To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's policies to bring new industry to the north.

We seek to ensure that the north and all other regions in the United Kingdom benefit from the prosperity which new industry brings.

To everyone listening in the northern region that will seem a pathetic reply, especially when regional assistance to it has been cut by 78 per cent. since 1979, unemployment has been higher there for each of the past 20 years and when the recovery was weaker in the second half of last year than it was in the first

The hon. Gentleman has not managed to improve on his record when he was advising the previous Leader of the Opposition. He does not appear to know the unemployment figures in his constituency, which have fallen sharply since 1986, and he completely downgrades the tremendous success of the northern region in attracting companies such as Nissan and Fujitsu. I am suprised that he, as a new Member, does not spend more of his time praising the people of the north, the Northern Development Company and other organisations on their spectacular success in attracting inward investment to the north.

Has not the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) just quoted figures that were bloated in 1978 by the massive subsidies paid to loss-making industries, particularly steel and shipbuilding? Is not it the case that, since then, we have diverted much of that money more profitably and usefully into Teeside development corporation, Tyne and Wear development corporation and the Northern Development Company as well as a host of other agencies that have brought new investments to the north and are currently constructing several new advance factories, one of which I shall have the honour of opening on Friday?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I very much hope that inward investors will look to the messages delivered by my hon. Friend rather than to those of Opposition Members.

The Minister would be better advised to use his energy to answer the questions specifically put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rather than simply trading in personal abuse.

I am delighted to be exchanging pleasantries once again across the Dispatch Box with the hon. Gentleman now that he has followed me from education. Obviously he has not done his homework in this new area of responsibilities. He knows perfectly well that we await decisions on regional assistance in the light of the current overall look at the map.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the conclusions of his review of the Government's energy policy.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British Coal about the future of the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to be able to publish the coal review White Paper as soon as possible next month. As part of the review process I meet British Coal as necessary to discuss a range of issues.

Any fair-minded person will recognise that resolving the problems that my right hon. Friend inherited will require some cost—whether financial, legislative or ideological. Will my right hon. Friend carefully examine the case for more private enterprise, rather than more subsidy, in the coal industry? Will he also take a hard look at the hidden subsidy that the British consumer pays, through the channel link, to the French nuclear industry and to the dash for gas?

I know of my hon. Friend's concern in such matters and I assure him that both the Select Committee and, I hope, my Department have carried out an extremely comprehensive and thorough review. I hope shortly to put the findings of the review before the House and I assure my hon. Friend that the matters that he has raised will be included in our review.

Will the Secretary of State investigate the astonishing claim made earlier this week by the chief executive of Scottish Power that, towards the end of last year, British Coal did not even bid for a contract to supply 800,000 tonnes of coal to Scottish power stations, so that Scottish Power had almost no option but to go for subsidised imports? In view of the Government's complete lack of an integrated energy policy and the fact that the Secretary of State was found guilty of flouting the law by unnecessarily closing pits, will the right hon. Gentleman face up to his responsibilities and intervene to save the British coal industry, or resign and make way for someone who will?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the specific issue of tendering for coal supplies to the Scottish electricity industry or any other consumer is a matter for British Coal. I shall certainly draw the attention of British Coal to the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. British Coal is charged with the responsibility of advancing the interests of British coal and it must decide whether to bid for contracts. As to the hon. Gentleman's general observations, he will find that our review will be extremely comprehensive and we shall look carefully at the large subsidies in the energy industry, many of which we have sought to reduce during the past decade to fulfil our energy policy objective of providing a diversity of supply at competitive prices.

In my right hon. Friend's deliberations on the future energy policy of the United Kingdom, will he take into account his Department's renewable energy advisory group recommendations, in particular the generation target of 1500 MW by the year 2000 and the idea of a renewable energy obligation? Will he also look into the sensible use of combined heat and power and municipal waste-to-energy schemes? When is he likely to make his decisions on those matters?

My hon. Friend raises two more aspects of the wide-ranging review that we are conducting. I assure him that we shall deal with both matters when we produce our White Paper.

