To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the application of his policy on takeovers by foreign-based, state-owned companies.

I restated the Government's policy towards mergers involving state-controlled companies, whether British or foreign, in a speech on competition policy on 12 June. I will continue to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission acquisitions that I consider may lead to distortions in the market. Such distortions are most likely when an acquisition involves a large market share, a high degree of direct state control or evidence of past anti-competitive behaviour.

Does my right hon. Friend think it right to allow foreign nationalised industries to buy up private British companies and then to use their privileged position and access to cheap capital unfairly to compete against British private companies?

I certainly receive representations from many people in British industry who feel exactly as my hon. Friend does. That is why I shall continue to take the degree of state ownership into account when considering whether referrals should be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is an important aspect of national interest and improving the competitive market.

If the Secretary of State is prepared to make statements about takeovers of foreign-owned and state-owned companies, why is he unwilling to make a statement about ICI? It is no good the Secretary of State saying that it is a European Economic Community issue. As I went to Brussels last week, I know that the Community would welcome a statement on the Secretary of State's view on that issue.

The hon. Lady appears to be unaware that there has been no bid. It would be absurd for a Secretary of State to make a statement on a hypothetical bid. Nothing could be more certain to ensure that a Secretary of State has no power to intervene, even in circumstances where, at its discretion, the European Community referred a merger back to the state. If he made a statement and was then ruled by the courts to have fettered his discretion in advance, he would be utterly powerless.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the rate of growth in the production of compact discs in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Production of compact discs in the United Kingdom rose from 1.1 million in 1985 to 78.5 million in 1990.

The whole House will wish to congratulate a manufacturing industry of this country which has increased its output to such a remarkable extent in only six years. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity also to congratulate the British manufacturers Nimbus and EMI on the excellence of their technology, and Chandos and Hyperion, not only on their excellent technology but on the fact that they have been pioneer recorders of British music?

I know that my hon. Friend speaks up effectively for industry and business in his constituency, and he is right to draw attention to the success and growth rate of the compact disc industry. Because the industry is so new, it is meaningless to talk in terms of 135 per cent. compound rate of growth from 1985 to the present day. However, if one bears in mind that between 1989 and 1990 growth was 20 per cent., that shows a very healthy industry.

The CD industry is not so new that it has not worked out how to price goods. Will the Minister examine the pricing structure within the industry, because CDs still cost an unacceptably high amount given the increased volume of manufacture? When he looks at that industry, will he have a word with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who, I understand, has amassed a vast collection of CDs and is clearly trying to do for the price of CDs what Bunker Hunt did for silver?

The price of CDs in the United Kingdom—clearly the hon. Gentleman is an expert—is about £.10.99 or £11.99, which compares with about £12 in France, about £13 in Germany and about £12 in Japan. So it is not fair to say that there is overwhelming evidence that CDs are overpriced in this country. If there were evidence of a cartel, the Office of Fair Trading would be interested. It is conducting an informal inquiry into the music industry in general, but in the absence of any firm evidence of a cartel it would be inappropriate for the Department to intervene.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of (a) United States and (b) Japanese investment in the EC came to the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

It is estimated that the United Kingdom has 42 per cent. of United States investment in the European Community as at the end of 1990 and 39 per cent. of Japanese investment as at the end of March 1991.

My hon. Friend will be aware that academic research shows that the tax regime of a country is more important for overseas investors than state handouts. Does not that prove that overseas investors have confidence in the continuation of the British tax regime under this Government and that they have greater confidence in the future of our economy than do Opposition Members?

I absolutely agree. The tax regime is important in encouraging inward investment. Last year's inward investment decisions, of which about 350 are known to my Department, will either guarantee the security of, or create, 60,000 jobs in all regions of the United Kingdom. We would be foolish to put that amount of job creation at risk.

Does the Minister agree that although we greatly welcome inward investment from Japan and America, it is still important that we retain our centres of innovation and of research and development? Are not they the real levers for determining the future security and direction of the British economy?

Indeed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, perhaps as a result of the Government's encouragement of a tax regime for enterprise, industry's own funding of research and development grew by more than 50 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989.

