To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met leaders of the engineering industry to discuss assistance for investment for small businesses.

There are frequent contacts between the Government and the engineering industry. The best incentives for increased investment are low inflation, low interest rates and a growing economy, all of which are in place.

Will the Minister confirm that in his talks with the engineering industry its representatives have told him of the industry's deep commitment to an investment-led recovery, which would not only help companies that want to retool British industry but bring stable growth and help the companies that want to compete in export markets to invest? In that connection, will he also confirm that the industry sees deregulation of health and safety as at best an irrelevance and that what it wants are capital allowances to help companies throughout the industry and, specifically, investment grants to help companies in the small business sector to invest in new technology?

When we talk to industry we are continually told of the requirement to bring some deregulation to some of the forms and regulations with which it has to comply. I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about investment; in his region there has been more than £3 billion worth of inward investment, which was attracted by a Conservative Government. It would never have been attracted by a Labour Government committed to the social contract.

On the subject of investment in small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not only that the investment be used productively, but that debts can be collected promptly? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that all Government Departments pay their bills promptly, especially to small businesses?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget some time ago that the Government were consulting on the whole question of small business debts. Moreover, in the previous Budget a commitment was given that all Government contractors and subcontractors would be paid within an acceptable timescale.

Does the Minister realise that 90 per cent. of small engineering companies employ fewer than 20 people and have special difficulty in meeting the exacting new standards on zero defects and quality control? Why have the Government decided to scrap in April their cash help to small engineering companies to meet those quality control standards?

The simple fact is that what industry and small businesses want are fewer regulations. They understand that quality is important for attracting their customers—and that is exactly what they are doing.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the principal sources of renewable energy supplies in the United Kingdom in 1993.

In 1993 approximately 1,400 MW of large-scale hydro-generating capacity were operational. A further 270 MW were available from other renewable energy sources, mainly under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is lie really convinced that enough is being done to encourage a variety of renewable energy products? Is the non-fossil fuel obligation really encouraging diversity in the renewable energy industry?

I know that that is a matter of widespread concern. The whole House shares a commitment to increasing the proportion of our electricity generated from renewable sources. None the less, concern has been expressed about, among other things, the proportion of wind farms that may be established under the non-fossil fuel obligation. I shall consider that issue and I welcome the inquiry that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is making on the subject.

Is the Minister aware of the study conducted before Christmas by the Association for the Conservation of Energy which showed that burning gas in the home was about 60 per cent. efficient, while burning electricity generated by gas in the home was only 40 per cent. efficient? Does the Minister agree that that is a waste and that there is a need to reconsider the energy sector and prepare a new framework for energy before it is too late?

The Government's energy policy was clearly laid out in the White Paper following the coal review. It is important to increase the efficient use of energy and it is also important that we meet out Rio targets through, for example, increasing the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that electricity generated from gas is much more environmentally friendly than electricity generated by coal.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since he announced his conclusions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the supply of gas.

There has been a widespread welcome for the decision of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to abolish the monopoly and introduce competition to supply all parts of the gas market from 1996.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that over the past few years the real price of gas has fallen? Has he also noticed that Eastern Electricity has announced that it will reduce its prices to customers? Does he agree that that is extremely good news for all people who are concerned about VAT on household fuel and that that would not have happened had it not been for privatisation?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, gas prices have fallen in real terms since privatisation by 22 per cent. Even after the full implementation of the VAT decision, we shall see a real-terms decrease in bills for gas domestic consumers of about 7 per cent.—a considerable achievement. I welcome the decision by the electricity companies to increase competitiveness. Indeed, in my constituency, I shall be opening the headquarters of Eastern Electricity for the supply of gas to customers throughout its area. Competition is good for all consumers.

Does the Minister accept that the reorganisation of British Gas in Scotland will cost more than 1,000 jobs? Does he accept that, in addition to the loss of jobs through the setting up of five new business units, if those units are not headquartered in Scotland, there will be a loss of management control? Why is it that in the British Gas company, as in the House, Scotland supplies the bulk of the energy, but has none of the power?

Why is it that the hon. Gentleman always looks backwards? Why does not he campaign for competitors to British Gas to come in and open up their headquarters in Scotland and in the north-east?

