To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the latest figures for the output of tinplate in Wales and Great Britain, respectively.

The average monthly output of tinplate in the first five months of 1990 was 72,000 tonnes. All British production of tinplate is based in Wales.

The Minister will be aware of the importance to Wales of the tinplate industry, which in its heyday employed some 7,000 people. In view of the loss of jobs at Velindre, will he give an assurance that there is now certainty for the future of that industry? As £120 million worth of tinplate is to be imported into Britain this year, will the Minister examine the matter to see how we can maximise our own output and the jobs that depend on it?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, there has been a very gradual decline in the production of tinplate due to competition from aluminium. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question, now that British Steel is privatised, profitable and successful, I do not think that it is down to a Department of Trade and Industry Minister to comment in detail on the company's commercial operations and I have no intention of doing so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British Steel is already one of the most positive examples of the benefits of privatisation? In 1979–80 it lost £1·7 billion, but in the past year it made a profit of £700 million. That example is being followed with interest throughout the world and one can only hope that it will be followed with interest and understanding by Opposition Members.

I fear that my hon. Friend will receive no reassurance from Opposition Members, who still seem not to accept the benefits that have accrued to British Steel as a result of privatisation. The whole world knows that we have one of the most successful and profitable steel companies in the world and we at the DTI intend to leave it well alone.

Would the Minister like to make that claim to the 370 employees at the Ravenscraig hot strip mill who lost their jobs last week, the 400 workers at Ravenscraig who will lose their jobs at the end of the month, the 1,200 people at the Clydesdale tube works who face the sack within the next three months or the 3,500 and the rest at Ravenscraig and the 2,000 connected with them who are liable to lose their jobs? How can he possibly regard a company that throws away the most productive steel plant in Britain and, indeed, in Europe as a shining example to the rest of British industry?

As regards Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that certain undertakings were given to the Government by British Steel, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing that matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's general points about British Steel, we return as always to the original fact that in 1979 the industry was making a loss of £1 billion and now it is making a profit of £600 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the progress being made by his Department in negotiating the capital adequacy revised directive with our EC counterparts in the Trade and Industry Council.

In June 1990 the Commission tabled a proposal on capital adequacy. More recently, it tabled a position paper on equity risk and interest rate risk. We are negotiating on those proposals together. I am consulting widely with the industry concerned and we wish to see the principle established that capital should be related to the risks being run.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and wish him well in the work on the revised draft text. Is he now confident that that will give a level playing field, a single-market basis and a fair opportunity for competition by British financial intermediaries?

No, I am not yet fully satisfied on that point. A number of issues relating to independent financial advisers still need to be discussed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I am pleased that the Commission is now a partner and is listening carefully to our argument that IFAs should be distinguished by the amount of risk being run, that different levels of capital should apply to them and that in some cases exemptions should apply to them. I should like to see rather more exemptions than are currently proposed, but getting agreement on that will obviously be difficult as it involves a qualified majority vote.

Will the Minister tell his Common Market counterparts that in the jungle of the City of London it would be a good idea to learn some lessons from the swindle at Harrods, the Blue Arrow fiasco and all the rest of the City frauds'? They will certainly not achieve a level playing field like that.

It is typical of the Opposition always to try to run down the City of London and this country's financial services. It is high time that the Opposition got behind those services and realised that they create hundreds of thousands of jobs and do a very good job for this country in Europe.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed capital adequacy requirements as they stand, could all too easily restrict choice, reduce competition and thus damage the interests of the financial consumers whom they are intended to assist?

I have already said that the United Kingdom Government wish to see capital related directly to risk. If we succeed in that, my hon. Friend's fears will be confounded. I accept his intention and that we still need to make more progress over the definition of categories for various types of independent financial adviser. One of my main objectives is to try to avoid independent financial advisers being squeezed by European directives.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to meet the board of the Northern Development Company to discuss the company's business plan for 1991–92.