My hon. Friend will be well aware of the large American investment in my constituency town of Luton by General Motors. At a time when the car manufacturing industry is very much on its knees, as evidenced by Ford's slashing prices, will he look sympathetically at any request from GM for any assistance that might be available either through funding in this country or through funding from the European Community?

My hon. Friend will recognise that although demand for cars in this country is down, the car industry is doing outstandingly well in exports. All parts of the industry deserve congratulations on that achievement.

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

Growth is set to resume in the second half of this year in response to lower inflation and an upturn in the world economy.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the present Prime Minister took office more than 500,000 people have been made unemployed, manufacturing jobs have been disappearing at a rate of 4,000 a week and nearly 16,000 businesses have collapsed? When will the Government stop making pathetic excuses and implement the obvious package of reform measures required to take this country out of recession, to boost skills, increase investment and reduce unemployment? How many more manufacturing jobs is the Secretary of State prepared to see lost before he stands up for British industry?

The Government are right to make the defeat of inflation their priority. We are succeeding in defeating inflation. It has fallen from almost 11 per cent. to 5·8 per cent. and it is heading to below 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Interest rates have come down too. That is the best way towards sustained non-inflationary growth. The Opposition have no policies and no strategy to deal with inflation, recession or unemployment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although times have been difficult in the past few months and years, manufacturing industry in the north of England has combated those difficult times by becoming more aggressive and combative in export markets, and that there are now clear signs that we have reached the bottom of the recession and that confidence is being restored to businesses in the north? Does he agree that we shall see the interesting and, from my point of view as a northern Member, encouraging phenomenon of the end of the recession starting in the north of England and spreading to the south? Will he join me in condemning the Opposition who seem to glorify in wallowing in doom and gloom about industry throughout Britain?

That was very much the message that I received during my recent visits to Teesside, Tyneside and county Durham. It is greatly to the credit of industry in the north of England, especially in the north-east, that it has diversified so much, has attracted inward investment and is exporting strongly. That is encouraging for the future. Like my hon. Friend, many of those industries say that they expect to come out of the recession ahead of the rest of the economy.

Why does the Secretary of State assume that a firm anti-inflation policy must be accompanied by rising unemployment? He should resist the blandishments of Labour and Conservative Members who believe in devaluation. He could maintain a strict interest rate policy and at the same time promote measures designed to ensure the repair of hospitals and schools, and the building of houses while there are so many people out of work.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that one can fight inflation while prematurely relaxing fiscal policy.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the performance of the motor industry which on the latest figures is exporting 49 per cent. of production with totally beneficial results for the balance of payments on manufactured goods, about which we hear so much from the Opposition? That trend is likely to improve further when American and Japanese investments come on stream.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about an exceedingly important industry which is doing very well. Its output in the past three months was up 6 per cent. on last year, and that has largely been achieved by an excellent record of substantially increasing exports.

With every major national and international report saying that every region and every sector of industry faces yet another summer of redundancies, closures and bankruptcies, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many more thousands of people will become unemployed, how many more businesses will go under and how much industrial capacity, skill and strength will be destroyed before the Government cut interest rates and improve investment and employment opportunities in all parts of the country?

The hon. Gentleman has played that recorded message endless times in the House. He has no positive policy to get out of a recession, to combat inflation or to solve unemployment. All the Opposition's policies would aggravate those problems. Increased public expenditure to the tune of £35 billion would aggravate inflation and a minimum wage would increase unemployment.

Would not the surest way to prolong the recession be to relax the grip on inflation and allow prices and public spending to soar, which is what the Opposition advocate, thus making Britain chronically uncompetitive?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why industry and the CBI have endorsed our strategy. They recognise that we have our priorities right, and they and many forecasters are confident about growth in the second half of the year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the high street banks to discuss business bankruptcies and banking policy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met with the chairmen of the leading banks recently. The Treasury is conducting an inquiry into the relationships between banks and businesses and the Department of Trade and Industry has assisted by organising through each regional office a meeting between banks and business men passing on full information from those meetings to the Treasury. We await the Chancellor's conclusions.

