To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of exports of the British car industry in 1990 and 1989.

Last year 414,000 cars were exported from the United Kingdom compared with 339,000 cars in the previous year. That represents an increase of 22 per cent.

Does not the recent export success of the automotive industry point the way for other manufacturers to follow, by switching more capacity from home to export markets? Is not it likely that by the mid-1990s car assembly in the United Kingdom will be well over 2 million vehicles? Would not the greatest threat to that success story be a recurrence of inflation or, worse still, a reversion to Labour's interventionist policies?

My hon. Friend is right on all counts. In the first four months of this year exports of cars were 101 per cent. up on those of the previous year. That is certainly an example to other industries. With regard to future developments, it is marvellous news that the decline in the car industry that went on for so long under the Labour Government has now been reversed, and we expect to be net exporters by the end of the year.

What representations has the Secretary of State, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had from the motor industry about the state of the home market? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that sales are down and the car industry is facing real difficulties as a result? That is all because of the Government's economic policy, especially on interest charges and the rest. When will the right hon. Gentleman press his colleagues to help the motor industry to establish itself at home as well as overseas?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I met the leaders of the car industry, and naturally, they were concerned about the decline in domestic demand for cars, but I could congratulate them on their good achievement in diverting production into exports, so that production in this country has been running at record levels.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that all European Community countries are playing by the same rules on what is allowed to attract overseas investment into the EC motor industry? Is he satisfied that the German Government are playing by the same rules in attracting investment in what was East Germany? Will he ask Sir Leon Brittan, as the competition Commissioner, to consider the matter?

We keep that matter under constant review, especially with regard to the East German issue, which I shall take up, as my hon. Friend asks. It is important for us that British manufactured cars of Japanese marques are given free access throughout the Community. We are absolutely adamant that they shall have free circulation throughout the Community—[Interruption.]—despite the apparent resistance of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current levels of manufacturing output.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the state of manufacturing industry.

The index of manufacturing output in the first quarter of 1991 was 113·4. This was 1 per cent. lower than the previous quarter, but 17 per cent. higher than the average for 1980.

Is the Minister aware that 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Britain are dependent on ICI? Is he aware that 4,000 people, including many of my constituents, are directly employed by ICI, and that last year Hanson spent £34 million on research, while ICI spent £500 million? Is the Minister aware of any other European Government who would stand idly by while the fate of such a company was determined by the rules of the casino?

I was aware of all the hon. Gentleman's early points, but I must differ from him on his last point, because there is no bid or anything like a bid on the table.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great concern that manufacturing output has risen by only 3 per cent. since March 1973—18 years ago? Will he confirm that in the 18 years prior to that date manufacturing output rose by about 70 per cent? How does he account for the poor performance in recent years?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that performance has been poor in recent years. Indeed, the performance of manufacturing industry during the 1980s was outstanding compared with its rather dismal performance during the 1970s. Manufacturing output in the first quarter of this year was 17 per cent. higher than in 1980 and productivity was 56 per cent. higher. That is commendable.

Is it the Department's view, as well as that of the Prime Minister, that small manufacturing firms are getting a raw deal from the banks? If so, why is the Minister's Department not taking the initiative by referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, instead of simply bringing in bank chairmen for a chat?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible to ascertain the facts rather than seek to take action upon allegations or anecdotal evidence alone.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain's biggest manufacturing company, British Aerospace, is based in my constituency? In view of the tripe that we sometimes hear from the Opposition on the subject of manufacturing, will my hon. Friend explain to them why British Aerospace had a record year last year in terms of profits which amounted to £376 million, a record year in terms of turnover with new orders amounting to £10·8 billion, and why this year's order book is also at the record level of £11·8 billion?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on praising the performance of a particular British firm, because all too often we hear nothing from the Labour party but the running down and denigrating of industry and complaints about its performance. Perhaps the reasons for the success of British Aerospace, to which my hon. Friend referred, are related to its increases in productivity during the 1980s, to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox).

Does the Minister now accept that, in addition to all the other problems that British manufacturing industry faces, any possible takeover of ICI will have huge consequences because every year ICI spends 17 times as much on research and development as the Hanson Trust? Will the Minister now stop evading the question and make the Conservative party's view clear? Is it opposed to a hostile Hanson takeover of ICI?

The hon. Gentleman is for once jumping to conclusions instead of rattling off statistics. Perhaps he should have regard to the Government's legal responsibilities and wait until something happens that could give rise to a reference.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from British business about the Government's role in picking industrial winners.

The Government have received a policy document from the Confederation of British Industry, "Competing in the new Europe". That document would be important to the training and education of Opposition Members. It makes it very clear that the policies of the 1970s pursued by the Labour party, of intervention and massive investment in things that went wrong, are the last thing that this country now needs to carry on the revival of its manufacturing industry.