I have no present plans to meet the board of the Northern Development Company. Its plans and grant application for its inward investment activities for 1991–92 are currently being given careful consideration, along with those of the other four regional development organisations. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs will be announcing the level of grant for all the regional development organisations in early March.

The Secretary of State will know that the Northern Development Company was created by people in the north to promote inward investment. Given the spirit of his speech yesterday, does he now regard it as a fully fledged regional development agency and, if so, will he give it the resources to promote inward investment from the south into the north so that, as the puff of credit which floated to the south sinks, people can move to the north where opportunity is greater and life is better?

The Northern Development Company is doing an excellent job. It has a good record of attracting companies into the north-east—about 31,000 jobs have been created by inward investment in the north-east and the northern region—and it will receive the largest grant of any of the regional development organisations.

As the Northern Development Company has all-party support, is a bright example of success in the north-east in terms of its economic promotion and has contributed significantly to the resilience of our region, will my right hon. Friend therefore maximise support for its future and for that success?

I shall certainly do so. As I have said, the company will receive the largest grant of all the regional development organisations. It has an excellent record. In addition, English Estates is planning 600,000 sq ft of extra factory space in the region.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there has never been a more important time than right now to reverse the Government's damaging industrial strategy in the northern region? Why do the Government not reopen the door that they so firmly locked in 1979 when Labour left office and restore to our region the levels of industrial assistance that were available at that time, which brought tens of thousands of jobs to the north of England?

The hon. Gentleman should ask his own Front Bench. As I understand it, his right hon. and hon. Friends have no intention of restoring regional development grants. If they have, they had better tell us where they intend to get the money from.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the tax burden, including employers' social security contributions and payroll taxes, on British, French and west German companies, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, direct taxes on corporations and employers' payroll social security contributions were 8·9 per cent. of gross national product in the United Kingdom; 10·5 per cent. in west Germany and 17·2 per cent. in France.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those gratifying figures go some way to explaining why business investment in the United Kingdom since 1979 has been higher than in either France or Germany? Does he further agree that we must keep those burdens down and reduce them further if we are to have continuing long-term investment in the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lower burden on taxation on industry in Britain goes a long way to explaining why we have three times as much inward investment as France and six times as much as Germany. I cannot pre-empt the Budget judgments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I agree that it is important to keep the burden of tax low. We remember all too well that the Labour party voted against a reduction in the corporation tax rate.

Does the Secretary of State agree that many industrialists complain justifiably about the amount of bureaucracy involved in collecting the taxes that they pay? Does he believe that we should make progress towards a unified tax and benefits system? Does he also agree that the reintroduction of enhanced capital allowances would enable industry to invest in itself in a more useful way?

The Government considered in the 1988 Green Paper the unification of taxation and social security benefits and concluded that it simply was not feasible because the two were on different time scales and had different purposes. It would make the bureaucracy far worse if we unified taxation and social security benefits.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most tedious tax burdens on very small firms is the absurdly low level at which they become responsible for value added tax? Will he continue, perhaps in conjuction with his colleagues and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make representations to the European Community to raise the level?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. We have consistently argued with the EC that we should be allowed to raise the level further. We have set the level as high as possible under Community law, but there is a proposal in the works that would raise the level higher. That proposal has been made basically on our initiative, but it is grinding exceeding slow.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings meets the highest safety standards pertaining for British consumers.

The Commission has held three consultative meetings with member states about its proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. In these discussions we have made it clear to the Commission that the United Kingdom could not support any proposals that would reduce the level of fire safety provided in the United Kingdom by the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. This view was confirmed in a position paper sent to the Commission in September 1990 and reinforced in a bilateral meeting with the Commission last November.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The whole House will welcome the Government's opposition to attempts by our European partners to reduce fire safety standards to a level that will put us back 20 years. The House should understand that the Commission's proposals affect furnishings not only at home but in public places. Is the Minister prepared to meet the officers of the all-party home safety committee to discuss with them the need to inform the public and others that we are not prepared to see fire safety standards traded off by the Commission for the purposes of 1992? Will he welcome the reduction for the first time in 20 years in deaths from fires at home in Britain, which has been brought about by the new legislation?

