea bite compared with the amount of Japan's trade with Britain. Is not it also true that the meeting of Finance Ministers last week discussed ways to try to coax Japan to take more British and American goods? Did not Japan refuse to take skis manufactured in Britain because it has a different sort of snow? Did not it refuse —

Order. I hope that we can start this new part of the Session with hon. Members asking single questions; otherwise it is not fair for other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

Is not it true that Japan refused to import cosmetics from other countries because the Japanese have a different sort of skin? Did not it refuse to take oranges from the Third world because it says that Japanese stomachs are too small?

We are on course to meet our target of doubling our exports to Japan in the three years to 1990. That is quite an achievement. We have a trade deficit with Japan, but so does practically every other nation. Of the European countries, Britain has the second highest rate of export growth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British leather industry would like to enjoy the 29 per cent. increase to which he referred? Is he further aware that ever since trade with Japan began, there have been artificial barriers to such exports? Will my right hon. Friend, on a personal basis, make the strongest possible representations to the EEC to ensure that those artificial barriers—which prevent the best leather in the world from being exported to Japan—are lifted?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the areas in which the Japanese have failed to liberalise their markets, and I intend to raise the matter with them when I visit Japan in the summer. I shall make my hon. Friend's point with such force as I can command.

What impact is the policy of high interest rates having on investment and therefore on our long-term ability to export to Japan and elsewhere? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that receiverships have increased by 109 per cent. over the first quarter of 1989? What help is it to exporters to have, in addition to high interest rates, cuts in export services, cuts in research and development help for firms, and even cuts in the consultancy service that was set up only a few months ago?

The hon. Gentleman must know that investment is coming into Britain from Japan at ever greater rates. That helps us to increase our exports. We are now exporting motor cars to Japan. I do not understand how interest rates affect that process. The hon. Gentleman quoted figures, which he also gave in a newspaper recently, for alleged cuts in services provided to industry by my Department. He probably does not realise that last year there was a shortfall in take-up of those services. The demand for them fell, so it was not possible to meet the budget for that year. There have been no budgetary cuts. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he makes silly allegations.

On a recent visit to Japan I was impressed by the Department's initiatives, through Opportunity Japan, and by the calibre and quality of the British embassy staff, from the ambassador downwards, who were implementing that policy. I hope that during his visit my right hon. Friend will do all that he can to promote structural changes which will advance the steps that have already been taken and will make clear to British business the opportunities in Japan which did not exist as recently as a few years ago.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in particular for the tribute that he paid to staff in our embassy in Japan, and during my visit I shall pass on his tribute to those concerned. I agree that the Opportunity Japan campaign has been a great success. I will take every possible measure to increase that success in the time ahead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

I have every confidence that there is a bright future for the United Kingdom steel industry now that all of it is in the private sector and free from Government interference.

A declaration of confidence from the Government in their present state is more a kiss of death than an endorsement. As domestic demand for steel is likely to be depressed because of what the Government are doing to deflate the economy, will the Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tell him that the only way to encourage exports and to stop capacity being closed in this country is to get the pound down to a competitive level so that industry can compete effectively in Europe?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's continued contact with the non-socialist world—he is, of course, a valued and I think well-paid employee of one of Mr. Murdoch's companies—has enabled him to ask the kind of question to which I am extremely happy to respond. As the House will know, as a result of Government policy there has been a transformation in the British steel industry. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the industry made huge losses and required vast subsidies. I am glad that it is now among the most profitable and productive steel industries in the world.

Will my hon. Friend take it from one who has a steelworks in his constituency that the steel industry is doing extremely well and that one thing that would set it back would be for the Government once again to start interfering in the running of that great industry?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are various ways to measure the transformation, but one way is in terms of productivity. In 1980, the United Kingdom produced 84 tonnes per man year. I am happy to say that by 1988 that had increased to 347 tonnes per man year —a staggering transformation which has made the United Kingdom steel industry among the most productive and efficient in the world.