In this David and Goliath struggle between small businesses and banks, what does the Secretary of State intend to do to redress the imbalance? How does he view the written contract proposal under which banks could not increase interest rates and charges without due notice? Businesses are collapsing at the rate of 1,000 a week. When, oh when, will the Government do something about small businesses?

I have seen the Forum of Private Business proposals, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring. They have been passed to the banks for comment, and will be one of the matters on which the Chancellor may touch when he produces his conclusions. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The Chancellor will produce his conclusions as soon as he finishes his review. I am sure that hon. Members will want this to be a good review that takes into account all the evidence that the forum and others have passed to the Treasury. We all await the outcome of those findings with interest. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that the Forum of Private Business did not want to see the matter referred to the competition authorities because it thought that that would take too long.

Irrespective of the lack of sensitivity with which banks have sometimes been prone to deal with their small business customers, does my hon. Friend agree that so far there has been no evidence of a cartel among the banks? Would it not have been on that basis, and that basis alone, that the Government could have been asked to intervene?

My hon. Friend is right in that, for the competition authorities to intervene, there would have to be evidence of cartel collusion or anti-competitive practices. That is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. He has not completed his review. He made a preliminary statement the other day, in which he said that at that date he did not have sufficient evidence to instigate an inquiry, but his preliminary inquiries are continuing. We have sent him other evidence and we await his findings, which will be made public in some form or other after the Chancellor has presented his conclusions.

Given that the Machine Tools Technologies Association recently told a group of Labour Members of Parliament that the industry could be wiped out in the next six or nine months, is not the Minister worried that industry has so little confidence in his Department? The association went further and said that it lacked confidence that the DTI could do anything to help small and medium-sized businesses, and that it was easier to get an audience with the Pope or Gorbachev than with a Minister in his Department. Does not that reflect a complete lack of confidence in what the Government have done for the past 12 years?

Ministers in the DTI are ready and willing to meet business, and do so regularly. Many such meetings occur, day after day and week after week, with Ministers and officials in the Department because we are interested in and concerned about what the business community is saying, as we are its voice in Whitehall. As for the industry to which the hon. Lady refers, it has reported great success in exporting in recent months and in the past year. The DTI will do all that it can, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the lead, to promote its exports abroad and to work closely with it. I recommend that its representatives get in touch with the Minister for Trade if they are concerned mainly about exports and orders. The Government want to see banks supporting all good, viable businesses and I am sure that banks will listen to that message.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between the members of the European Community and the European Free Trade Association.

Good progress has been made towards the creation of a European economic area in the talks between the Community and the European Free Trade Association.

By how much have British exports to the Community increased over the past 10 years? Can my hon. Friend give similar figures for our trade with EFTA?

I shall write to my hon. Friend with the details, but he will be aware that our exports to the Community have grown substantially, as have our exports to EFTA. Even in a difficult world trading environment, with a recession in EFTA countries such as Sweden, our exports this year are well ahead of those for last year by volume.

When will the Minister do something about the rotten COCOM agreement, which is contrary to free trade in Europe? Has he not had correspondence from me and OPT Optical Fibres in my constituency, which wants to export sub-standard fibres to the Soviet Union, but cannot because it is blocked by the agreement and the Government? That is affecting its business, and jobs are going to the wall. Has not the managing director written to the Minister to say that the DTI is letting down British industry in this respect? When will the Minister do something about this rotten agreement instead of living in the cold war?

The hon. Gentleman has, as on other occasions, introduced a subject that I find hard to relate to the negotiations between the EEC and EFTA. He will know that the COCOM arrangements are important for the security of our country. Therefore, I hope that he will have due regard to them.

When my hon. Friend conducts these talks, will he refer to the seemingly endless stream of Chinese textile goods coming through Denmark to be dumped in this country, sometimes as cheap as 17p a pair?

The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is being considered, although it would not be directly affected by the negotiations which are the subject of the original question. However, bringing EFTA countries into a European economic area will improve trading opportunities for British industry throughout Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output in the west midlands.