I pay tribute to the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brings to these matters. We are aware of his deep interest in them. I fully agree with what he says. Of course, I shall meet any delegation. I take these matters seriously, not least because I am a father of young children. So long as I am the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, I shall fight any proposals that in any way weaken our regulations—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are some of the strongest in Europe.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of deaths in domestic fires, particularly among women and children, has dropped sharply in Britain since we introduced much stricter rules about the foams and fire retardant materials to be used in furniture? Does my hon. Friend accept that this is serious and that it is preposterous for the European Commissioner to suggest that there are no satisfactory tests which could be introduced? Why does not my hon. Friend simply show him what we do in Britain and how well it works?

That is precisely what we are doing in discussion with the European Commission. To set this matter in context, I should say that the proposals are at an early stage and the Commisison has not come back with any proposals to the Council. However, we are not satisfied with the way in which the proposals are drafted and we intend to toughen them up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, we have good, tough regulations and the number of deaths is coming down. We must keep up the good work.

Why does the Government leaflet published today not alert the public to the threat to British safety standards? Why has the Minister failed to support and defend British firms which have invested £20 million in developing safer foam products? Will he give an assurance that his Department will fight the disastrous draft directive and ensure that dangerous foam products which do not meet the highest British standards are stopped at Dover?

That is an absurd contribution, unlike those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Tens of thousands of copies of the leaflet have been issued and it relates to regulations on the statute book now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but I have already explained that the proposals from the Commission are at a draft stage and that we intend to resist them. To start talking about regulations that might or might not be made in the future and putting them in a leaflet going out to ordinary members of the public would be absolutely absurd.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is planning to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Given the outstanding record of the DTI in the past few years—[Interruption.]

Order. There is nothing wrong with that.

Given the DTI's outstanding record in the past few years on the Barlow Clowes affair, the Iraqi supergun affair and on the jewel in the crown, the MMC, and its fiasco over the brewers, its complete and utter inexplicable decision on British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky and, latterly, its refusal to allow ICI to dispose of its fertiliser interest to Kemira, can my right hon. Friend say when he will start to listen less to the civil servants surrounding him, who know nothing, and take a little more interest in what is told to him by his friends on the Back Benches who represent the relevant areas?

My hon. Friend is as vigorous a defender of the interests of his constituents as he is of my Department.I appreciate his concern about the MMC report and the possible effects on Cleveland Potash Limited in his constituency about which we have spoken. There is no certainty that, as a result of that report, ICI will close its plant and I very much hope that it will not. There is no certainty that ICI will be unable to find another buyer, should it decide to seek one, as I hope that it will. There is no certainty that if the Kemira sale had gone through, it would have safeguarded indefinitely the potash plant in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend should remember that there is almost no precedent, at least since 1982, for a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to turn down and fail to implement the recommendations of an MMC report of that kind.

The Minister must be extremely worried about the mergers taking place, because they are just an excuse for asset stripping. I highlight the problem in Glasgow concerning the tobacco industry, which has created wealth in that city for many centuries. Imperial was taken over by Hanson. There were good industrial relations, a hard-working work force and profits in the industry, but the factory is to be closed down and the work taken to Bristol. The factory will then be sold off to the highest bidder and Hanson even has the cheek to intimate that he is looking for a grant from the Scottish Development Agency to do his dirty work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was talking about a merger that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not allow to take place. It is right to have an organisation such as the MCC which uses competition as the principal criterion on which to decide whether a merger should or should not go ahead.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is determined to draw even more closely to the attention of the MMC the real danger of nationalisation by the back door of companies in Britain when they are subject to the attentions of overseas companies that are either nationalised or semi-nationalised? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tough stand that he has taken so far and urge him to ensure that the MMC always has that principle firmly in mind.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I shall consider each case on its merits and take into account the degree of state ownership when considering whether to refer a proposed merger to the MMC. In the past few years, about a quarter of takeovers in this country have been by foreign, state-owned companies. Since I announced my decision, I believe that the rate has become lower.