As part of his review of energy policy, will the President of the Board of Trade give the House the time scale for the review of the 10 pits ordered by the High Court? Will he assure the House that that review will be no less thorough and rigorous than that of the 21 pits? Will he allow coaling to start in the 10 pits so that the reviews may be of equal parity and importance and conducted on an equal basis?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We have asked Boyds—an internationally respected firm of consultants—to introduce the degree of independence to the consultative processes now under way in the light of our judgment of the court findings. It is now for Boyds to conduct the review and we have asked it to look at the evidence and the state of the pits. That matter was also raised in the light of the assurances given by the chairman of British Coal to myself, the Select Committee and the courts. It is for Boyds to determine the speed at which it conducts its review, which must be done thoroughly. It is for British Coal to consult the unions on whether they accept the element of independence that the appointment that I have made could provide in the circumstances. When the exercise has been conducted and I have received the report, I shall ensure that the House is fully informed.

While conducting his review of energy policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a proper balance between all forms of energy, with particular reference to the North sea oil and gas industry, which contributes an important amount to the economy of the north-east of Scotland?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all aspects of energy provision are considered in our review and that is what we are doing.

Has the President already forgotten that since last Question Time, the courts have ruled that his decision of 13 October was unlawful and that his decision of 19 October to shut 10 pits was both unlawful and irrational?

The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we have continual discussions with British Coal, which is responsible for the management of pits. We have not instructed British Coal to resume coaling at the 10 pits, for the simple reason that it advises us that it does not need the additional coal. It already has large stocks, both at the pithead and with the generators. The contractual prospects for British Coal would not justify the additional cost of extracting that coal now.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my local council—Labour-controlled Kirklees—is imposing smokeless zones on the rural parts of my constituency, despite the fact that the council's own figures show that emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide are well within the legal limit? The result will be that hundreds, if not thousands, of local households will switch from burning coal to burning gas. Is not that Labour hypocrisy in action?

My hon. Friend brings out one of the less attractive features of the controversy that has surrounded the pit closures. It must also be said that we have not heard a great deal from the environmental lobbies, which were so vociferous in urging us to achieve better environmental standards in this area.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's support for the British mining industry.

We are engaged in a wide-ranging review of the prospects for 21 of the pits proposed for closure by British Coal, in the context of the Government's energy policy. We shall shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out the results of that review, which will then be debated in the House.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that in view of the High Court's ruling that British Coal and the Government acted unlawfully in closing the 10 collieries, which include Parkside in my constituency, he will ensure that the criteria under which Boyds reviews those collieries will be exactly the same as the criteria being used in the review of the other 21 collieries? Everyone could then be sure that those 10 collieries were getting a fair deal.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, Boyds' report on the 21 pits plus the additional 19 will be published. With regard to the report on the 10 pits which my right hon. Friend has asked Boyds to prepare, both the unions and British Coal will be consulted. We assume that that report will also be published and made available. At that stage, the House will have an opportunity to consider it, as well as the report that is shortly to be published on the 21 pits plus the additional 19.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many thousands of miners are finding it extremely difficult to decide on their future before they know the future of their industry? Therefore, will he talk to Mr. Clarke urgently and ask that the special redundancy and early retirement arrangements be kept in force for at least another six months so that those men are relieved of the intolerable, agonising pressures that they face at the moment?

We are acutely conscious of that point, which Mr. Neil Greatrex of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers made to me this morning.

The 90 days are almost up.

We have said—I think that this must be right—that we should not make any decision, nor should we press British Coal to make any decision, in advance of the publication of the White Paper, because that obviously has a bearing. The two are interconnected.

Before reaching any conclusions, will the Minister take particular care to consider the total cost of the closures as well as the sterilisation of large volumes of coal? Will he take even more care in considering the recommendations of the electricity regulator in the recent report on electricity purchasing which appears to ignore the costs of production and reaches conclusions that are not justified by the facts, which are known to the hon. Gentleman, his Department and every hon. Member who is concerned about this matter?

Of course, the matters mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's first point will be considered as part of the review. The responsibility for the report is Professor Stephen Littlechild's, but, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, that report is one of the factors that we shall consider as part of the review. It may help the House, as the matter was raised from a sedentary position, if I add that the 90 days is the minimum consultation period.

Bearing in mind the huge anxiety among the mining communities about the final outcome, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that the Boyds' report on the 10 pits and the reports of the Select Committees on Employment and on Trade and Industry will all be the subject of the Government's conclusions in their White Paper before we come to the House and discuss it with a view to determining our future energy policy?