Manufacturing output in the west midlands, as elsewhere, will be helped by our policies of fostering a competitive environment, encouraging innovation, restoring incentives and, above all, defeating inflation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that every answer that we have heard from him today on manufacturing industry shows him to be totally out of touch with the difficult and deteriorating circumstances under which it must operate? Is not he aware that he is embarked no longer on the defeat of inflation but on the annihilation of British industry? Since the Government came to power, we in the west midlands have lost 33 per cent. of our capacity and 32,000 jobs in manufacturing and, according to the CBI, 80 per cent. of the plants in the west midlands are working below capacity. In those circumstances, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to dispel the clear impression of total incompetence and suspended inactivity on the part of his Department?

That is a bit of a cheek from someone who has played his distinguished part in undermining British industry. The fact is that in the west midlands, which is heavily dependent on the motor car industry, the motor car industry has increased production. In the past few months Rover's production has risen by 4 per cent. and Land-Rover's by 8 per cent. They are exporting a record proportion of their output. I recently visited firms in the west midlands, one of which was exporting 95 per cent. and capturing the world market in its areas. The future for the west midlands, which is a great source of entrepreneurship in Britain, is rosy so long as we pursue the policies that the Government advocate and do not return to policies of nationalisation, intervention and high taxation which the hon. Gentleman advocates.

My right hon. Friend is well known for his open mind in discussing and considering future aspects of policy. Has he heard one single policy from the Opposition which he thinks would help west midlands industry boost its productive capacity?

I must say, having considered the matter with an open mind, that I have not heard a single proposal that is in any way constructive. Indeed, to hide their intellectual vacuum, the Opposition simply retail bad news with relish.

With car sales down 25 per cent., truck sales down 40 per cent. and bus sales down 40 per cent., I do not know who the Secretary of State has been talking to when he visits the west midlands and the car industry. Does not he agree with Mr. Colin Hope, the president of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, that the British motor car industry has been seriously damaged by the recession and that it cannot operate sensibly in the boom or bust environment created by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman exemplifies exactly what I was referring to. He takes an industry which has increased its output and investment and tries to find statistics suggesting its decline. Longbridge in the west midlands has the most advanced manufacturing assembly line in the motor car industry in the world and the highest efficiency in Europe, yet he has nothing but ill to say of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports on funeral services he has commissioned or received in the course of the last year.

I have commissioned no such reports. The Director General of Fair Trading published a report on funeral services in January 1989.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although there is some public concern about the pricing of funerals, there is much greater public concern about the threat to their provision in some Labour areas, such as Liverpool, where politically motivated men see the services of crematoria and cemeteries as fit for their political activities? Is it not high time that my hon. Friend talked to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about ways of protecting people at what is, inevitably, a sad time, but which can become a harrowing time as a result of the withdrawal of those services by people who should be providing them for the public?

Suffice it to say that it is sad that a political climate where such threats can be made should be able to grow up anywhere. Funerals are an intensely personal and sad business for families; I shall therefore forbear to say any more, and will let the public be the judge.

What is the Minister doing to encourage all funeral directors to join the National Association of Funeral Directors and to accept the association's code of practice, as do all Co-operative societies throughout the United Kingdom?

The association has issued a code of practice, in co-operation with the Director General of Fair Trading. That code of practice is now a year old.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the impact of inflation on the competitiveness of British industry.

Inflation erodes competitiveness and destroys output and jobs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that succinct reply. Will he also pay tribute, however, to ICI plc for having invested in research and development at a much higher level than the rate of inflation? Should not the company be warmly congratulated on that?

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that inflation is one of the most damaging influences on our research and development spending. The increased spending that I mentioned earlier is clearly a response not only to a lower tax regime, but to a lower inflation regime. A return to the taxation and inflation levels that characterised the last Labour Government would have a disastrous effect on British industry's research and development.

If the Minister is so convinced that inflation damages the competitiveness of British industry, why on earth did the Government allow it to increase in the first place?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman doubts whether inflation is damaging. If so, I am very surprised. If, however, he agrees with me that it is damaging, why does he support the policies of nationalisation, high spending, high taxation and high borrowing that are espoused by his party? They would make the present position much worse.

May I hark back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? Will my hon. Friend also note that, although inflation over the past three or four years has been higher than we would have wished, SCM Chemicals in my constituency has been extremely competitive? Moreover, it is owned by the Hanson group of companies.