If necessary, will the Secretary of State enlarge the MMC's brief to enable it to look into the unfairly low price paid for electricity put on the national grid by those producing from small hydroelectric turbines? Many more economy sites could be developed throughout the United Kingdom if those who generate from hydroelectric turbines were awarded a fair price for the electricity that they generate.

I will certaintly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Northern Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to assist independent financial advisers in the EC.

My Department and I argue strongly for independent financial advisers in Europe, particularly in respect of the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive. We should like them to take advantage of the passports in that directive, but only if the capital requirements are sensible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that independent financial advisers have a role to play in the single European market? Will he confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that such advisers can play such a role?

Yes, I hope that they will have a role to play. I should like it if they would have a passport, through the investment services directive, to carry out cross-border business, but that would depend on getting the right answer about capital, which is important to them.

Will the advisers have a role in explaining away the neglect by the present Government of the British film industry in Europe? Will they explain why the Government have reneged on their fairly miserable commitment to give £5 million to the European co-production fund? If that is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe, will the Minister accept that the advisers will have an almighty job to explain away the once-thriving British film industry?

That has nothing to do with the main question and is symptomatic of Opposition Members' attitude to the important issue of IFAs. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is not present today. She has been alleging in the press that FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—is in danger of becoming bankrupt. I hope that she will withdraw that allegation. Another way in which we are helping IFAs is to show the true financial position of FIMBRA, which told me yesterday that it now has net cash in the bank and a budget plan for next year which will mean that its costs will not be greater than its revenues if all goes according to plan. I hope that Opposition Members will concentrate on IFAs, the matter in hand, which have no role to play in the film industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom companies of United Kingdom companies in each year from 1984 to 1989.

The value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom rose steadily from £5 billion to £27 billion between 1984 and 1989, I will publish the annual figures in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm his confidence in the takeover panel and takeover code, and acknowledge that there is concern in the City and elsewhere about the effect on the panel of the 13th draft EC directive, or whatever it is called, which substitutes a more legalistic approach for the highly pragmatic approach that we take in the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that he will make every endeavour to ensure that that EC beast is not foisted upon us?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is much concern in the United Kingdom about this. Our voluntary takeover panel works very well. The bulk of takeover activity occurs in this country, so we have a right to a major say in any legislation that will bear on the United Kingdom and we shall vigorously uphold British interests in discussions in Brussels. It is, however, a matter for majority voting, so we cannot be absolutely sure that we will get our way; but we have quite a good track record of persuading our partners of the rightness of our cause.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed in mergers is consistency, speed of determination and lack of duplication by Government agencies? Therefore, when the mergers directive is in place, will he prevent the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading from making any attempts at empire building?

I entirely agree. The greatest possible simplicity, speed and certainty are important in these mergers. I shall take my hon. Friend's point into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of the recession on industry in the north-west.

The defeat of inflation is the only sure way to achieve sustainable economic growth. Business in the north-west is well placed to weather the current downturn and to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the 1990s.

That was a very complacent reply. In British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Rolls-Royce alone, 1,000 jobs will be lost; 30 per cent. of manufacturing industry has been destroyed by the Government since they came to office; one in three manufacturing jobs in the north-west has been lost; Lewis's, the retail giant, is going into bankruptcy; bankruptcies are running at record levels; and investment is falling. Even though the Minister may have been a car-boot salesman in the past, will he visit the north-west, get out of his limousine and meet real people, who will explain the position there to him? Does he realise that they will tell him that it is time this fag-end Government of weary Willies and tired Tims resigned?