Does my hon. Friend not find it incredible that people are still looking back to the 1960s and 1970s when drafting political policy documents? Does he agree that considerable research has now established that it is competition within the economy that creates winning businesses, and that a policy of picking industrial winners is like going into a sweet shop and picking sweets from large jars containing many sweets of different colours, in that one does not always get the colour that one expects? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a ludicrous policy?

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The Labour party lost thousands of millions of pounds when it had the chance of steering the country's industrial policy. It was a disaster, with lost jobs, lost opportunities and large amounts of lost money. British Leyland—Rover alone lost £2,750 million and there were massive losses in the steel industry. That has been reversed by privatisation and by policies based on competition and sensible Government support for business. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set that policy out well in his speeches. Opposition Members should take up their training in industry by reading them.

Will the Minister look a little closer to the present day—from 1979 to 1990? He will find that more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the north-west of England alone and that another 74,000 jobs will be lost this year. If he is picking winners, why does he not do something about the multi-fibre arrangement to try to protect jobs in the textile industry?

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the argument. The Government are not trying to pick winners; that is industry's job. The Government are creating a climate and framework in which industry can flourish. Many thousands of new jobs have been created in the 1980s. Naturally, there has been industrial change because technologies, products and customer requirements change, but it is the Government's policies and not those of the Labour party, that will continue the manufacturing revival of the 1980s into the 1990s.

Does my hon. Friend agree that ICI has proved to be an industrial winner for this country and that its future is important for its 53,000 workers and the 4,700 who work for its pharmaceutical division in my constituency? Will he assure me that all aspects of the national interest will be taken into account if a hostile bid is made for that strategically important company by Hanson plc?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will speak eloquently, should there be any action of the kind that he describes. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his competition responsibilities, will consider all representations, should the need arise, and respond in the right way, given the powers of the European Community and the British Government.

The Minister has just stated that the Government are interested in setting the climate for businesses to flourish. I am sure that he would include in that small businesses. On "The Parliament Programme" at 12 o'clock he said, "The DTI has arranged"—

Order. Paraphrase please.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that the DTI had arranged meetings throughout the country with banks and small businesses to facilitate the discussion of problems that small businesses are facing with the current bank rate. Several small businesses that are concerned about the difficulties have contacted me. I wanted to inform them where the meetings were being held, so I contacted DTI regional offices, but they had no record of the meetings. I contacted the Bank of England regional offices, but of those only one office organises such meetings on a day-to-day basis. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Forum of Private Business and other voluntary organisations have no record of the meetings. Will the Minister tell us where they are to be held, because small businesses want to know?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the regional offices to arrange such meetings and they will take place. The hon. Lady should tell the interested companies to get in touch with DTI regional offices, which are there to serve the business community. The meetings will do just that—they will provide a forum for an exchange of views between the banks, the DTI and other interested parties.

Although it is riot the Government's job to pick industrial winners—clearly that is correct—does the Minister agree that banks that are exerting undue pressure on small businesses during the current recession may be acting to their own disadvantage because among the small businesses that face difficulties today there may be the industrial winners of tomorrow? In the discussions will Ministers draw to the attention of the joint stock banks the desirability of thinking carefully before exerting the squeeze on small businesses that appears to be happening now?

Naturally, the banks should think of their long-term business interests, but it is for individual banks to assess the risks of each case. The Government expect to see interest rates falling on average for the corporate sector as base rates fall. If special circumstances exist in some cases, there may be a risk-premium charge. My hon. Friend is also right that it would not be desirable for banks to make life so difficult for many companies that there is not a large volume of corporate business for them in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative for the manufacture of coaches in the constituency of Bolsover.

I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the work force of Reeve Burgess to discuss the setting up of a co-operative.

The Minister should be ashamed of himself. Reeve Burgess is a company which manufactures buses and coaches. It is a winner, with profits of £60,000 again this April. The chances are that in May its profits will be roughly that amount. Orders are still coming in. That factory would continue, were it not for the Government's inflationary policy and asset stripping by Plaxton. If the Government can find money to bale out Rover and British Aerospace and to take those companies' troubles off their hands, they have a duty to find the money for the 180 workers at Reeve Burgess so that they can keep their 100-year-old factory going. Will the Minister pull his finger out and get something done?

Although the closure is regretted, it is part of a rationalisation of bus manufacturing capacity by the parent company, Plaxton. Production is to be transferred to its parent plant at Scarborough. I notice that the hon. Gentleman's original question laid great stress on the need to set up a co-operative to deal with that problem. Has he forgotten the lessons of co-operatives in the 1970s? Scottish Daily News ate its way through £1·2 million of taxpayers' money, Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering ate its way through £4·2 million of public money, and Meriden ate its way through £15 million of public money. I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will take this opportunity to say that they reject the neanderthal political thinking represented by Bolsover man, which represents the concepts of the 1970s on co-operatives and Bennery in all its guises.