I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports all industry in his constituency. My Department certainly welcomes good news from industry—which we do not hear very often from the doom and gloom experts in the Labour party.

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

On 25 April.

Obviously, I am not a fan of the European Commission. Will the Minister tell us, however, when RECHAR funds will be used to help Britain's mining communities? Will those funds provide direct and immediate relief, and will they be separate from any additional grants that may be available from either the EEC or the United Kingdom Government?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that additionality will apply. What that means, in plain English, is that the funds that we receive make a real difference—that public spending is higher than it would otherwise be.

Has my hon. Friend noted that all the contributor nations to the European Community budget have said that they would not fund more substantial structural, and therefore regional, funds to other countries in the Community that might need them if there were too rapid a move to a single currency? Although we would not eliminate the possibility that in the long term a single currency might arise, does my hon. Friend agree that that would mean that any party in Britain that advocated increased structural funds would effectively be making an extra expenditure commitment? Therefore, is that not what the Labour party is doing?

My hon., Friend is tempting me into dangerous territory for a junior Minister when he talks of European monetary union and so on. Being a junior Minister is a little like being a lower order batsman—the wicket is a bit difficult so perhaps I should put a dead ball on this one. However, I cannot resist saying that we give £1,800 million a year in structural funds, we receive about £900 million back in grant and we receive £600 million a year rebate under Fontainebleau. Therefore, on a Europewide basis, we give to the structural funds some £300 million a year. When Opposition Members talk in facile terms about moving quickly to a single currency, they should bear it in mind that we already give £300 million a year and that an immediate single currency would result in a substantial increase in what we contribute to structural funds.

When the Minister meets representatives in Europe, how does he explain the fact that the Government have so neglected the manufacturing regions of Britain over the past 12 years that investment, jobs and output in the north-west are, in constant terms, 30 per cent. lower than in 1979?

I do not know by what extraordinary statistical device the hon. Gentleman reached that result. Over the three-year public expenditure survey round the Government are giving £567 million in regional selective assistance, for which I am responsible. To argue that the Government do not care about the regions when they are giving that much money—probably as much as they would be allowed to give by the Commission—is absurd. The Opposition have to answer the question whether their regional policies would be allowed by the Commission. They would not. Investment, output and productivity are all considerably higher than in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what attention he pays to the degree of state control when deciding whether to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

I restated the Government's policy towards mergers, as I said earlier, on 12 June.

Does my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that, in paying close attention to the degree of state ownership or state control of foreign companies or others making takeover bids, he is seen as exercising entirely proper concern for fair competition and the need to avoid nationalisation by the back door? Will he accept that the British people have no more liking for imported socialism than they have for the home-grown variety?

My hon. Friend puts it very well. Our privatisation programme has proved the superiority of competitive private enterprise over state monopoly ownership. That is why we encourage the private sector and are against the extension of the state sector, whether it be from home or abroad.

Given the recent announcement, is the Secretary of State prepared to reconsider the case for the referral of British Steel's activities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Has he discussed such a possibility with the Secretary of State for Scotland? Given that and so many other important questions that need to be asked about the Secretary of State for Scotland's role in the steel industry closures in Scotland, is not it disgraceful that that right hon. Gentleman will not be attending the debate tomorrow because he is too fully occupied having strawberries and cream at Holyrood Palace?

That was a typically pathetic riposte at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman would debilitate Scottish industry if he got the chance by subjecting it largely to state ownership. The gist of this question is that we should be protected from state ownership where we can. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that state ownership is the answer to all his problems.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House at what level such mergers must be referred to the European Community? Does not the low level that has been set show how much sovereignty has passed from the House to the continent?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. We faced a dilemma. Under the treaty of Rome, the Community could intervene after we made monopoly and merger decisions. We therefore faced double jeopardy. We think that it is better for mergers of 5 becu or more to be handled by the Community and for those below that figure to be handled by national Governments. Logically, there is no need for Community interference, as a Europewide monopoly would be a monopoly in at least one member state. As we started from the position written into the treaty of Rome, the present arrangements are very much better than the double jeopardy arrangements and are a satisfactory second best.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what schemes his Department has sponsored in the Truro and St. Austell area to aid local business.