In that long litany the hon. Gentleman wholly failed, as one might expect, to give us any good news about his constituency. Perhaps I can help the good people of Warrington by announcing that recently, Digital Equipment Company, one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, revealed plans for a £20 million investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a pity that he does not speak up more for Warrington, where unemployment is below the national average. But it is not nearly as low as in Clitheroe, in the Ribble Valley constituency, where it is 2·8 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the official figures for employment in the north-west show an increase of 60,000 in the past 18 months?

My hon. Friend is right. We all know that there has been an increase in employment in the north-west, although we should see it in the context of the fact that more people are in work nationwide than ever before—and in all sectors of the economy. We should also recognise, as I said in my original answer, that the only way to get rid of unemployment in the long run and to ensure that British industry is competitive is to lick inflation. That is the purpose of our policies.

As 25,000 jobs have been lost in recent months in the textile industry, many of them in the north-west, and now that the GATT talks have been resumed and there is an understanding in Europe that no conclusion will be reached before July this year, by when the multi-fibre arrangement will have run out, will the Minister assure the House today that the Government will, without delay, discuss the multi-fibre arrangement at the Council of Ministers and seek its renewal after July, at least for an interim period until the GATT talks are concluded?

The arrangements will continue to the end of the year and there will be a transitional arrangement. It is particularly in the interests of industry, including industry in the north-west, that we obtain a settlement in the GATT negotiations and we intend to do so. If a settlement is achieved the considerable benefit to consumers has been calculated at about £1 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on business investment.

Business investment grew by 8 per cent. in 1989 and by 43 per cent. over the three years to 1989. Since 1980 business investment in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any of our major industrial competitors except Japan.

If industry is to resume the record levels of investment achieved between 1987 and the middle of last year, is not it essential that the Government first defeat inflation?

I agree that reducing inflation is very important to business confidence and investment. The House may like to remember that investment was running at well over £55 billion in 1989, compared with a level under the Labour Administration that never got anywhere near £40 billion in real terms.

Where was the Minister yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a marvellous speech at the Dispatch Box about trade and industry? It is a shocking state of affairs when we have a Minister standing at that Dispatch Box talking about how much the Government have invested in British industry when those Conservative organisations, the CBI and the chambers of commerce, do not agree with what he is saying. Will the Minister get up and tell us what he is going to do about it?

I was present for the first part of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Then I went off to make a speech to a group of business men and hear for myself what is happening in British business.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult for a British company to compete against overseas companies in this country when it comes to investment? There are not enough offsets for the investor, who is tempted to leave his money on deposit rather than risk it. We need a fresh impetus from the Treasury to make sure that British investors will invest in this country.

In the early 1980s corporation tax was cut substantially and investment allowances were withdrawn. The result was a surge in investment, taking it to levels much higher than any achieved in the 1970s and early 1980s. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hears of my hon. Friend's ideas because he will regard them as important in the run-up to the Budget, although he will want to make his own decisions on that and other matters that come before him.

Do not current interest rate levels make it very difficult for business to invest? Should not Trade and Industry Ministers be pressing their colleagues in the Treasury to call for a realignment in the exchange rate mechanism?

Interest rates and the level of the currency are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and have been exhaustively debated in the House.

To the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure that customers are better informed about credit deals.

The Government's plans on this matter are described in the consultative document "Proposals for New Legislation on Credit Marketing", which was published in December.

I acknowledge that the Government cannot play nanny, nor can they always protect people from their own folly, but there are measures that we can and should take. Will the Minister comment on some of the techniques of inertia and cold selling which offer people all sorts of things on credit, using simple forms on which one must tick a little box if one does not want them? These are techniques which many simple people do not understand and which cause them to get themselves into unnecessary difficulties.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we cannot be a nanny state, I think that a successful market is a well-informed one. Inertia selling is a matter of fine judgment because many of those boxes are designed, according to the people who provide credit services, to protect the consumer through insurance schemes; but I decided to prohibit inertia selling because it is wrong that someone should be required to undertake a contract without having positively requested so to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to alter the regulatory structure for the United Kingdom financial services sector.