If there is such confidence in the steel industry, and if such a transformation has been wrought, why has Sir Robert Scholey of British Steel twice refused to meet shop stewards from the Ravenscraig and Dalziel plants in Scotland? As there is every likelihood of a £700 million profit this year in steel, will the Minister monitor the level of investment in that industry in Scotland and ensure that meetings take place between Scottish representatives and the chairman?

There are no ifs and buts about the transformation. It is certain. Let me give the House some more figures which might also help the hon. Lady. In 1979–80 British Steel lost £1,784 million, which transferred into current terms is £3,359 million. I am happy to say that in 1988–89 British Steel made a profit of £593 million. In the first half of 1989–90, it made a profit of £423 million. The transformation is real; there are no ifs or buts about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the growth in exports of manufactured goods to the European Community since 1979.

Exports of manufactured goods to the European Community have risen from £13 billion in 1979 to £38 billion in 1989, an increase of £25 billion.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the last three months for which figures are available visible exports from Britain to the European Community increased by 11 per cent., whereas imports increased by only 0·5 per cent.? If those figures are correct, do not they show that the trend is very much in the right direction?

My hon. Friend is right. The trend is certainly in the right direction. The figures relate to all our visible trade with EC and non-EC countries. It is most encouraging to see the trade balance improving, as forecast by the Treasury and by a variety of external forecasters. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) did not remain to hear the rest of these questions. He has been saying that the trade balance is not improving. How wrong he is, but how right it is that the trade balance is improving, as we expected, because British industry is responding well.

Will the Minister give the figures for 1979 and 1989 of imports from other European countries to the United Kingdom and compare them with the figures that he gave earlier?

The hon. Gentleman is right that imports from the European Community have risen. As one would expect, there has been a big increase in imports and exports as we benefit from more trading patterns with Europe. Comparing the figures for 1979 and 1989, the balance is not much different. The proportion of imports from the European Community in 1989 was similar to the proportion in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of his trade mission last month to Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Together with a group of business men, I visited the Soviet Union and Poland from 10 to 17 March. Poland is making rapid progress towards replacing socialist economic policies with a free market. There are good opportunities for British investors. In the Soviet Union, the pace of change is slower.

A principal reason for my right hon. Friend's visit to Russia and Poland was to urge them to introduce a commercial and legal framework to reassure entrepreneurs and businesses that they could invest with confidence. How did he succeed on that and on currency convertibility and the ending of import licensing? Does he agree that, with only £197 million of exports to Poland last year, it is much too important a market to be left to West German business men?

My hon. Friend is right. We need a proper framework of law and rules on pricing, insolvency payments, debt collection, monopolies and subsidies controls before they can become full market trading countries. The prospects of anything transpiring are less in Russia than in Poland, which is trying as hard as possible to put in place the essential commercial infrastructure. That will help us greatly to invest, to Poland's benefit as well as to ours, and to increase trade. At the moment, the Poles have a shortage of hard currency and are unable to purchase much from the west. It will be much better when Poland has achieved convertibility. We urged it to achieve fully convertible currency at the earliest possible date.

During his mission, did the Secretary of State discuss with the Polish people the failure of the British free market capitalist system? Did he explain why we have a massive trade deficit and high interest rates and why small businesses are going bankrupt by the day? The Government have introduced the uniform business rate, which will bankrupt even more. Did the right hon. Gentleman hold that up to the Poles as an example for their future economic strategy?

I do not know which country the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He might like to know that since 1981 manufacturing output in this country has gone up by 32 per cent.; manufacturing productivity has gone up by 51 per cent.; profits have increased by four times; and manufacturing investment has been growing at a real rate of 5·5 per cent. a year. The hon. Gentleman seems to have mixed up the two countries. Anyone would have thought that he was talking about Poland. It would be a disaster to try to apply east European methods of economic management, as they have been hitherto, to the very successful British economy. It should be the other way round.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Opposition for underselling this country at every opportunity? Does he agree that should the Soviet Union and the Polish nation seek help in setting up free economies on the lines of our banking and business world, we will give them every possible assistance, despite the efforts of the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain is viewed everywhere—except among Opposition Members—as one of the world's most successful economic transformations. We are sufficiently well off to be able to provide a £50 million know-how fund to help the Poles to set in place the essential infrastructure to which my hon. Friend referred. At the same time, we have made generous contributions to various funds, including £15 million for agriculture, £190 million towards EEC assistance and $100 million to the stabilisation fund.