Business in the Truro and St. Austell area can benefit from a wide range of Department of Trade and Industry schemes.

The Minister will know that I have frequently pressed for the reintroduction of assisted area status for Truro and St. Austell. Many jobs are being lost at both ends of the constituency because of the economic mess that the Government have got themselves into. They have repeatedly said that they will review the boundaries only after a general election. Given that economic mess, and as the Government have postponed the election, may we at least proceed with the review to offer some hope to local businesses?

Most objective observers recognise that it would be unwise to tamper with the assisted area map before the general election. Some areas could be included on the map and some could be removed from it, and perhaps the St. Austell area should be included. However, it would be unwise to make boundary changes before the general election.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that typical supplementary question shows why Truro urgently needs a Conservative Member of Parliament? Is not it time that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) realised that free trade and level playing fields are the way to bring prosperity to Truro, St. Austell and everywhere else?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Cornwall has led the world in free enterprise. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is out of tune with his constituents, and I have no doubt that his Conservative opponent, Nick St. Aubyn, who is an excellent man, will be elected at the next election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Britain's recent record in attracting inward investment from the Federal Republic of Germany.

According to figures just published by the German economics Ministry in Bonn, direct investment in the United Kingdom by German companies in 1990 amounted to £1·9 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that welcome figure is further proof of the enormous attractiveness of the United Kingdom's business climate, which has been achieved as a result of Government policies? Is that a one-off figure or does it represent a growing trend of inward investment from the Federal Republic? Does he agree that that figure and the performance of this part of the economy would be ruined by the destructive policies of the Labour party?

Figures compiled since 1952 show that German companies have invested some £7·6 billion in this country. Remarkably, half that investment has been made in the past three years. In 1990, we received no less than 18·6 per cent. of all German foreign investment. If the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition Benches are so right in saying that the economy is in a mess, why are we the No. 1 location for inward investment in the world and the favoured nation for German investors?

Is it not clear that German investment in Britain merely reflects a worldwide pattern and that similar trends can be seen in America and Japan? is not the Government's record of creating stable industrial relations and low taxation over the past 11 years the essential ingredient in ensuring that that pattern continues?

Yes, we are indeed the preferred location for inward investors from Japan and America, and that is a two-way process. Although about £7·8 billion has been invested in this country, we have invested £16·6 billion abroad, which shows the strength of our manufacturing base.

Is there not another side to the issue? In the past three or four months West Germany has run into balance of payments difficulties because of its takeover of East Germany. Under the system of economic and monetary union of which we are now a part because of the Common Market, shall we not end up using British taxpayers' money to bail out the East German mess that the West Germans have taken over?

I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, but I have no intention of doing that. I am sorry to disappoint him, but investment from Germany is running at a very good level. That may be disappointing news for the hon. Gentleman, but it is the truth.

Could I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) whom I just failed to beat in the 1979 election? I remind my hon. Friend that in the 1975 manifesto issued by the pro-marketeers, those voting yes were assured that the threat of a movement of the Common Market towards an economic and monetary union had been removed and that that threat, according to the manifesto, would have restricted industrial growth and would have affected jobs. Is not it now clear that fixed exchange rates do exactly that, and it is as true now as it was in 1975?

My hon. Friend knows my views on these matters. I have full confidence in the ability of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to negotiate successfully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has made representations recently to any other EC Governments concerning tendering for supplies to the public service of such Governments.

The Government are very keen to see compliance with all European directives by all member states. I have not made any representations recently, but the Department of Trade and Industry has a compliance unit which is very willing to help individuals and companies with compliance problems in any of the 12 member states. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific query, we shall of course take it up for him.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the Irish Republic's Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act 1939 under which the Government of the Irish Republic can insist that all goods supplied to the public service must be manufactured in Ireland and to the notes for tenderers which require the country of origin to be correctly described and even insist that Northern Ireland must not be described as Ireland? Does he agree that that gives suppliers in the Irish Republic an unfair advantage? Would not an appropriate temporary counter measure be to exclude it from tendering for public service contracts in the United Kingdom until it complies?