My right hon. Friend recently welcomed the statement of Sir David Walker and the publication of the new core rules. One of the most important recent changes in the regulatory system is that which encourages clear core rules and the minimum number of additional rules. My right hon. Friend also praised the wish of the regulatory bodies to concentrate compliance work on pursuing those cases that give most reason to cause suspicion. He has drawn attention to the efficacy of stressing disclosure rather than prescriptive rules. I am sure that the House will agree that these are welcome improvements in our system.

Are not the regulations full of loopholes and ambiguities which, from Barlow Clowes to the Levitt Group, have not fulfilled the necessary requirements of control? Did not the Government accept and recognise in the body of the text of the companies legislation in 1989 that some changes are needed in the regulations? Does the Minister accept that there should be two regulatory bodies and that there should be compulsory regulation rather than the present system?

That would mean the wholesale abolition of a large number of excellent regulatory bodies. The purpose of the self-regulatory system is to allow people, within defined limits, to make their own decisions about which body they wish to join and the conduct of the regulation in those bodies. I do not agree that the regulations are out of date or in need of wholesale reform in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he wishes to draw attention to particular loopholes or difficulties in the regulations, I or the regulatory bodies should be happy to look into them carefully. It is not fair to say that Barlow Clowes demonstrated that the current regulatory system is ineffective because that problem developed before the enactment of the Financial Services Act.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the financial sector does not lie only in the City of London? A great expansion in financial services has taken place in and around my constituency and my constituents need clear rules so that they can expand their businesses not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the financial services sector extends widely geographically, as well as in terms of its range of service and products. He has my assurance that I shall do everything in my power to further the interests of those legitimate businesses here and in the European Community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to visit West Yorkshire during the next three months to discuss industrial and regional development.

My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

That is a disgraceful answer. Calderdale has lost 3,000 jobs in the past 12 months, most of them in manufacturing. We get no outside aid and one area in my constituency, Sowerby Bridge, has been particularly devastated by the Government's economic policies. We were promised help by another Department, but it pulled out at the last minute. Is not it time that the Government developed a regional policy to help towns such as mine which are suffering badly because of the Government's disastrous economic policies?

As one might expect, the hon. Lady does not give the whole picture about what is happening in Yorkshire. Perhaps she missed last week's Yorkshire Post, which I have here. It says:

"Business confidence in Yorkshire, although falling, is more buoyant than anywhere else in the nation, the Confederation of British Industry claimed last night.

The 'not having it quite as bad' evidence, backed up by yesterday's small cut in interest rates, bolstered beliefs that the region might be nearing the bottom of its recession."

When my hon. Friend visits West Yorkshire, as well as looking at what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned, will he examine some of the successful companies that have been investing, are investing and are planning to invest in the future?

Yes, of course. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) did not say that 20,000 new companies have set up in Yorkshire. She did not explain all the advantages that Yorkshire and Humberside have in the single market in attracting inward investment. She did not mention, in her strictures about regional policy, that in the current public expenditure survey round, we are planning to spend £600 million on regional policy.

If the Minister decides to have discussions with people in West Yorkshire or elsewhere on regional policy, will he take the opportunity of disowning the views that he gave in the No Turning Back group publication on regional policy, in which he claimed that European regional policy and the European regional development fund served no purpose? Will he make it clear to the House that the views of that group are not the views of the Department of Trade and Industry?

There seem to be three phases in the life of a parliamentarian—angry young man, angry old man and Minister in the middle. As a Minister, I fully support Government policy.

Speaking as a member of the No Turning Back group to another member of the group, may I again draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Yorkshire Post from which he just quoted and refer him to its business section last Thursday where the headline was:

"Yorkshire industry lifts its head above the gloom."

I have to tell Opposition Members that I could hardly fail to visit Yorkshire and Humberside. I do so every Saturday when I go across the Humber bridge to do my shopping in one of the supermarkets of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speaks out well for Humberside. He led the fight for the port and we congratulate him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the CBI to discuss the condition of industry in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives of the CBI. He met the director general most recently last week.