Will not the Secretary of State have to have further discussions with his counterparts in the Soviet Union if events in Lithuania move towards some kind of economic blockade? Will not he need to make it clear to his Soviet counterparts that he will facilitate any trade arrangements that may be necessary to ensure that essential supplies and commodities can be made available to the people of Lithuania?

It is not for me to answer for foreign policy towards Lithuania. All that I can say is that we are watching the situation very carefully and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take any action that he deems to be correct at the right time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to discuss trade barriers with Switzerland and other European Free Trade Association countries; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the ambassadors of Switzerland and other EFTA countries on 2 May when there will be an opportunity to discuss a range of subjects.

Does my hon. Friend agree that since the EFTA countries trading together form the European Community's largest trading partner, the creation of a European economic space must be the main objective of the British Government's relations with EFTA?

My hon. Friend is right. Between 1972 and 1984 tariff barriers came down and from 1984 onwards, under the Luxembourg declaration, there was progress to include EFTA in a number of market-opening measures to bring our markets closer together. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that negotiations will be under way to see whether we can bring EFTA into a common European economic space with the European Community, and Britain is at the forefront of member states urging that upon our Commission and Community partners.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is desirable to extend the European economic space, alongside it must be mutual obligations on a wide range of issues, including non-tariff barriers, state aids and the openness of stock markets in countries apart from the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is right, and some of those matters were already covered by the Luxembourg declaration. Many EFTA countries are making good progress in reducing state aids and implementing sensible economic policies. I wish that some Opposition Members would begin to learn from those economic policies. They still seem to be wedded to massive interventionism, which is illegal for a member of the European Community and which is no longer practised by many EFTA states. The Government are determined to see the European Community police those disciplines of fair trading within the Community and throughout EFTA where we have the necessary agreements so to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the stock exchange, will he discuss with him fraud and investor protection in the City? As we move towards 1992, with the present high levels of fraud and lack of investor protection in the City, is not business likely to flow from Britain rather than to come here?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government have put in place four specific measures to provide a strong legislative framework to regulate the activities of the City. The previous legislation was woefully inadequate. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abolished stamp duty on share dealing, which will help to make London remain the centre of European financial activity, and I am confident that it will.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the Labour party that this Government introduced a criminal offence for insider dealing and for trading in investment business without a licence? It ill-befits the Labour party to complain about our form of regulation. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm his confidence in self-regulation as a principle in the City?

I have never understood why the Labour Government of 1974 did not proceed with the previous Government's plans to put in place legislation on insider dealing and other matters and why, during all their six-year tenure, they passed no legislation to deal with that problem. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to that grievous omission. I also agree with my hon. Friend's latter remarks.

While welcoming the tightening up in the City, may I ask the Secretary of State to agree that there may be a need for a revision of the guidelines for the futures and options markets for the protection of investors?

It will be for the Securities and Investments Board to consider whether changes are needed. With the system of self-regulation that we have in place, it is for practitioners, guided by the SIB, which has authority, to decide how best to ensure that regulation is of the highest standard but at the lowest possible cost.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the stock exchange, will he ask what lessons could have been learnt from the ombudsman's report on Barlow Clowes? Will he ask him whether the class 1 circular issued upon the reverse takeover of Barlow Clowes by James Ferguson (Holdings) plc in April 1987 should have contained more information about the trading relationship between Barlow Clowes and Barlow Clowes International?

All that I can say is that I will draw my hon. Friend's comments and questions to the attention of the chairman of the stock exchange. It is not for me to reopen those questions, as the Financial Services Act 1986 has transferred the responsibility elsewhere.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office.

I will next meet the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Bryan Nicholson, on 4 May.

Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to the Royal Mail as a national public monopoly? Will he assure the House that he has not fallen prey to the predatory exercises of those who want to get their hands on the choicest cuts of the Royal Mail while leaving the ordinary consumer to the mercy of an inferior service? How much are the Government committed to the Royal Mail and to a service for all consumers?

The answer to the question is yes. We are convinced that the future of the postal service must involve a service that is universal in its coverage and operates at a standard price for all its users. We are confident that the management and employees of the Post Office are dedicated to a constant improvement in the service that they operate for the people of this country. That has the full backing of the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that competition is good and monopoly is bad and that before any future European directives are issued those basic facts should be taken into account?

Yes, that is right. In this country and throughout the Community, we must try to establish that balance of universal coverage which is appropriate and necessary to provide a level of service with the maximum reasonable and available competition so as to give the maximum benefit to all our users and consumers. We are absolutely dedicated to achieving that.

Prior to meeting the chairman of the Post Office, will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry consult his colleagues, including his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about the possibility of enabling constituents throughout the United Kingdom to purchase motor vehicle road fund licences from post offices, and will he then discuss that with the chairman of the Post Office?

That is as much, if not more, the responsibility of the Department of Transport and of my right hon. and hon. Friends there as it is of this Department. I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed because it is something with which all hon. Members have to deal on a constituency basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are constantly seeking to ensure the best and most effective coverage for all parts of the kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency case, I assure him that I and my colleagues will look most carefully at it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer to the original question will be most welcome to the chairman of the Post Office and to all its employees? Will he confirm that there is a danger that the European directive on postal services could introduce barriers to new entrants to the market? Will he assure the House that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to ensure that that does not happen?

First, I assure my hon. Friend that as yet there is no directive. A group of senior officials, including officials from my Department, are considering the possibility of publishing a Green Paper—a discussion document—to try to establish the correct place for the postal services in the single market of the European Community. That work is continuing. At the moment, we do not envisage that the Green Paper will emerge until later this year. At that point, it will have to be widely considered throughout the Community and by the Council of Ministers and even then, there will have to be a lot of consultation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the major car manufacturers; and what will be discussed.

The Secretary of State and I regularly meet the major car manufacturers to discuss a variety of issues.

When the Minister and his hon. Friend next meet the manufacturers, will they discuss Britain's huge £6·5 billion deficit in automotive products? Can the Minister offer any positive proposals to reduce that deficit and can he tell the House why such a huge deficit exists in such a crucial industry?

It was perhaps a misfortune for the hon. Gentleman to concentrate so much on import penetration because he should know that import penetration occurred during the period of office of the last Labour Government. I will give the House the exact figures. In 1974, import penetration was 27·9 per cent., in 1979 it was 56·3 per cent., and at present it is about 57 per cent., so the process of import penetration took place under the Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government, however, there has been an extraordinary transformation in our indigenous capacity. Let us consider the past five years: in 1984 we produced about 909,000 units, in 1989 we produced 1·299 million units and by the mid-1990s we are likely to be producing about 2·2 million units.

When my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mext meets the major car manufacturers, will he press upon them the need to sustain and encourage the car component industry in Britain, particularly in the west midlands? Is my hon. Friend aware that although it is not how we do things here, in some countries there would be positive discrimination in favour of such an industry?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Fortunately, we are seeing a huge increase in Britain's motor car manufacturing capacity. Inevitably, that provides a great opportunity for the automotive component industry and I am pleased to say that the industry is taking advantage of it. Whenever there is inward investment in relation to the motor industry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stress the importance of United Kingdom sourcing.

In the light of yesterday's announcement by Honda of the details of its 20 per cent. stake in Rover, at a price of £104 million, which gives the Rover division of British Aerospace a market value of more than £500 million excluding property assets and the DAF investment, will the Government still be making representations to the European Commission to the effect that the £56 million in sweeteners identified by the National Audit Office on a sale price of £150 million were none the less necessary to sell the company?