Such a course of action would not be right and it would be illegal under the directive that sets out the clear obligations of this country and of all the other member states. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are cases of discrimination in the Republic of Ireland against good offers by companies from other member states he should bring them to the Government's attention and we shall make any necessary representations on behalf of his constituents or of the companies involved.

Does my hon. Friend know that British Reinforced Concrete in my constituency was closed down last week because of a massive acquisition of its market share by a German company which also contributed to the closure of and loss of jobs in the Rugby Portland Cement subsidiary? Does he also know that there was a massive £75 million contract available to put security fencing around a Ministry of Defence establishment in Germany and that the Property Services Agency suggested that the British company came to see me because it was quite clear that there was no point in its attempting to get that contract because it had been going to a German company from the beginning? Will he examine that matter, and will the Government please do something to help British industry in that respect?

Of course I will look into that matter for my hon. Friend. If it is a contract governed by either the works or the supplies directive, the German authorities must comply with it. The Council of Ministers recently agreed compliance directives to enforce the works and supplies directives because of the concerns of my hon. Friend and others. The Government are determined that if it is fair that it is opened up here, it is fair that it is opened up there as well. That is why we have a compliance unit and that is why we will willingly take up any case about which hon. Members have good evidence to help us.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts in the EC Industry Council to discuss support for manufacturing industry.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Technology will be attending the meeting of the Industry Council on 18 November. The agenda for this meeting has not yet been fixed.

Will the Minister explain to his European counterparts why, at this time of huge trade deficit, the Government provide less support to British exporters, especially in terms of export credits, than many other European countries provide for their exporters? Is he prepared to sit back, to watch that happening and to let our trading position get worse and worse, or will he do something to help British exporters?

As the hon. Gentleman should know, Britain's trade position has been improving over the past year. Exports have been rising and have been at record levels in many sectors in recent months. That is welcome. There is a comprehensive series of services to exporters from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is active in promoting the interests of all our exporters.

In all future meetings with his EC counterparts, will my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that the things that deserve protection in Britain are protected? I am thinking of the valiant stance that has already been taken to safeguard the mile, the acre and the pint.

Willingly I pledge that. I assure the House that Ministers in the DTI are extremely keen to stand up for British interests in the EC and we do so regularly.

One subject that does not appear to have exercised the Minister's mind in his discussions with his European counterparts is the Scottish steel industry. Given that he has had the report of the Select Committee for several months, given that he has done nothing in that time and given his refusal to meet hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the closures, will he tell the House how many lost jobs in the steel industry in Scotland are acceptable to him? What does the "Department of Enterprise" intend to do about it?

I do not like the loss of any jobs, but I want a competitive and vigorous industry, run by people who know what they are doing—the managers and directors of that business. There will be an opportunity to discuss that issue in the House later this week when I am sure that hon. Members will be able to put their points more clearly.

When my hon. Friend meets his counterparts in the Industry Council, will he make it clear that the support that the French Government have given to their nationalised industries is totally unacceptable? Is not it time that we had an EC directive on privatisation, requiring countries to denationalise companies that have no place in the public sector?

That is a delightful idea, but there might be a few difficulties in negotiating it with some of our partners. As to subsidies and state involvement in nationalised industries, and the pursuit of anti-competitive practices, of course the Government regularly take up those matters with the Commission. There is an active Commissioner in Brussels who is exercised about those concerns. Indeed, recent cases have raised the issue of French intervention and subsidy for industry. The French Government are finding that some of their practices are not legal under the treaty and are being asked to roll them back.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate has been made of the United Kingdom's share of the European and world telecommunications markets and of the prospects until the end of the decade.

In 1989, the United Kingdom's share of the western European and world markets for telecommunications equipment was approximately 13 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively. No specific projections are available for the rest of the decade, but United Kingdom exports have more than doubled over the past five years. That trend should continue.

I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is unable to give any forecasts, because he has effectively given a blank cheque to American-dominated cable television companies to compete on the local loop of the telecommunications network, while denying British Telecom and other United Kingdom telecommunications operators equivalent access to the American network. Why is he not insisting on reciprocity, or is he willing to perpetuate that discrimination and allow Britain to fall from the first to the second division of the world telecommunications market?