I call Mr. Dickens, but the question must be about Bolsover.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has reminded the House that, under the Labour Government, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was given to co-operatives and never repaid. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far better to leave those matters to the private sector than to sink taxpayers' money into co-operatives?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am still waiting to hear whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will use this opportunity to say that he rejects the failed policies of the 1970s. Those policies have failed before and will fail again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the follow-up of his official visit to Kuwait.

Since my visit the known value of contracts won by British companies in Kuwait has risen from about £70 million to at least £181 million. The Kuwaiti British Fire Group has signed an agreement with the Kuwait Oil company to survey the damage to the Sabriyah oilfield. The Government have continued to support the City's proposals for the administration of compensation claims.

In the task of trying to put out the resource-consuming, earth-polluting, cancer-giving 700 plus oil fires in Kuwait, are not small British firms disadvantaged in relation to their American counterparts by not getting the financial guarantees that the Americans enjoy?

Certainly not. We have done all that we can to put large companies in touch with small companies with innovative ideas, and to put those ideas directly to the Kuwaiti authorities. The Americans are jealous of our actions to ensure that British companies have a lead in getting business in Kuwait, and there have been complaints in the American press that the American Government have not been as helpful as we have in this matter. We have received many thanks and much support from British industry for the upfront way in which we have approached the issue.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, because of the unique experience gained in the North sea, British companies are in a strong position to exploit the opportunities that exist today in Kuwait? Will he also confirm that the British are held in high regard in Kuwait and it is the combination of those two factors that are making the Americans envious?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is good news that the Kuwaiti British Fire Group, which I think includes Scottish interests as well as those from the rest of the United Kingdom, has won the contract, which could lead to extensive work in Kuwait. I pay tribute to it for its efforts on that front.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Machine Tools Technologies Association to discuss the recession in industry.

My noble Friend the industry Minister has recently invited the Machine Tools Technologies Association to a meeting. I hope that it will take up that offer. I am sure that there is much to talk about.

When the Minister meets the MTTA, will he take into account its 1991 spring report in which it expresses fears about the Government's tough, monetary policy, which has thrown an unnecessary burden onto the manufacture of machine tools? That will have an effect on the future upturn that may take place in British industry. Will that mean that the British machine tools industry will be incapable of meeting the demand? Will the Secretary of State take into account the number of changes in the Department of Trade and Industry which mean that manufacturing industry has no great influence on or interest in the Government's attitude?

The Government are most interested in the future performance of manufacturing industry and give it every sensible support to achieve good performance. I have the report to which, I think, the hon. Gentleman referred. I am pleased to see that it says that in 1990 exports reached 50 per cent. of total production, which shows how much more competitive the industry is now than it was some years ago. It goes on to say that British machine tool technology leads the world in many important sectors and lists a series of important spares in which it does so. The Government welcome that and will give the industry support. The Minister for Trade met the industry's association at the end of last year to encourage the industry to export more. That is the sort of support that we shall continue to give the industry.

Is the Minister aware of the other report of the Machine Tools Technologies Association on industrial trends, which shows that we are investing less in manufacturing and machine tools than we were in 1979, that the manufacturing base is being eroded and that orders for that industry are decreasing faster than at any time since the second world war? At its meeting with the Government, the industry's association will want to know what positive steps the Government will take to help the industry. Will the Minister tell the House now?

As I have already mentioned, the Government are keen to help the industry with the promotion of exports, which is its biggest sales sector and is, I believe, extremely competitive. The value of industrial advice from a former chief executive of Meriden is not so sure. Naturally, the MTTA will discuss a wide range of issues with my noble Friend the Minister for Industry, who will do whatever he can within our policies to provide the necessary assistance. We are not returning to backing winners because that would mean backing the wrong ones and, losing a lot of money for the taxpayer, which would make the economy worse, not better.

Bearing in mind that today there are more jobs in manufacturing in Britain than in France and Italy, does my hon. Friend agree that talk of our manufacturing industry's decline and death is premature? Will he and other Ministers in the Department do their best to ensure, both by rhetoric and conduct, that people who work in manufacturing industry believe that they and their companies are as important to the Government as anyone who works in the City?

I agree. I, too, was proud to work in manufacturing industry for a period and I know what an important contribution it makes to our wealth generation. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are many manufacturing success stories of which we should be proud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the revival of the motor industry in answer to an earlier question. The machine tools industry is doing great things in changing its design, pattern of sales and products. That is true of many other manufacturing industries, and we intend to create the conditions in which that revival can take place.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we are all impressed by trade associations and their abilities—[Interruption.]

Order. I ask hon. Members to stop this bantering across the Chamber.

Does my hon. Friend consider—[Interruption.]

Order.

It does not matter to me, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition act like idiots—so it should not worry you.