Does the Minister realise that millions of senior citizens and other low-income consumers deeply resent the standing charges on gas, on electricity and on telecoms? Does he appreciate their concerns and will he consider doing something about it?

Why has not the hon. Gentleman got to his feet to welcome the recent reduction in prices announced by BT and the subsequent price reductions by Mercury? Why has he not welcomed my announcement about the reductions in British Gas prices? Why has he not welcomed the fact that the decision of my right hon. Friend to increase competition in the gas market may lead to competitors looking carefully at the level of standing charges?

Does the Minister accept that Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Government's conversion to opening up the gas market to greater competition, which we called for at the time of the privatisation of gas. [Laughter.] Indeed we did. Is he aware of the statement by the Director General of Ofgas to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the past week that, as the differential in distributing gas does not vary by more than 2 per cent. anywhere in the United Kingdom, the introduction of competition should lead to further downward pressure on gas prices? Is he satisfied that under those circumstances, a relaxation of the price formula of British Gas is necessary?

I am very satisfied with the decision made by the Director-General, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The hon. Gentleman's selective quoting of the position that the Liberal Democrats may have taken at one time or another is becoming a laughing matter.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of the Post Office to discuss his review of its future.

I met the Post Office chairman on 18 January and discussed a number of issues relating to the Post Office review.

Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm the statement in a letter from the general manager of North Thames and East Anglia Post Office Counters that the Post Office

"has agreed targets with the DTI"

The only grubby collusion is the technique that the hon. Gentleman uses to make in this House allegations that have no foundation. He will know that the vast majority of organisations in Post Office Counters are private sector organisations over which the Government have no control.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a letter here—

Order. I shall take points of order later.

Was my right hon. Friend able to tell the chairman of the Post Office that privatisation would not be wholly welcomed among Conservative Members, particularly those whose constituencies contain rural areas? Was he further able to discuss with the chairman the increased commercial freedom that he seeks to enable him to operate the Post Office as a normal business and to keep the dead hand of the Treasury away from its operations?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. It is extremely difficult to see how one can give commercial freedom to the Post Office to invest public money unless that money is subject to public expenditure rules. The dilemma that the Post Office faces is that overseas Governments are privatising their post offices, enabling them to compete with ours. The judgment that the House must make is how we can enable the Post Office to use its resources to fight as a major British industrial organisation—which it is—in a competitive world that is growing tougher all the time.

Does not the President appreciate that the Post Office is a success story and that everything that the Government are doing is putting that success story at risk? Is he aware that the delay that he has caused over the review is causing confusion to management; that the Treasury demand for an even bigger share of the profits is robbing management of the money for investment; and that, as a result, the Dutch public post office is now picking up business in Britain? When will the Government start backing British business instead of creating openings for foreign business?

If that is an example of the new thinking of the Labour party, I can understand why the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has announced his resignation from the House. Of course the Post Office is a success story. The issue is how we enable it to be more successful. How do we enable it to face the fact that the Dutch are privatising their post office to enable it to compete here?

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care and thoroughness with which he is conducting his review of the Post Office? He is quite right to resist quick solutions. It is more important that the eventual answer should be the right one. In reaching his decision, however, will he bear fully in mind the formidable international competition that the Post Office faces?

I am well aware of the growing international competition—and, indeed, the competition from a range of other service providers in this country—which has been eating into the Post Office's market in recent years. We are certainly concerned to ensure the health of the rural post office network and have been looking, and will continue to look, at a number of ways in which we can open up the increasing market for rural post offices. I was delighted that we were recently able to take the decision to enable them to sell fishing licences.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make a further announcement on the nuclear review.

The Government will announce the terms of reference for the review and how it will be conducted as soon as possible.

That is a helpful answer.

I am always willing to accept praise from whatever source. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I hope that it will not be too long before we can make an announcement including the terms of the review and the way in which it will be conducted. The way in which the hon. Gentleman enumerated the various different factors itself illustrates that it is most important to spend time getting the terms of reference absolutely right and to try to satisfy as many of the numerous interested parties as possible.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that work has started in the past week on a visitor centre at Bradwell power station in my constituency? Does he agree that such centres have a valuable role in spreading the message that nuclear power is one of the safest, most economic and most environmentally friendly forms of generation available?