It will be important to have those documents available, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the coal industry faces a major crisis at the beginning of April when there are no contracts for coal. If we were to delay the publication of all the documents in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, no coaling at all may be possible on 1 April. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want that, but I shall bear in mind his other points.

The Minister clarified his reply to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) in relation to the 90-day period and the special redundancy terms that have been offered. Will those redundancy terms remain on the table until the various problems that flow from the court decision are resolved? Can we take it that the offer will remain for as long as it takes to resolve the matter? That is the men's worry at present and the Minister was not specific in his reply.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. First, I repeat that the 90-day consultation period is a minimum period, so no miner should be under the impression, as I understand some are, that on 30 January the position will suddenly change from what it was on 29 January.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the change in manufacturing productivity for the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Manufacturing productivity in the three months to October 1992 was at record levels, 2 per cent. higher than in the previous three months and 5 per cent. higher than the same period a year earlier.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Would he care to speculate on what those figures might be if all the restrictive practices that we abandoned, abolished and swept away were reimposed according to the policy of the Labour party?

That is a good point. It is ghastly to contemplate where we might be if we had not introduced our reforms of industrial relations law, in the teeth of persistent opposition from Labour.

Does the Minister accept that in the real world, under a Conservative Government, total employment in manufacturing continues to decline, particularly in the west midlands? Instead of planting silly questions such as this, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what action the Government will take to save this vital sector of British Industry?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to have an internationally competitive manufacturing sector, its productivity must be of the highest standard. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that, because of our changes to industrial relations law, productivity growth in manufacturing industry since 1979 has been three times as fast as that achieved under the last Labour Government.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister for Trade to the People's Republic of China.

I made a visit to Guangzhou between 3 and 5 January with a team of 20 senior business men, to pursue important opportunities in the fastest-growing region of the world. I made clear our long-term commitment to a significant expansion of trade between the United Kingdom and China. Our substantial commercial presence in Hong Kong has a vital role to play in this process.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful journey, which was made at a difficult time for Anglo-Chinese relations. Does he believe that British business is taking full advantage of the opportunities that China has to offer?

I do not think that we are taking full advantage, but we are taking much greater advantage than we were even a year ago. As my hon. Friend said, there are immense opportunities for British business in China. We have a long trading relationship with the country, which is one of the fastest-growing markets in the world. It is a market which we must and will enter and I am sure that we shall be successful in it.

The Minister will be aware that we have sold nose-cone radar for fighter aircraft to the Republic of China. Last time the issue was raised in the House, he told us that there was a ban on arms trade. Is that ban extant?

Yes, Madam.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that a rather vociferous and sometimes short-sighted minority in Hong Kong does not imperil our relations with the Republic of China, on which so many jobs and so much else will depend in the future?

The governor's proposals for the 1992 elections strike me as entirely consistent with both the Basic Law and the joint declaration. China has been invited to discuss those proposals with us; in the mean time, our trade with China continues. The vice-premier of China, Zhu Rongji, and the mayors of Suzhou and Shanghai have recently visited this country and I have every confidence that business between our two countries will continue to grow.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current cost of the cultural programme administered by overseas trade division 3 of his Department.

My Department does not normally administer cultural programmes. However, overseas trade division 3 had a budget of £1.4 million for the cultural and entertainment programme connected with Expo 92.

Did the existence of that cultural programme come as a surprise to the Minister and his officials? Is not that symptomatic of the absence of any serious promotion of British trade abroad? Are not the Government so ashamed of the Britain that they have run down over the past 14 years that they cannot promote British culture or help our exporters?

I was not in the slightest bit surprised by our cultural budget for Expo. We can teach anyone in the world about culture, and we did so at Expo. The British day was the most successful of all national days at Expo because of our immense cultural attainments.

Given the importance of our cultural programmes overseas and the fact that the Sri Lankan Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Abeygunasekera, is currently visiting the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm his belief in the importance of our trade and cultural relations with Sri Lanka and, indeed, our admiration for that country's domestic policies?

Yes, although Sri Lanka is rather far from Seville.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the mining engineering sector.

Our policy, as for all other sectors of industry, is to help United Kingdom companies to compete successfully at home and abroad.