The figures just read out rather painfully by the hon. Gentleman illustrate the value and importance of putting such companies into the private sector. One thing is plain. When Rover was sold to British Aerospace it was not worth the valuation suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The transformation of Rover is entirely consequent on the fact that it is operated productively and prosperously in the private sector.

Will my hon. Friend take time out to meet the car manufacturers trade unions, in particular those which represent Ford workers, so that we may never again see a Dundee or Bridgend where phase 2 of the development of the Zeta engine has been deferred and transferred to German factories on the continent? Is not it a fact that the trade unions at that company still have to learn that their rhetoric during the recent Ford dispute to the effect that they had the power to stop Ford throughout Europe did more damage to them, their jobs and their futures than to anyone else?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The plain truth is that while Ford remains committed to the United Kingdom, it has the capacity to put work elsewhere. It made the decision not to put the Zeta engine phase 2 at Bridgend partly

"because of the unreliability of supply experienced in recent years".

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.

The future of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry depends on its ability to win orders in the face of international competition. The Government provide substantial support to the industry to assist its return to normal competitive conditions.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of building a ship has doubled in the past few years, yet worldwide demand for shipbuilding is booming and shipowners are falling over themselves to place new orders? In the light of that, do the Government not regret having done in the past 10 years what the Luftwaffe failed to do and closed down the great majority of British merchant shipbuilding capacity?

That was a foolish question, and an ignorant one. As for our shipbuilding capacity, there are now about 33,000 people in the shipbuilding industry. I am happy to say that the order books are good and the yards are not losing money. When the Labour party was in power, the industry lost vast sums of money and required huge subsidies. That is not the proper way to use economic resources.

Is not it a fact that my hon. Friend fought like a tiger for the retention of the shipbuilding intervention fund, thus demonstrating that he is not the British shipbuilding industry's enemy but its friend?

I am flattered by the analogy. Some tiger! I should have said, "Some hog!" None the less, I will accept the compliment and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is our intention, in time, to return shipbuilding to proper market conditions, but at present we thought it right that there should be a 20 per cent. ceiling on the intervention fund. We are comfortable with that figure, but our policy is to reduce the ceiling.

Is not it the case that in the world shipbuilding league, the United Kingdom is behind not only Japan and South Korea, but West Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, East Germany, Poland, Brazil, Finland and Yugoslavia? Given that fact, is not it tragic that the Government connived at the closure of the Sunderland yards even when there were bidders prepared to operate those yards without subsidy?

The hon. Lady always runs down British shipbuilding—[Interruption.] I always try to be nice to her. I think that she does that because she does not know the facts. I will give her one encouraging piece of information. In the first quarter of 1989—the last period for which I have an exact figure—the proportion of world orders taken up by British shipbuilding yards substantially increased. I hope that the hon. Lady will be pleased at that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he first became aware of Dr. Barry Richardson's research into cot deaths; and what action he then took to alert the public.

The Department of Health wrote to my Department about Dr. Barry Richardson's research on 7 June 1989. A copy of Dr. Richardson's report dated June 1989 was received on 12 June. As a direct result the laboratory of the Government chemist was asked to undertake a scientific assessment of this research work.

The Minister will know that the independent scientist, Barry Richardson, to whom he referred, tested 45 mattresses on which babies had died. All the mattresses were fireproofed and gave off potentially lethal doses of poisonous gases. In the light of that, why did the Minister force through legislation on fire retardent material without conducting tests? Why was no warning given to parents of the risk, however small? Is that not an indication of the Government's laxity with regard to such measures?

One of the problems in relation to this difficult subject is shown by the fact that one of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues came to argue exactly the opposite case with me when I had to make that difficult decision. On the basis of the information known to us then, we maintained our views about fire resistance for nursery furniture. I am awaiting the findings of the work being carried out both by the laboratory of the Government chemist and by the expert working group set up precisely to examine Dr. Richardson's claims.

I appreciate the problems, but is my hon. Friend aware that this man's evidence is very convincing and has been brought to my attention by constituents who are involved in the trade? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend do everything to hurry up the research because, as he well knows, young lives are at stake every day?