I do agree—[Laughter] It is necessary for the full facts about the benefits of nuclear power to be made available to the public. It is unfortunate that Labour Members simply laugh at the idea that members of the public should be fully briefed on all the facts in an objective way.

Could Ministers help me with a little research on these matters? Could they ask their civil servants to research reports that there was an outbreak of leukaemia in West Cumbria during the second world war—40 years before the Sellafield plant opened?

I am very interested to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I shall find out whether there are any records of that and, if so, the implications of them.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effect of GATT on the British textiles industry.

The GATT agreement will lead to the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement over 10 years, which will be largely balanced by improved GATT rules to deal with unfair trading practices, better intellectual property rights and lower tariffs in many export markets.

Have there been any developments since my Adjournment debate two weeks ago on the continuing punitive levels of duty being levied on British textiles by some countries, especially India, Pakistan and Indonesia, which makes it almost impossible for our companies to export to those countries? Could I ask the Minister and, indeed, the European Commission to continue to apply pressure to those countries to reduce their tariffs? At the same time, I welcome the GATT deal, which is very good news for most British exporters.

Since the Adjournment debate on 27 January, we have continued our efforts to ensure that maximum pressure is brought to bear on Indonesia, India and Pakistan by the Commission. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry went to Athens to exert that pressure only last weekend. There was a preliminary meeting between the Commission and the Indonesians on 1 February and another meeting is being arranged with India and Pakistan on 4 February. As I said to my hon. Friend, the deadline for the GATT proposals to be agreed is 15 February and I have nothing further to report at this stage, except that we are continuing to exert maximum pressure on those countries.

Does the Minister realise that in six days' time there must be some definite negotiations because British jobs are at stake? Does he accept that a group of textile employers said at a meeting I attended that they regarded the GATT deal that the Government had entered into as selling the textile industry down the river? In Bradford, 11,000 direct jobs in the textile industry are at stake and real pressure, including the threat of retaliatory action, must be exerted against the 100 per cent. tariffs for British textiles that are exported. The Government negotiated entry by those other countries into the United Kingdom market, which is extremely unfair and disadvantages textile workers here.

The hon. Gentleman, as so often happens with Labour Members, welcomes the GATT agreement in the general and then attacks it in the particular. Indeed, they have a policy: if I contradict myself, so what? The Government, through the Commission, fully understand the concerns expressed by the woollen industry. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in the Adjournment debate, we will continue to put all the pressure we can on the Commission and the countries involved. Certainly, if we do not achieve our objectives, there is action that we can take under the multi-fibre arrangement, which still has some 10 years to run, either from 1 January 1995 or 1 January 1996, to apply pressure to those countries to come round to a more sensible arrangement.

May I emphasise to my hon. Friend yet again that there is genuine concern in the House and throughout the textile industry about the enormous tariffs of 80 or 100 per cent., referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, which are applied by Indonesia, Pakistan and India? Before the GATT agreement is ratified in Marrakesh in mid-April, will he ensure that no stone is left unturned in emphasising to our European Union negotiators that the jobs that will be lost in this country if we must fight this lack of free trade will never be regained?

I give, as I have already given, an undertaking that the Government will do everything that they can to ensure that we continue negotiating up to the last minute of the last hour. I should say to my hon. Friend that in Indonesia the tariff limits on wool cloth, woollens and other textiles are 40 per cent. We are talking about getting duties down to a maximum of 35 per cent. The real problems occur in India, with 85 per cent. tariffs, and Pakistan, with 125 per cent. As I have said, we will do everything that we can to reach a satisfactory conclusion for our industry.

In addition to the high levels of import duties in those countries, does not the additional question of child labour have to be faced? Will the Minister look again at the exchanges between the Leader of Opposition and the Prime Minister on 16 December, when the GATT agreement was announced to the House? Is not it a fact that child labour is turning out textiles in many countries and is not it also the case that there are no health or safety provisions for other workers in those countries? Should not we build new platforms, after the Marrakesh final act in April, which prohibit forced labour, which give protection to workers and which are against discrimination?

If there are breaches of United Nations conventions on issues such as child labour, the Government and other European, OECD and G7 countries will make sure that they are taken into consideration in our trading arrangements.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Council of Ministers yesterday announced the abolition of 6,000 quotas and, in particular, that quotas applying to the Baltic states would be abolished in the new year? However, none of those quotas included the textile industry. Will my hon. Friend urge his colleagues on the Council of Ministers to move to the next step of textile quotas?