After that welcome announcement, can my right hon. Friend tell me how an increase in competition will result from what the Director General of Oftel has told us today?

Yes. Sir Bryan has said that he will seek a change in BT's licences so that he will have the right to waive the contribution that might otherwise be required from companies competing in the introduction of new telephone services, such as local calls, cable television services, PCN—personal communication network—services, and other mobile services. That will enable companies to build up in the early stages without the adverse effect that the charge might have had. When companies are fully established they will have to pay the charge and the contribution to the existing BT network. This will be widely welcomed by all those who value competition, who want to see choice and who welcome lower prices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Government assistance to the footwear and textile industries.

Companies in the footwear and textile industries are eligible for, and have received, assistance under a range of Government schemes.

Does the Minister realise that his answer will give no comfort to those who run our textile and footwear industries, or to those who work in them? Is he aware of the huge job losses that have occurred in those two industries in the past six months, and that cities such as Leicester—and, indeed, the rest of the east midlands—have been badly hit by the recession? Is the Minister aware that many of those job losses are directly due to Government policies—high interest rates, and Government failure to provide the same kind of assistance as is provided by other Governments to their textile and footwear industries? When will the hon. Gentleman get off his hands and start doing something legitimate to protect the interests of those two vital British industries?

I am aware of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers and those are, of course, always a matter for regret. The textile industry, like other industries, has been suffering from recession, but the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that some job losses are attributable to investment in the industry, which is increasing the productivity and competitiveness of the industry and, indeed, has contributed to a successful export record. Exports of textiles and clothing increased by 12 per cent. to £4·6 billion worth in 1990. The industry deserves congratulation on that performance.

rose—

Order. If the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will take that hat off I shall call him.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the best assistance that he could give to the footwear and textile industry would be to ensure that customers, especially big notorious late paying customers, pay their bills on time? Rather than castigating the banks for not piling up more imprudent debt for British industry, would he not be better advised to call on companies to pay their bills to the footwear and textile industries more promptly?

I hope that all purchasers in British industry, whether large or small, follow good practice and pay their suppliers at least in accordance with the contract conditions.

Will the Minister tell us what representations he is making to the European Community to ensure that unfair subsidies such as those given to the textile industry in the Prato region of Italy are brought to an end? The problem has lasted for several years. The Government and the EC seem unwilling to tackle those unfair subsidies in other EC countries. The British textile industry is prepared to compete with any country on equal terms, but that is simply not happening. The situation is extremely unfair and is leading directly to job losses in cities such as Bradford, which I represent, where 14,000 jobs are still directly dependent on the textile industry.

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the British textile industry is well able to compete on that celebrated level playing field. We energetically pursue any allegations of unfair trading practices through the European Community and we are happy to listen to and follow up any submissions from the industry on those grounds. We also hope that, as a result of a successful outcome of the Uruguay round, there will be stricter rules and disciplines in which the textile industry and, indeed, all industries will have to operate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion he has had with the National Consumer Council about product safety.

I have met the National Consumer Council and its representatives on several occasions to discuss a wide range of consumer affairs, but product safety has not been raised.

Is not it curious that some products that are meant to improve health destroy the health of thousands of people? Will the Minister convey to the industry our concern at the deaths that occur every year—not only suicides but many accidental deaths among people who take drugs—especially paracetamol—that are inadequately labelled? The labels are often misleading and in microscopic print. Is that a matter which the Minister could take up, in the interests of saving many lives?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern. He did not say, however, that it is an offence to supply unsafe goods and that, after 1992, all members states will be required to apply high standards of safety. I am prepared to discuss the matter with consumer groups and I should add that we fund consumer groups to the tune of about £19 million a year and take their representations very seriously.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No. I will take it later, after the statements.

I cannot do it after the statements.

That is bad luck, I am afraid.

rose—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? He is a senior member of the Chairmen's Panel and he knows as well as any hon. Member that points of order are taken after statements. I ask him not to persist.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There can be nothing further to it.

rose—

I ask the hon. Gentleman please to resume his seat.