My hon. Friend has made repeated representations to me on behalf of his constituent who shares the concern expressed by Dr. Richardson. I hope that he will accept that at this stage it would be best for all of us to wait until we have the findings of the laboratory of the Government chemist and of the expert working group that we have set up. Then we shall determine whether policy shall be changed. As a result of my hon. Friend's representations and others that I have received, we are more than prepared to change policy in this matter if it is determined that we should do so on the basis of the evidence of the further work that is being done. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not allow that work to be unduly delayed.

Is the Minister aware that there is almost no remaining doubt that there is an association, found by Dr. Richardson and his team, between cot death syndrome and the gases produced by the fungal infection of mattresses? Why has he delayed an investigation into the findings for two years? The chief medical officer put out a press statement on 9 March stating that he had been

"advised that no case of cot death in this country had been reported due to these gases".

I wish in some ways that I could share the hon. Gentleman's certainty. Faced with these difficult policy choices and with serious matters which cause great concern to many people, I believe that we are taking a responsible and measured view and responding in that way.

I call Mr. Watson. Question 23.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the last question—

If it does, it cannot be a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the reason why so many Opposition Members have not turned up to ask their questions—

That is not a point of order for me. I call Mr. Watson.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I call Mr. Watson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Frank Field. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Tony Lloyd. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Home Robertson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Ronnie Campbell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Rowlands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."]

I wish to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that questions have been asked by Opposition Members according to their surnames. If the name is McCartney or McFall, the Member is interested in cot deaths. If the name is Mahon or McKay—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is a point that he is consciously making across the Chamber. I call Mr. Snape. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Fisher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Eadie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here. "]

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his counterparts in the European Commission; and what will be discussed.

I am surprised that an Opposition Member has turned up to ask a question. I hold regular meetings with my counterparts in the European Commission on a broad range of issues.

If and when the Secretary of State meets the European Commission, will he convey to it the impoverished state of the north-western region and the fact that it is imperative that the region should get more money from European grant sources to help clear up the industrial obsolescence, bad housing and bad environment caused by 10 years of neglect by the Conservative Government?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously been trying to find a question to ask because he has asked one in which he is not interested. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is here and has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. My right hon. Friend will speak for the whole country when he speaks to the European Commission and the other member states. We shall ensure that we get our fair share of grants and assistance from the European Community, but we are also interested in sensible budget discipline because the best way to make people prosperous is to deregulate and to get out of their way—not to take their money away from them and then give it back with a deduction for handling charges.

How dare the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) so cry down the north-west? Is my hon. Friend aware that the north-west is improving in terms of prosperity, that its employment rate is improving with every week that passes and that it does not assist our case when Labour Members constantly cry us down?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that powerful intervention. Many Members from the north-west are rightly proud of the achievements of the north-western economy. As I travel through the country I notice how much investment, employment and opportunities are growing in the regions—more so now than in the south-east where the slow-down is more marked than in the regional economies. We welcome that surge in prosperity and believe that it is the direct result of the policies being pursued to allow enterprise to triumph and inward investment to stimulate the industrial base.

When the Secretary of State has discussions in Europe, will he consider why there is longer-term investment in industry in Germany than there is here? There is still a lack of industrial investment in the north-west. Would not we do better if we followed the German example and our financial institutions made longer-term investments in our manufacturing industry?

There is much good long-term investment going on in this country today if only the hon. Gentleman would use his eyes and see what is happening. British industry would rightly resent his idea that it is not interested in long-term investment. I see many factories going up, many new projects, and a rebuilding of the motor car industry. That is all too obvious to those who look at the figures and travel throughout the country. Real manufacturing investment is up by a third over the past five years. I welcome that and I am grateful for it. It shows that the enterprise policies are working.