As the Minister will recall, I have already expressed my concern about the implications of Government policy on the coal industry for the export efforts of the British mining engineering sector. Is he aware that the British Jeffrey Diamond Company in my constituency has developed an award-winning leading edge technology in switched reluctance variable speed drives? [Laughter.] That is what it says here. Is the Minister aware that there is major export potential, but that the company and the industry as a whole are concerned that Government policies for coal are destroying the future potential of such products, which can earn for Britain, because our shop window to show these products is being destroyed with the British coal industry?

May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reading his hand? I am aware of the importance of the British coal industry to the British mining equipment industry and I understand the difficulties to which he drew attention. It is right to point out that the mining equipment industry has been a successful exporter which runs a positive balance of trade surplus. We are working hard to help it to promote exports in areas such as China.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a company called Wallacetown Engineering in my constituency which specialises in electrical mining equipment? It currently has representatives in China seeking new business in view of the difficulties in the coal industry. There are encouraging messages, but may I have an assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry will do all in its power to encourage and help companies such as Wallacetown Engineering?

It was precisely to help such companies that I went to China, and for precisely that reason that we are seeking to reach an agreement between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and Chinese banks to facilitate coal equipment exports.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet motor manufacturers to discuss measures to support the engineering sector.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will be meeting the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and senior representatives of the leading vehicle manufacturers later today.

At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance, as set out in detail in the Bangemann report, of pre-competitive co-operation in the development of high technology products? Will he also bear in mind moves to encourage further inward investment which, in successful areas such as Milton Keynes, now accounts for 18 per cent. of our employment?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend on both points. He mentioned inward investment. The success of inward investment evident in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, is attributable largely to the creation of the right economic climate, a climate of low taxation, good industrial relations and minimum regulation—the very factors which would be most put at risk by Labour's policies.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in ridding industry of unnecessary legislative burdens.

We have taken a wide range of measures in Whitehall, in town halls and in the European Community to promote deregulation. For the first time, all Government Departments have had to undertake a census of their regulations. Following that, by 1 April they will be providing me with their candidates for repeal and simplification.

I am sure that many people employed in the wealth-generating sector of the economy in my constituency and in the rest of the country will be encouraged by my hon. Friend's positive response. Will he assure the House that, in considering those important matters, the Government understand that what bothers the entrepreneur and imposes a high cost burden on industry is not just one individual piece of legislation, but an amalgam of hundreds of them?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the greatest burden of regulation falls upon smaller businesses. That is a tremendous distraction from wealth creation and job creation, and we at the Department of Trade and Industry are determined to play our part in reducing that burden.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the problems experienced by exporters, especially in the implementation of the single market? Their job has not become easier, despite no longer having to regain certain classes of papers, because under the new value added tax regulations they have to find out the VAT numbers of the persons to whom they are exporting. They have considerable difficulty, especially when dealing with countries where the cultural attitude to tax matters is different from our own.

I agree that, although the single European market offers great opportunities for businesses in this country and, overall, has reduced the burden of regulation, there is still much more that can be done. I am keeping a wary eye out for opportunities to reduce the burdens. If the hon. Gentleman comes across any examples among his constituents' businesses, I should be grateful if he would send me the details.

Most hon. Members will give enthusiastic support to my hon. Friend's vigorous campaign to get rid of unnecessary burdens and overbearing Government measures affecting all sorts of industries, but will he ensure that he is informed of any new burdens proposed by other Departments, especially regulations and secondary legislation? Supported by the President of the Board of Trade, will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that, at the highest level, Ministers are told to bring proposals to him first to find out whether they are really necessary?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has been a doughty fighter in the cause of deregulation for many years in the House. Each Department now has its own deregulation Minister, whose responsibility within that Department is to ensure that if any new regulations are proposed they are proportionate and not too costly to businesses in this country. The deregulation initiative is centrally co-ordinated from within my Department, so I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall subject proposals from other Departments for increased regulation to the closest possible scrutiny.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many warnings have been issued by his Department under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to manufacturers and distributors of dangerous children's toys.

Since October 1987 my Department has served 18 prohibition notices on named companies prohibiting them from supplying toy-like items which were considered to pose a choking hazard. My Department does, of course, from time to time offer informal advice to traders on matters relating to the safety of toys and other consumer goods.

With so many official recalls of dangerous children's toys, kettles, car tyres, washing machines and electric light bulbs, is it not clear to the Minister that his system is ineffective and leaves tens of thousands of consumers at serious risk from dangerous products?