It is also necessary to submit the lowest bid to win competitions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade would have been delighted if the lower bid had come from a British company and I will ensure that he writes to my hon. Friend about any other matters that may be relevant in this case.

The machine tool industry will be pleased to know that the Minister has read its recent report, but has he read yesterday's announcement that new orders in that industry are down 46 per cent. in the first quarter of this year compared with last year? Does he accept that the machine tool industry is an accurate barometer of what is happening in the rest of the economy? If so, does he agree that this is yet more damning evidence of the industrial damage being done to this country?

Manufacturing investment was very high in the 1980s, particularly in the latter years of that decade. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: there was some decline in orders at the beginning of this year, for domestic purposes, because the economy is weak at the moment, as he well knows. That is why I stress the importance of export markets accounting now for more than half the sales of the industry. We can give considerable support for that effort, and as the recovery gets under way in the United Kingdom domestic orders will of course increase.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to lift the Post Office letter monopoly.

The Post Office's letter monopoly is a privilege, not a right. While we keep the options under review, we have no present plans to alter the scope of the letter monopoly, although in the event of a cessation or serious disruption to the letter service we would consider suspending it. The Government remain fully commit ted to the existence of a nationwide letter service with an affordable, uniform tariff structure, available to everyone, including those in rural areas.

When my hon. Friend gets back to his office at the DTI will he open his top drawer in which, when serving as a PPS to his predecessor, I recall leaving a copy of a document published by the No Turning Back group, entitled "Choice and Responsibility"? It was co-authored by my hon. Friend and myself and by a large number of our other colleagues last July. I commend to my hon. Friend the words on page 14, where we wrote:

"The Post Office monopoly can no longer be justified."

As we have an entirely open mind on this matter I can announce today that I am happy to read any pamphlets on this issue, even those written by myself. More than that it might be unwise to say. My hon. Friend might conclude—I would not, but he might—that it is a misfortune of political life that a Back Bencher can say exactly what he wants although people do not always listen to him, while people always listen to a Minister, so he cannot say exactly what he wants to.

I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to retain the letter monopoly and I remind some of his hon. Friends who are keen to lift it that if they did so, cream-skimming would result and private operators would be willing to deliver only profitable inter-city routes. Conservative Members who advocate lifting the monopoly would find that services in rural areas would cause tariffs to rise to 80p a letter. The letter services to rural areas would be desperately hit and many Members thus affected would lose their seats as a result.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original answer, in which I said that the Government are absolutely committed to a uniform tariff structure, even in rural areas. We are also committed to choice and value for money in the Post Office, but we do not rule out that in certain circumstances competition may well increase choice and be to the benefit of the consumer.

Despite the veiled attack by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), will the Minister accept the congratulations of most hon. Members from rural areas on getting the balance absolutely right on this difficult issue and for stressing the importance of a uniform tariff for the mail? By not ruling out the possibility of competition my hon. Friend has struck exactly the right balance.

My hon. Friend has also got it absolutely right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made recently to the Economic Community regarding regulations on the safety of furniture.

I visited Mr. Van Miert, the Commissioner responsible for consumer protection, on 17 May. We discussed matters arising from differences between the regulation of fire safety of furniture in the United Kingdom and the Commission's proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. My Department has just received confirmation of a decision taken by the Commission not to proceed with the proposed directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture pending research into the feasibility of suitable test methods.

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for the information that the directive has been postponed. In view of continuing research, will he ensure that when the directive comes back for consideration, United Kingdom law on the safety of furniture is not weakened by the acceptance of lower standards? Will he especially ensure that the regulations contain a water-soak test on the permanence of chemical finishes to upholstery materials? Will he also ensure that ignition resistance and fire spread levels are equal to those set out in United Kingdom legislation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. There was absolute cross-party agreement on this issue. We were determined firmly to take up this matter with the Commission. We said that we had the strongest standards in Europe and that we had imposed them with cross-party support and would not accept any directive which lowered them. It is a victory for both sides of the House and for the fire service and the industry involved that the directive has been postponed. We shall make it clear to the Commission in the two or three years grace that when the directive is reintroduced it must be based on our excellent standards.

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the British furniture industry for its co-operation in the implementation of the regulations, especially with regard to clear labelling which, of course, enables consumers to see exactly what they are buying? As Britain and Ireland are the only two member states to have such regulations, will my hon. Friend assure consumers and the House that we shall continue to press to make sure that such regulations apply throughout the European Community?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Plainly, when we receive the directive we must ensure that it is based on our standards. It is vital for the industry and for consumer safety that there is no question of any dangerous foam-filled furniture being imported. Our trading standard officers can stop such furniture coming in and there is no question of a legal challenge to our very high standards.

Does the Minister realise that his failure to champion and secure tougher measures on foam safety means that many furniture manufacturing jobs and companies are at risk and that hundreds of thousands of foam-filled items of furniture can be imported? The matter can be challenged in the European Court and we should have had a settlement by now. Why have we not secured an effective and tough directive?

Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman, who shadows me, appears to have devised his question before he heard my answer. I have made it clear that the Commission has withdrawn its directive. We cannot force the Commission to impose a directive now on our European competitors based on our high standards. All we can do is what we have achieved. We have prevented the Commission from introducing a directive which would have lowered those standards. Therefore, I repeat that the Commission's decision to withdraw the directive is a victory for both sides of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make a party-political point out of the matter.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the furniture industry, but will he confirm to the House that in that industry he includes those in Britain who manufacture beds? Will he ensure that their high standards are maintained and not watered down by Europe? Will he also ensure that any goods that are not up to those high standards are rejected at our ports?

The directive concerned our regulations on foam-filled furniture and in that respect my hon. Friend is right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss industrial policy.

I met representatives of the Commission at the ministerial meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris yesterday and we discussed various issues related to trade and industry.

Has the Minister recently considered the vast differences between the aid given to respective countries within the EC for research and development? Is it not rather foolish for us to be out of step with our competitors? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's constituent, Mr. Bill Abbotts, whose machine tool company is having real problems because of the Government's economic policies, that there really is nothing wrong with the country, only with its daft policies?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. In Britain, a higher proportion of research and development is financed by the Government than in most other countries and our research and development on civil matters financed by the Government is a slightly higher proportion of GDP than that financed by the Japanese Government. But the most successful research and development is often that carried out by private companies in a competitive environment because it is competition which stimulates innovation and growth and it is on that that we most rely. It is significant that during the last decade, when we returned to a competitive environment, for the first time for more than a century in peace time the British economy grew faster than that of France and Germany.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CBI's new report "Competing in the New Europe" endorses the Government's policies on inflation, industrial relations and competition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only that, but it condemns the Opposition's policies. It says that they are not wanted by industry, and it is right. When I go round the country, the Labour party is condemned because it has no strategy for defeating inflation. The country does not want to return to intervention, subsidies, controls and penal taxation with the trade unions back in the driving seat.

Would the Secretary of State care to explain to his European counterparts some of the crazy industrial policy decisions that the Government have taken? For example, can he defend the scandal of the closure of the Sunderland shipyards recently highlighted by "Panorama", the failure to support shipbuilding orders at Appledore shipbuilders in Devon or the failure to allow bidders for Ravenscraig to put forward their proposals? Is it not the case that far from the Opposition running down industry, it is the Government who are intent on closing facilities and turning away orders?

That is absolute nonsense. Most of the policies to which the hon. Lady refers had a European dimension and we were acting within the constraints imposed by the European Commission and European law. I know that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) finds that distasteful, but none the less it is a fact. What I do find, and what I found yesterday at the OECD, is complete amazement that there still exists one country in Europe with a party which still believes in socialism, and it is not east of the iron curtain, it is there on the Opposition Benches.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much potash by weight or value, at 1990 prices, was imported and exported by this country in each of the past 10 years.

The United Kingdom has had a deficit in trade in potash in each of the last 10 years, but the clear trend has been for a reduction in that deficit over the decade. I will arrange for the full information requested to be published in the Official Report.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not that deficit be made much worse if the only potash mine in Britain, which is in my constituency, were to be closed? Is it not the Government's responsibility to ensure that jobs are maintained by seeking to keep open prosperous businesses? Have not the chances of that mine being kept open been severely weakened by the Secretary of State's crass decision not to allow the Kemira deal with ICI which would have enhanced the job prospects of my constituents and kept open the only potash mine in Britain?

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, no Secretary of State has overruled the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My hon. Friend has described the company as successful; I

Do the Minister and the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) realise on what the import of potash, and the success of that company, depend? In my constituency, many people work for Kvaerner Kincaed which produces marine ship engines. The company importing potash cannot have an engine built by any other British company, because Kvaerner Kincaed is the last company in Britain that produces such engines. Why are the Government standing idly by while my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is in Europe fighting his corner to keep the marine engine industry alive?

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ingenuity with which he has linked the subject of marine engines with that of potash. I am happy to say that, because of the success of the company in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), marine engines often carry British exports of potash abroad, as well as bringing potash imports into this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce import penetration.

The Department's policies aim to foster the competitiveness of British industry.

Is not that a very complacent answer? There has been a 10 per cent. increase in import penetration since 1979, and currently 50 per cent. of cars, 80 per cent. of videos and 90 per cent. of office equipment are imported. Is the Secretary of State aware that National Power and PowerGen are contemplating importing another 30 million tonnes of coal, which will add £170 million to our balance of payments deficit? Has he no plans to control those imports?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to control imports, he must first persuade his party to propose that we leave the EC, as the matter is entirely within EC competence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we really believe in free trade, we should not be unduly worried about import penetration, but should do everything possible to encourage our exports? Is he really satisfied that we have an open market in Japan in all respects?