When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, will he discuss with it the latest manufacturing output figures which, as I understand it, show that the value of manufacturing output has declined by some £5 billion and that the level of investment has decreased by 15 per cent? Will he also discuss with the CBI the GDP figures published today which show that, officially, we are in recession? If the Department can bring itself to acknowledge that we are in recession, will the Minister tell us what precisely he proposes to do to get industry out of that recession?

The hon. Gentleman may agree that, as the songwriter might have put it, recession is among industry's unfavourite things. I remind him and the House of some other unfavourite things of industry: excessive trade union power, high rates of business taxation, too much Government interference and continuing high rates of inflation. Those are the things which characterise Labour Governments and make them very unfavourite among business men.

When the Secretary of State next meets the president of the CBI, will he discuss with him the fact that manufacturing output last December was 4 per cent. higher than in December 1973—a period of 17 years? Does my hon. Friend believe that that represents satisfactory progress?

Manufacturing output in the 1980s grew faster than in Germany, France or Italy. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should look at the underlying strength of manufacturing industry and at the underlying strength of British industry. The massive strides and great improvements that we made during the 1980s mean that manufacturing industry, like the whole of British industry, is a great deal stronger and more resilient as it faces the 1990s than it was in 1979.

Does the Minister share with the CBI the recognition that there is a terrible underlying weakness in many manufacturing industries, including hosiery, textiles, shoes and other staple industries in areas such as Leicester which were firm before the Government came into power, but are now in a state of absolute disaster?

It is strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems so ready to join those of his hon. Friends who spend their time running down the performance and capabilities of British industry. Manufacturing productivity grew faster in the 1980s than in any other major industrial country. It has improved by a half since 1979 and we should applaud that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one problem faced by industry and others is caused by state and private monopolies? British Rail is increasing fares way above inflation; British Telecom, British Gas and the water companies are all raising their prices; and now the electricity industry has announced that it will increase charges by 13 per cent. Why should all those concerned be able to protect themselves against last year's losses when they help to encourage the losses of private industry, which has no monopolies on which to fall back?

As the House knows, my hon. Friend is a robust supporter of competition. That is what Conservative Members believe in, although I have serious doubts whether the Opposition do.

Are not manufacturing investment, manufacturing output and manufacturing employment now falling? Today's figures confirm a 6 per cent. drop in manufacturing output which is unique in western Europe. As the Minister cannot blame OPEC, the Gulf conflict, the EC, workers or management for the recession, whom does he blame? Is not this a direct result of the mistaken policies of discredited Ministers in a failed Government?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his facts right. It makes a change. Yesterday, for instance, when he alleged that manufacturing output had increased by only 7 per cent. since 1979, he was only 70 per cent. wrong; the increase was 12 per cent. He is improving.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the profitability of the British steel industry.

I have every confidence in the long-term prosperity of the British steel industry now that all of it is in the private sector and free from Government control.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the latest figures, which reveal that steel exports are increasing by about 9·5 per cent. and that imports are down by about 6·3 per cent., show clearly that the British steel industry—now privatised—is a guarantee of security in a difficult and troubled world? The failed policies of the Soviet Union and the rest of eastern Europe and those of the socialists on the Opposition Benches would guarantee the destruction of the industry and caused massive costs to the taxpayer in the past.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the previous Labour Government left office British Steel was losing about £1·7 billion a year; now it is making a profit of £700 million a year. If the company were still making a loss under state ownership, we should be bearing those losses: billions of pounds would have to be spent on it instead of on hospitals, schools and other services which we all want and need and which the Government should be financing.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British Steel is suffering a severe recession in orders as a result of the Government's incompetent economic policies? Is he aware that it is able to survive financially only because the Government wrote off all its debt on privatisation, thus leaving it free of debt at a time when its competitors in Europe are in very different financial circumstances?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, British Steel is boosting its exports in response to weaker home demand and is also displacing imports. That must be good news. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should take it back into state ownership? If so, is that the policy of the Labour party?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of the era in which politicians meddled and told it which plant it should keep open, British Steel was the world's biggest loss-maker and Britain had a chronic trade deficit in steel and iron products? Since then, British Steel has become the most profitable steel company in Europe and our trade deficit in those products has changed into a substantial surplus. The last thing that British Steel wants is to go back to the bad old days when politicians told it how to run its business.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he makes his point extremely well. What is more, if we had a state-owned, inefficient steel industry we should have to prop it up with protection and all steel-using industries would be forced to buy high-cost, inefficiently produced steel. That is very much what the Labour party seems to want.