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about quotas, although I must express considerable disappointment about the way in which the toy quota was finally settled. Quotas on textiles come within the phasing-out arrangements of the multi-fibre arrangement. That is one of the weapons in our armoury to ensure that what is happening in Indonesia, Pakistan and India comes out more favourably for the British woollen industry.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry.

Both the President and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss the privatisation of the coal industry and other matters.

Is the Minister aware that the National Rivers Authority has instructed British Coal to continue pumping mined water from the closed pits in the Durham coalfield? Is he further aware that if pumping were to cease it could be calamitous for the River Wear in particular, where the pollution would be horrendous? Will the Minister give myself, my constituents and all the people who live in the Durham area a commitment that he will instruct British Coal before privatisation to continue to pump? Will he also instruct the body that takes over after privatisation to keep pumping until it is 100 per cent. certain that pollution will not occur?

I am aware of the widespread concern about this matter in the north-east and the hon. Gentleman and others brought a delegation to see me. I assure him that, while the matter is the responsibility of the NRA as the regulatory body, the responsibilities that currently rest with British Coal will be transferred to the coal authority following the enactment of the Coal Industry Bill. I am sure that the coal authority and the NRA will co-operate, in the same way as co-operation exists at present between British Coal and the NRA.

While congratulating Malcolm Edwards and R. J. Budge on their recent purchase of certain redundant pits from British Coal, and while sending my best wishes to the miners in the pits involved, may I ask my hon. Friend to say when the hard-pressed electricity consumer may expect to see passed on the 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the generator's principal source of energy? What are the Government doing to ensure that those vast reductions in fuel costs are passed on to the consumer?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the interest of the private sector in British Coal pits. Opposition Members do not seem to realise that no fewer than eight pits are in negotiation or are controlled by the private sector. Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearrnouth are all under discussion. Why do not the Opposition welcome the success of the private sector in its negotiations with British Coal? As for my hon. Friend's specific question, that is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is in discussion with both the generators and the electricity supply companies.

Is the Minister aware of the huge anger and sense of betrayal of more than 1,000 miners who work at Ellington in my constituency at the fact that, only weeks after it announced a plan to keep the colliery in operation with a reduced work force, British Coal has announced its closure? When he meets the chairman of British Coal, will he do everything in his power to ensure that, at a time when there is genuine private interest in taking over that colliery, the pit is kept in a condition in which it can be taken over by someone else and the machinery essential for that is kept in the pit?

I am aware, of course, of the understandably strong feelings in south-east Northumberland about the proposals announced by British Coal. The chairman of British Coal has made it clear that if a decision were made to close Ellington—we cannot prejudge that because there is a modified colliery review procedure—the pit would be kept on a care and maintenance basis until the main privatisation took place. He has given me an undertaking that the equipment at Ellington and the other pits that were the subject of consideration last week under the general review procedure will not be removed from the pits unless it is essential to do so for safety reasons or because the reserves of a pit for closure are reallocated to adjacent mines. That is a major step forward.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the real concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Coal Industry Bill Second Reading debate? We expressed concern that the guidelines in mineral planning guidance 3, and the consultation process that takes place under them, should provide for a much tougher regime to prevent unsuitable applications for opencast mining in green-field sites from proceeding.

I am aware of the strong feeling on the matter. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Consultations are being held on MPG3. I personally brought to the attention of the Department my hon. Friend's speech in the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill.

Is the Minister aware that there is a suggestion among the British Association of Colliery Management people—[Interruption.] I will say it again. Is the Minister aware that there are people in BACM—the senior management of British Coal—who are saying that by March they could be down to six or eight pits only? Will he confirm that that is correct? Will he acknowledge that, in the past 18 months, the man who is sitting at his side—the President of the Board of Trade, who aspires to be the next leader of the Tory party—had the gall to talk about saving pits? He conned Parliament. He conned these tinpot Tories who talked a good fight but were no good in the ring. What is more, he conned the British people. At the same time, the Government are allowing subsidy for nuclear power and the French interconnector link. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

I think that the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the hon. Gentleman wound him up too much. It does the coal mining community and the country no good to use the scaremongering tactics which are such a feature of the hon. Gentleman's approach. Why does not he welcome the fact that Clipstone, Betws, Trentham, Coventry, Rossington, Markham Main, Calverton and Wearmouth, and perhaps other mines, are pursued for privatisation by private sector companies that want to make a success where British Coal has failed?