I am never satisfied. Every time that I meet the Japanese industry Minister, as I did yesterday, I encourage him to open his market further to British goods. Over the past three years, when we have made our campaign to encourage the exporting of goods to Japan a priority, exports have nearly doubled. We are now launching a new campaign, with the support of the Japanese Government, to open up opportunities for British industry on an expanding scale. I am delighted that industry is responding to those opportunities.

Will the Secretary of State accept that import penetration is not helped by the obsessive mergers and takeovers with which we are so beset? A company in my constituency, S. Edge and Co., has traded successfully for many years. It has an excellent work force and an excellent product, but, as a result of a takeover, it is having to call in the receiver. What will the Secretary of State do about those 350 jobs?

If a merger or takeover reduces competition, we can take action to prevent that under our mergers and competition policy. However, it would be wrong to protect every company from the prospect of managerial change or increased competition as a result of takeover.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that almost all the Labour party's policies would make British firms less competitive in this market and, therefore, make import penetration even worse? Will he continue to warn the British public about that danger?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no coincidence that the only period since the war, in a complete economic cycle, when there has been virtually no growth in productivity outside the oil industry and in non-oil GDP was during the previous Labour Government. That should be contrasted with the success of the 1980s when for the first time in a peacetime decade for a century, Britain outstripped France and Germany.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the preparedness of British industry for the completion of the single European market.

British industry is well informed about the single European market. Many firms are taking positive steps to meet the opportunities and challenges that it is bringing.

Will the Minister admit that his Department is no thoroughbred when it comes to informing British companies about the single market? A recent survey showed that only 8 per cent. of those companies have any idea of what will happen to them when the starting stalls are opened. Is that not another reason why the Tories should be sent off to the knackers yard?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on including an appropriate series of analogies such as thoroughbreds on this day. I do not know whether he is aware of what will happen shortly after 3·45 pm. I am happy to say that our surveys show that there is 98 per cent. awareness in British industry of the single market as a result of our highly successful and appreciated advertising campaign. Over 50 per cent. of firms have said that they have taken, are taking or intend to take action to meet the changes brought about by the single market.

What advice are the Government giving to the Japanese-owned British car manufacturers as to how they can take advantage of the single market, bearing in mind that, as the Minister knows, discussions are taking place now about the fact that the production of the Japanese-owned firms will be included within a collective EEC import quota? Does he appreciate that, instead of encouraging free trade, it will discourage any Japanese industrialists from investing in Britain?

I am happy to say that one Japanese company—Nissan—is exporting over 80 per cent. of its production. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we have made it clear that there is no doubt that Japanese-marked cars produced in Britain should be freely traded in the Community in the same way as cars produced by United States-owned firms.

Given the critical importance of British Steel to British manufacturing industry's competitive position, why are the Government steadfastedly refusing to allow the House to debate the issue? Does the Minister accept that the Government hold a special share in British Steel and guarantees from that company? Given that Ravenscraig is profitable and that there were other potential bidders for that part of British Steel, will the Minister call in that company and ask the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the position?

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a debate on the steel industry is so urgent when it is not a subject chosen for debate this very day by Her Majesty's Opposition. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is important that British industry should have available competitive and efficient supplies of steel. I feel that I hardly need remind the hon. Gentleman of how much more competitive and efficient the British steel industry has become since privatisation.

Does not my hon. Friend consider discriminatory and extremely dangerous the proposals made by the European Commission to count cars with a high European content made in Britain in Japanese-owned factories as Japanese and therefore not to allow them to be sold freely in Europe? Is not it the case that European and especially British consumers have been ripped off for far too long by import barriers which have been lobbied for by inefficient, subsidised and protected European manufacturers such as Fiat and Renault? Is not it about time that such companies put their own houses in order rather than expecting the British consumer to foot the bill for them?

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise from what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have said that there is no possibility of what he suggested about Japanese-marked cars made in Britain happening. We cannot anticipate what the European Commission will finally propose in that regard, but I repeat what I said earlier—as far as we are concerned, Japanese-marked cars made in Britain must be allowed to trade freely throughout the Community.

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

Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I next expect to meet representatives of the CBI on 14 June 1991.