When negotiating with his counterparts a reduction in tariffs to be carried out by the Commission through the general agreement on tariffs and trade, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the position of Turkey vis-a-vis Europe? It is the largest importer of textile goods into the European Community and although we allow goods in tariff-free it has effective import barriers of 200 per cent. to our exports there. Although it has reduced its tariffs nominally, its special tariffs—for example, for contributions to its housing funds—remain in place and constitute an effective barrier against British exports.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question and I shall draw its substance to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Trade. It is a matter of concern if liberalisation does not progress on both sides and it is an aim of EC policy to see that barriers are removed against Turkish exports as and when Turkey reduces its barriers to our exports to that country. My hon. Friend can rest assured that my noble Friend will continue to make strong representations about any unfair obstacles to trade imposed by Turkey.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what latest representations he has had on his inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a large number of representations from hon. Members and direct from the public expressing a variety of views.

How is it that crooks and charlatans can get away with things like that takeover while millions of ordinary, decent families in Britain are about to be pushed into a position of illegality because of their inability to pay the poll tax? Why cannot the Secretary of State, with his hands-off laissez-faire attitude towards the Fayed brothers, be transferred back to the Department of the Environment so that he can take the same attitude to the millions of families who cannot pay the poll tax?

The Law Officers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have looked carefully into the case and a full statement has been made to the House about it. I have nothing further to add.

Is not it a fact that legislation has now been introduced which will prohibit the same sort of thing happening again? But is it not also a fact that inspectors from the Department of Trade and Industry were appointed under a certain section under which it was not a criminal offence to tell untruths, whereas if they had been appointed under a different section, criminal action could have been taken?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right. He is right in the first part of his question in saying that the Government have recently changed the law to ensure that it is an offence knowingly to mislead the competition authorities, but on his second point I do not think that the issue was whether it was or was not an offence under a particular section.

Will the Department of Trade undertake to study the remarkable Channel 4 programme on Good Friday evening by John Plender—in particular, the position of Kleinwort Benson and John MacArthur—and consider the whole question of truthfulness at the highest level of commerce? Is lying now all right at that level?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have nothing to add to the statement that he made to the House on the conduct of the case.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the very brevity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement last month on the report of the inspectors of the Department of Trade and Industry on the House of Fraser takeover encourages the likes of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) to make wild allegations? Would not it be far better to give the subject a thorough airing in a full debate in the House?

There will be another opportunity to discuss the matter when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives evidence to the Select Committee. Indeed, he has already done so. In addition, a statement was made which covered all the main issues that were relevant to my right hon. Friend and the conduct of his Department.

I call Mr. Radice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. McAvoy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Jack. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not herel Ms. Short. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Ingram. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Steinberg. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Livsey. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here."] Mr. Maxton. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not here.""] Mr. Alex Carlile.

rose—

Hooray!

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage investment in information technology for the benefit of industry.

I fancy that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are a bit surprised to be where we are.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but what steps do the Government propose to take to ensure that the full range of information technology equipment is available to small businesses in rural areas which are attractive to those who can run businesses on the basis of information technology?

The hon. and learned Gentleman requires a full and considered reply to such a full and considered question. That being so, I propose to write to him.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the information technology industry has greatly expanded under the present Government, whereas it was virtually at a standstill under the Labour Administration? Does he agree also that a full statement about the industry ought to be made? Will he consider publishing at the earliest possible opportunity a statement on the way in which the information technology industry has expanded?

It is a subject which should be generally amplified and expanded upon, but as you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware, statements are not a matter for me. I therefore cannot give my hon. Friend a commitment in the terms that he seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board; and what will be discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board to discuss a range of topics concerning the regulation of financial services as frequently as is necessary. No date has been fixed for the next such meeting.

Does the Minister agree that now is an appropriate time to discuss with the SIB chairman whether the safeguards provided for small investors are even half-way adequate? It is clear that in this country it is all right to mislead or to reinterpret financial rules so long as one does it in terms of millions of pounds.

I do not believe that the hon. Lady's question draws the right inference, but she is right in saying that now is a good time to discuss with the chairman of the SIB matters relating to small investors and their protection. I hope to arrange a meeting with the chairman soon for that purpose.