No, I do not take that view. Trading standards officers are responsible for enforcing the Consumer Protection Act. The hon. Gentleman's original question referred to toys. Under the directive on the safety of toys, trading standards officers have all the powers that they need. That directive is extremely detailed and lays down strict criteria as to how toys should be manufactured and retailed. There is no evidence that trading standards officers do not have sufficient powers to ensure that toys are safe.

Is my hon. Friend aware that have a very great vested interest in receiving a successful answer to my question as I am a purchaser of toys for my god-daughter—his daughter? I believe that consumers, both purchasers and recipients, should have the benefit of some kind of British safety standard so that it might at least be clear that a toy is safe for my hon. Friend's daughter.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be relieved to hear that if he were to attempt to buy for my daughter anything called Splat Balls, Splat Eggs, Splat Tomatoes, Slime Balls, Sticky Balls, Tacky Wacky Wall Rollers, Spike Balls, Sticky Flying Hammers, Hand Hammer Sticky Catchers, Sticky Hand, Sticky Flicker or Sticky Troll, that would be illegal under consumer protection legislation.

How does the Minister defend the present recall system, which leaves four out of five dangerous articles in the hands of consumers? The system is ineffective and open to abuse by manufacturers and retailers.

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a slime ball and should get his tacky hands off—[interruption.]

Order. As hon. Members will have seen, I was rather distracted when the remark that has caused the interruption was made. However, from the reaction of the House I take it that it was made in good humour.

Of course it was made in good humour, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman and I get on extremely well in respect of all these matters, as he knows.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to tackle the problem of late payment of debt.

The Government are already addressing the problem of late payment with a range of measures, including pilots with trade associations and new Government contracting terms.

Does the Minister agree that late settlement of debt has caused many small businesses to go to the wall, not only in Rochdale but throughout the country, that this has led to increased unemployment and that the trend will continue in the foreseeable future? Does he agree that Government measures to date have not ended late settlement of debt? Is it not time we had a statutory requirement that interest be paid on overdue debts?

The hon. Lady is, of course, correct in saying that this is a very serious problem for small businesses. We keep these matters constantly under review, and we have an open mind about the question of a statutory requirement that interest be paid on overdue debts. The problem—a difficult and serious one—is that it would simply result in larger companies' imposing longer credit terms on their contractors. Other countries in the European Community have such provisions. France and Italy are examples, but their late payment problem is worse than ours. Denmark and Germany, too, have such provisions, but the fact that they do not have the same problem is probably due as much to cultural factors as to statutory controls. Most small business organisations—such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Commerce—support our present stand.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members have campaigned for many years for improvement in respect of the question of late payment, which is so very debilitating to small businesses, especially at this time? Does my hon. Friend know that small businesses say that some of the biggest companies in this country are among the worst payers?

I pay tribute to the campaign waged by a number of hon. Members with regard to the late payment problem. As well as keeping an open mind about the need for legislation in the future, it is vital that the Government should set an example—indeed, there is a requirement that Government Departments pay promptly, within 30 days —and to ensure that prompt payment goes down the line to subcontractors. The campaign waged by hon. Members has had an effect on Government action, and I am delighted to say that the Association of District Councils has taken up the campaign with regard to the need for prompt payment by local authorities and that trade associations, too, are following the problem through.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on changes in the manufacturing base of the economy.

Over the 1980s, manufacturing output grew at the same rate as in Germany, and faster than in France and in Italy. Output in the three months to October was higher than at the end of 1991.

Is the Minister aware of the plight of the machine tool industry—a key high-tech and capital goods industry at the heart of the British manufacturing base which has lost 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom market in the past three years? Will the Minister tell the House why he thinks that that has happened? What does he intend to do about it?

I appreciate that the machine tool industry has suffered severely during the recession. It is understandable that it would be one of the industries likely to suffer most and therefore it is equally likely to benefit as the upturn comes, so long as we retain the competitive position that we now have with low taxation, less regulation and a competitive exchange rate.

What actions have arisen in Government policy in the light of the submission from the Engineering Employers Federation?

It was an interesting submission and we have studied it carefully. We have discussed and will continue to discuss it with the Engineering Employers Federation. As I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, a careful reading of the report—rather than some of the press comment that accompanied its release—will show that there is much in it which is being done or has already been done on the recommendations made to the Government.