I bet that the CBI is looking forward to an empty ministerial car drawing up outside its offices and the entire DTI team getting out. When the Secretary of State meets the CBI, will he tell it that 3,200 jobs have been lost every working day since the Prime Minister took office, that 4,000 jobs a week have been lost in manufacturing and that 40,000 viable companies are predicted to go bust this year? Will he also tell the CBI that the Chancellor's prophecy that recovery was just around the corner was last used by President Hoover in the United States in 1930 and that there can be no recovery until the Chancellor gets interest rates down substantially in order to jolt manufacturing out of the spiral of decline?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly brushing up his green credentials by recycling old jokes. I acknowledge that there is concern about the depth of the recession, but I know that industry believes that our first priority must be to get inflation down. In its meetings with me, the CBI has made it clear that it supports the priority that we give to that objective and that it has no intention of urging us to withdraw from the exchange rate mechanism. It is also confident that, as industry recovers from the recession we shall see a renewed, strong growth during the 1990s such as that which it praised us for achieving during the 1980s.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the CBI, will he take the opportunity to remind its members of the Government's positive record in creating the framework for inward investment? Will he draw to their attention especially our success in securing about three fifths of American inward investment in the Community and about two fifths of Japanese investment in recent years? Will he also draw to their attention the contribution that that can make to pulling us out of the recession?

I shall certainly do that. This country's success in attracting inward investment from all over the world demonstrates that we have created the most attractive environment anywhere in Europe for industry, especially manufacturing industry. That is why the most recent figures produced by the Japanese show that about half of all Japanese investment in Europe comes to this country and that we attract more Japanese investment than the whole of Asia.

Given today's latest figures which show that there has been a 97 per cent. rise in small business failures in the south and a 115 per cent. rise in business failures in the midlands, and given the latest forecast that up to 1,000 businesses every week could go under, will the Secretary of State, in addition to any talks that he will have with the banks, now speak up for the needs of the businesses of Britain? Will he urge the banks to bring down interest rates of 16, 17 and 18 per cent. as a matter of immediacy, or is he abandoning the small businesses of Britain just as quickly as the Government have abandoned the unemployed?

I shall certainly ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate any anti-competitive practices in which I have received evidence that the banks are indulging, whether the evidence results from the inquiries of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or otherwise. I have received no evidence and no evidence has been submitted by the hon. Gentleman to me or to the Director General. [Interruption.] There have been allegations, but first we must establish the facts. That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England are doing. Only in the light of facts can decisions be taken.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that one feature of the British economy is its slowness to respond to a stimulus and, secondly, that confidence is a major factor in pulling the economy out of recession? Therefore, does not he think it prudent that we reduce interest rates as soon as that can conceivably be achieved?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I accept the point that he makes. However, he will agree that the anxiety expressed by the Labour party about the level of interest rates is full of crocodile tears because it has declared that its policy would be to increase Government borrowing, which would drive up interest rates, increase inflation and give greater pain to small businesses than anything that they have suffered in the past.

I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I have no possibility of limiting the length of speeches in a half-day debate, I ask those on the Front Benches, and Back-Bench Members especially, to make brief contributions so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called.

I beg to move,

That this House deplores the traffic congestion, the public transport chaos, the pollution, the homelessness, the filthy streets, the inner city decay and the unemployment which have made daily life a misery for millions of Londoners; holds the Government to account for the policies which have failed London over more than a decade; reaffirms the value and importance of a capital city which can realise its full potential as a manufacturing, trading, financial and cultural centre; and endorses the need for a Labour Government which will bring to London the benefits of constructive national policies on health, education and training, housing and transport, the spur to the efficient delivery of local authority services provided by the Quality Commission, and the establishment of an elected, city-wide, strategic authority which will give Londoners a voice on the future of their city.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have only just begun my speech. I may give way later.

Without in any way detracting from some of the hon. Gentleman's points, may I ask him to try to put the problem into a wider perspective? Many of the complaints that he has chronicled can be found in Tokyo, Paris and every major capital city throughout the world. Are we not merely listening to a catalogue of the problems of living in large urban cities?

I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I think that he is wrong. We have compared London's problems with those of other major capital cities such as Tokyo and Paris and of Frankfurt—the last not a capital, but an important European city—and our contention, which is widely accepted, is that London is falling behind other European cities in many respects.

In my first six years in the House of Commons, there were many debates during the term of a Labour Government on how three Labour London authorities, plus the Greater London council, were unable to get anything happening in 5,000 acres of dereliction, absence of jobs, no housing and no prospects.

I shall deal with the state of public opinion in London in a moment.

Does not the experience of the LDDC show the appalling failure of the Government and their lack of planning policy? The docklands district is suffering because there is no proper road and rail infrastructure into it. Do not the Government have a Singapore mentality towards docklands, in that they ignore the surrounding districts, turning them into a sort of third world? [Laughter.]

My hon. Friend knows a good deal more about such problems than some of the Conservative Members who are laughing uproariously.

"apparent allergy to strategic thinking"

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the draft Labour Budget presented by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) contains no provision for increased spending on public transport in London? How much is he now proposing to spend, and has he agreed it with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?

First, there never was any such thing as a draft Labour Budget; secondly, even if there had been and if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Budgets, he would know that it would not have included provision for public spending.

"The Government have no plans to change the general structure of local government in London."

"look upon themselves first and foremost as Londoners—citizens of the greatest, most historic, most beautiful and most-visited capital city in the world".