Will the Secretary of State reply to two factual points? First, can he confirm that, in respect of the Ravenscraig strip mill, the Government's policy. as set out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, is that British Steel should review and reconsider its decision with a view to reversing it? Secondly, can he, as the Minister responsible for these matters, tell us what practical steps he has taken to implement that policy?

I am always happy to put the hon. Member right on the facts. I entirely endorse the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on setting his face firmly against protectionism. Britain's steel industry—indeed, all British industry—grew at a time when we believed in world free trade in not only manufactured goods but agricultural goods. May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will not allow the idiotic common agricultural policy to ruin the GATT talks?

My hon. Friend is a great and forceful defender of free trade and I entirely endorse his remarks. We must try to ensure a speedy and successful conclusion to the GATT round. I welcome the news that talks are likely to resume today. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the Community plays a constructive role on agriculture, as on all other matters, with a view to securing a successful outcome to the round.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he plans in the export of materials that can be used in the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

We continue to work with like-minded countries to take effective action to prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Controls on the export of sensitive materials for use for these purposes are kept under continual review.

Has it occurred to the Minister that if the Gulf war had taken place a year hence, Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles might have been armed with Iraqi nuclear warheads? Is not it a scandal that British companies exported to Saddam Hussein specialist equipment that he has used in his nuclear programme? Those companies include Avesta of Birmingham, Consave of Glasgow, Magnatech of Crawley, Matric Churchill of Coventry and Swift Lewick of Rotherham. Will the Minister give us an assurance that when the nightmare of the Gulf war is over, Britain will lead the world in reducing the international arms trade, not just by exhortation but by example?

The whole House will share the hon. Gentleman's worry that materials that might facilitate the production of nuclear weapons should be exported. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least because he tables a very large number of questions on the subject, that the Government's policy is to prevent the proliferation of such weapons. We maintain stringent controls on the export of all weapons and related material, equipment and technology.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scud missiles are, in fact, Russian?

My hon. Friend is right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection his Department is making available to consumers who suffer loss because of retail bankruptcies during the recession.

Where goods are purchased under a credit agreement, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that the credit grantor is jointly and severally liable with the retailer for breach of contract. This provision applies where the cash price of goods is between £100 and £30,000, with up to £15,000 paid for on credit. I am not aware of any need for further provisions.

Does not the Minister recognise that unemployment is shooting up and that businesses the length and breadth of the country are closing? Will he offer some form of protection, or at least some hope, to consumers who are suffering; or will those people have to wait for a Labour Government?

I am not sure whether it is Labour party policy to disagree with the Director General of Fair Trading who said—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this—that voluntary initiatives for industry were the right way forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British exports to Kuwait and other Gulf states following the conclusion of the present hostilities.

When Kuwait is liberated United Kingdom companies can resume supplying a wide range of goods and services. In recent talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Kuwait Government have promised a warm welcome to United Kingdom companies participating in the reconstruction of Kuwait.

Given the considerable and supreme efforts that Britain has made towards the liberation of Kuwait, is my hon. Friend confident that British industry will show itself to be effective in grasping the opportunities that will arise?

My hon. Friend will be aware that British industry has been taking energetic action to that end, supported fully by my Department. An industry task force is in place in Dammam and it will be seeing representatives of the Kuwaiti reconstruction project office tomorrow for further discussions on the part that British industry can play in the reconstruction of Kuwait.