Will the Minister accept that the manufacturing base is fast disappearing in the black country of the midlands—an area in which there was more wealth created per acre than anywhere else in the world. The latest casualty is Cannon Industries in Coseley. Unless we can save it, the plant is to be closed, with the loss of 900 jobs. The company has been trading satisfactorily for the past 175 years and makes top-quality products—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now doing a public relations exercise instead of putting a question.

Not at all.

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come to his question.

I am speaking for the 900 workers who will lose their jobs, and for their families. What do the Government intend to do about that?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman could use his public relations skills to praise the achievements of British manufacturing industry. Manufacturing output— [Interruption.] The Opposition may not wish to hear, but the country should know that manufacturing output is now one fifth higher than it was 10 years ago, manufacturing investment is one third higher, productivity is more than one half higher and export volume is four fifths higher.

I entirely endorse the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). What response will my right hon. Friend give to the Engineering Employers Federation on the excellent campaign that it has launched? Will he admit that the manufacturing industries of this country, together with construction, are the only source of non-inflationary economic growth? What action does he intend to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the two Budgets this year to broaden our manufacturing base? Although my right hon. Friend gave some optimistic forecasts and statistics, the fact is that we have one of the narrowest manufacturing bases in the European Community.

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of manufacturing industry. I am sure that we share the wish to see the manufacturing base expand. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement responded very adequately to the needs of manufacturing industry.

The Minister will recognise that the British aerospace industry, which is our largest exporter, is facing a period of considerable change and difficulty. Last Friday the largest order for cargo aircraft ever placed was placed with Boeing. What action has the Minister taken to ensure that British Rolls-Royce engines are used for that order?

The hon. Member is well aware of the difficulties being experienced by the aerospace industry internationally, partly due to the cutback in defence requirements. My Department works closely with the aerospace industry and keeps very close contact with it in all its aspects in order to promote the interests of British manufacturers. I am happy to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the export achievements of the aero-engine sector and Rolls-Royce in particular.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the work of the industrial competitiveness division.

I attach great importance to the work of the industrial competitiveness division, which is central to my drive to make the Department of Trade and Industry a real partner to British business. The division provides me with a wide range of advice on the United Kingdom's competitiveness, based on research at home and abroad, which I take into account when considering Government policy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am delighted that he takes information from that division into account in formulating Government policy. That is a change from what some of his predecessors have done. Nevertheless, does he agree that it is vital for the information gathered by the division to be disseminated to British industry so that industry knows where it is lacking and where it can compete to drive out imports and increase exports? Will my right hon. Friend please say how he will get this information through to British industry?

I very much sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. He will realise that we have a wide range of contacts with British industry, both large and small companies. The purpose of the competitiveness division is not to produce one jumbo report, but to continue to advise us. We shall therefore use all the avenues available to us, through the sectoral divisions or through the one-stop shops that we are pioneering, to communicate information to the companies where appropriate.

When can the right hon. Gentleman get the problems of manufacturing at the head of the Government's agenda? When shall we see an end to the indecision and drift which are at the heart of industrial policy in Britain today? Would it not be better to invest in manufacturing rather than go for quick profits from privatisation sales?

Order. I feel that perhaps the hon. Gentleman is putting a supplementary to the wrong question. We are here concerned simply with the division in the Board of Trade which is concerned with industrial competitiveness.

I understand the point that the hon. Member was making, but I am at a loss to understand how he can criticise the Government when his own party has produced a budget designed to cut back on the levels of investment in British industry by a windfall tax on consumers of British-manufactured products.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement about the coal industry.

If I may, Madam Speaker, I will answer this question and question 18 together—

Order. I was not informed that questions 15 and 18 were to be linked. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal only with question 15 at this stage.

In that case, Madam Speaker, I will not answer question 18 in conjunction with question 15.

Is it not true that, according to the High Court, the review turned out to be illegal, that the 90 days' consultative period is up on 27 January and that miners at some of the pits are being told by local management that if they do not take their redundancy pay by this weekend they will lose their £10,000 supplementary redundancy pay? It is a form of blackmail. We need an assurance that since the Government acted illegally and the High Court has ruled that the consultative period must be extended, those redundancy payments will be extended as well. We expect better from this Government, who ought to have been surcharged—especially the right hon. Gentleman, who has cost the mining industry £100 million, including miners' lost wages. If he had been a member of a Labour council, he would have been surcharged.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the courts did not deal with the review that we are talking about. However, I wish to deal very seriously with the essence of his point, which is about the availability of the redundancy terms. The redundancy terms are available until the end of March, and it is clear—[Interruption.] No, the official 90 days—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was ever interested in the answer to any question, he would listen to what I have to say because it is vital to the people whom he represents and, of course, to a wide range of other hon. Members' constituents.