In the hon. Gentleman's great tour de raison of London, one issue does not seem to have been addressed. Most pollsters are aware of the London Labour factor, which shows how voters in London consistently turn against the Labour party in any national evaluation of opinion. A resident of Lambeth who looks at what is happening in Wandsworth sees clearly what is wrong with London. It is that too many London boroughs are controlled by the Labour party.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not the assiduous reader of the Evening Standard that I took him to be. If he had read with care and attention the poll results published last week on precisely this subject, he would have discovered not only overwhelming support for every aspect of our proposals but the fact that Londoners, by a margin of four percentage points—43 per cent. to 39 per cent.—support Labour rather than his party. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to make something of the difference between that lead and the lead of six percentage points that we enjoy in national polls, but I do not think that he wants to draw too much attention to those figures.

I beg to move, in line I to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

`deplores the habit of the Labour Party to run down London in a way which, if taken seriously, would damage its image abroad, deter foreign investors and bring glee to London's competitor cities overseas; emphasises that London is one of the world's finest cities with cultural and business attractions which have few rivals, a transport system as extensive as any in Europe and international hub airports which are the envy of others; welcomes the decision of the Government to relieve London of the unnecessary and highly wasteful Greater London Council; deplores Labour's plans to establish a still more wasteful London-wide body with powers to control the police which even the Greater London Council did not have; welcomes the Government's enormous investment programme in public transport and in infrastructure in Docklands; and salutes the Government's achievements of the last 12 years which have raised Britain's reputation abroad and with it that of her capital city'.

Would the Minister care to point out to the House that the capital programme for London Regional Transport was under the control of the Government of the day via their majority in Parliament who were able to determine whether or not the money Bill was passed, and who, in preliminary negotiations with Treasury Ministers acting under Government instruction, told not just the Labour administration but the previous administration of Sir Horace Cutler that they would not allow the level of investment in London Regional Transport that successive GLC administrations wished?

I am delighted to have drawn the hon. Gentleman to his feet. Those watching the debate at home will welcome the opportunity to be reminded about the government of London that we have shaken off, which is amply represented by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question by saying that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) spoke throughout his speech of under-investment, but last year investment in the underground was more than double in real terms what it was in the last year of the GLC, and our plans are to invest yet more in the underground.

"takes traffic off the streets",

The Minister may well be right in saying that journey times for commuter traffic have been cut on the pilot red route. Takings in the shops along the route, however, have fallen dramatically, by 30 or 40 per cent., and the local people do not like the scheme and want it to be scrapped.

Clearly the Labour party is opposed to any action that may cause problems. A succession of Labour Members have objected to private Bills relating to public transport—because they have some constituency interest, or because they have been put up to it. Time and again, public transport proposals are presented to the House and Labour Members object to them. Here is a proposal to get the traffic moving—including the buses, which also benefit from red routes.

rose—

Sure enough, as soon as a solution is advanced, we can look for the Labour Member who has jumped to his feet.

Surely the Minister remembers that it was the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) who objected to the last private Bill relating to London's transport: indeed, he attempted to talk it out. The Minister should get his facts right. There are many reasons why hon. Members may object to Bills. It is not that we do not want transport infrastructure investment; we want to ensure that it is the right kind of investment.

I made no mistake in my facts, as the hon. Gentleman's remarks implicitly acknowledged. It remains absolutely true that many Labour Members oppose private Bills relating to public transport.

The question of red routes greatly affects my constituency. Two main problems have arisen. The first is the speed at which the traffic now moves along the red route, and the failure of the police to take steps to reduce the speed and the resulting danger. The previous problem, which was caused by congestion, has been reversed.

One of the great sadnesses in my life is the fact that I am no longer a Transport Minister. I shall, however, ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will be winding up the debate, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Yes, although I had better not do so too many more times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) mentioned the problem of speeding vehicles. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in large parts of London, cameras are triggered automatically by vehicles that jump the traffic lights, and that the motorists responsible are prosecuted automatically. Is that not a substantial improvement in the policing of London?

It is certainly a good idea for us to be able to enforce the operation of traffic lights more effectively, for safety reasons.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I want to keep going for a while.

"the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin".

Will the Minister give way?

I intend to quote the hon. Gentleman again. Would he like to save his intervention until then?

I do not resile from either of the quotations. When the GLC was a major provider of housing and direct services such as that, it was far too vast and it was one of the slowest bureaucracies in the world. That was why I believed that it should be abolished. If the Minister had given the whole quotation, he would have realised that I wanted the GLC to be replaced by an authority covering the whole of London and with genuine strategic duties to carry out. Therefore, I am being perfectly consistent.

I shall deal shortly with the vastness of the body that may be proposed by the Labour party.

"the Marshall Report did not push and say, 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have released massive resources which could have been put to more productive use".

rose—

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall keep going.