Following the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy to a question on the special redundancy scheme, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that scheme could continue after the end of March as the matter is causing great concern to many miners and their families?

I quite understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. I can assure her that we shall deal with that issue in the White Paper and that the redundancy terms will be available until that review is published, and then we shall clarify the future.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will he now clarify that, as the British Coal 10-day pit closure was declared invalid and illegal, the 90-day consultation period is meaningless and invalid? Will he now give a categorical assurance, as the Prime Minister has written to the miners' parliamentary group saying that the 10-pit review which he has now spoken about is independent of the other 20 pits and that the 90-day consultation period must be introduced again from the day the right hon. Gentleman presents the review to the House?

Obviously, I have read with great care the judgment which, of course, has not yet been perfected; nevertheless, I have read all the evidence that I can. It seems to me that the judge was saying that I should ensure that there is a degree of independence in so far as it lay to me to do so. It was with that in mind that I appointed Boyds to conduct the review of the 10 pits. The point remains that the 90 days is a minimum period. I have made it absolutely clear that, before any further decisions are taken in terms of the closure of those pits, the House will have an opportunity to debate the outcome of the White Paper.

What conclusions does my right hon. Friend draw from the fate of Kloeckner, the leading west German steel maker which recently declared bankruptcy because of Germany's high-price energy policy and because of Germany's policy of protecting its coal industry from competition? Does that not show that, if we protect one industry from competition, we simply load costs and job losses on to others?

My hon. Friend obviously makes a most important point, which underlies our determination to achieve competitiveness in British industry. It would be inappropriate for me to analyse the precise reasons for the failure of that steel company in Germany, but it is absolutely self-evident that the British Government have negotiated to ensure that some of the more onerous social costs of the German economy are not imposed here.

Will the Minister reassure the House that his White Paper will take into account the recommendations of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and of the Employment Select Committee? Is he aware that the chairman of British Coal, who told the Employment Select Committee that he had been too busy to go down any pit to meet affected miners, has announced that tomorrow, by a strange coincidence, he will go down a pit at precisely the time the Employment Select Committee is to put out its report? Did the right hon. Gentleman know about that? Were the Government told that that unworthy public relations exercise was to happen?

I think that my Department received that information by way of a press release. To go back to the substance of the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, obviously it is the Government's intention to take account of the views of the Employment Select Committee, which the hon. and learned Gentleman chairs, and of the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It looks as though that will now be possible, as we had always intended. We could not have known that at the outcome, but certainly that is what we have sought to achieve.

Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that, however tempting, it may be dangerous and, indeed, foolish to postpone economic change any longer than necessary? Is he aware that, from 1987—when the closure of the last pit in my constituency was announced —to the end of 1992, more than 11,000 new businesses were registered for VAT by the South Derbyshire VAT office, and that the unemployment rate in my constituency is 6 per cent? None of that would have been possible if we had struggled to keep that dead old pit open. Will the President of the Board of Trade take that point of view into account?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made. There is no doubt at all that it is one of the obligations of my Department to pursue energy policies that make competitive prices available to our manufacturing base and to domestic consumers.

May I press on the President of the Board of Trade the points made by my hon. Friends about the extension of the period for enhanced redundancies? Is he aware that there is a view in many of the pits that he will not extend the deadline beyond 31 March so that he can pressure miners to make a decision immediately to leave the pits? If that happened, the Government could claim that the miners had taken voluntary rather than compulsory redundancy. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that if he does not report on his review until the end of February, there will be only five weeks left until 31 March for those people to make important decisions about their future lives? Why does he not now have the confidence to say that, whatever the outcome of the review, the deadline will be extended if there are to be redundancies?

It is obvious that if one is conducting a wide-ranging review into all aspects of the pit closure programme in the context of our White Paper, the issue of subsequent redundancies and the terms of them must be part of that review. The redundancy terms are available until 31 March, and I hope that we shall have a debate in the House before that date.