Does my hon. Friend accept that many people recognise that privatisation is the only hope for a competitive cost structure in the coal industry and that only a competitive cost structure can guarantee the long-term future of employment in that industry?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend—privatised industry has a great future.

On the question of a competitive cost structure, will the Minister tell the House why Manton colliery, which produces coal at prices lower than the world spot market price, is going to be closed? Does not that show that the Government have no concern for the coal industry and that the promised subsidies last year, which have saved no jobs whatsoever, were a complete sham and a distortion of the truth?

The hon. Gentleman has been shadow energy spokesman for almost two years. Surely he should know that such issues are the responsibility of British Coal and not the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the coal industry is the best thing for the miners and for the production of coal? From 1974 to 1979 the lot opposite closed 10 times more pits than we have closed in 14 years.

I wish that I could put my points across with such elegance.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to assist the aerospace industry in the north-west.

The aerospace industry in the north-west benefits from a positive business environment, Government support for military and civil exports, specific Department of Trade and Industry programmes to help the industry and substantial orders from the Ministry of Defence as a customer.

I put a similar question and the Minister gave a similar answer a month ago. What happened? In that month, British Aerospace at Lostock has shed another 300 jobs. Since the Conservative party came to power in 1979, about 5,000 jobs have been lost at that plant. When will the Minister really do something instead of coming here and talking bull?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the consistency of my answers. I suppose that if I changed them, I would be accused of making a U-turn. Naturally, we all regret the job losses, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the change in the requirements for defence equipment underlies those losses and I am sure that we all welcome the reasons for that change. The problems that that change is causing the aerospace industry are widespread. They are worldwide and do not affect merely this country.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work for British Aerospace at Warton. Does he agree that, during the past decade, the aerospace industry has made a consistent and positive contribution to the United Kingdom balance of payments—£2·3 billion last year. In contrast to the negative comments by Opposition Members, the British aerospace industry is a continuing success and will go to even greater strengths once the European fighter aircraft 2000 is built by many of my constituents.

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the industry's considerable achievements, especially in exports. The industry is uniquely helped by the Government and has received more than £1·5 billion of Government support since 1979.

Now that the Minister has expressed regret at the massive loss of jobs in the aerospace industry, what positive measures is his Department taking to give some positive encouragement to the aircraft industry for the development of the C130 large aircraft?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the reply that I just gave that the Government have given consistent and very substantial support to that industry through a number of programmes. The Royal Air Force's choice of aircraft is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I can give an assurance that my Department is keeping a close eye on the alternatives and on their importance for the British aerospace industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of Rover to BMW will allow British Aerospace to concentrate on its core activities—in particular, its aerospace activities in the north-west? Does he agree also that it is still important that Government launch aid is available for long-term civilian projects in the aviation industry?

I am glad that my hon. Friend draws attention to the advantages to the British aerospace industry of BAe's recent sale of Rover to BMW. That matter was rather overlooked by the carping critics of the Opposition. BAe emphasised the advantage when, in its letter to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, it drew attention to the fact that this arrangement enabled it to progress plans for the turbo-prop and regional jet businesses based at Prestwick and Manchester.

During the past six weeks, more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the aerospace industry in the north-west of England. The people affected will be leaving British Aerospace with a small redundancy payment after many years of service. What sort of leadership is British Aerospace giving to the industry when its chairman, John Cahill—a tax exile for nine months of the year—is to receive a golden handshake of £10 million? Would not it be better for British Aerospace to improve its business practices? Does not the Minister agree that such behaviour is totally unacceptable and totally wrong for Britain's aerospace industry?

I suppose that it would be too much to expect the hon. Gentleman to recognise the benefits to British Aerospace's aircraft interests that have been brought about by the sale which I mentioned, but perhaps even he will recognise that the figures to which he has referred—figures that he, like me, will have seen in the press—arise from the very significant increase in the value of BAe's shares. That increase reflects the market—[Interruption.] That is a typical reaction from the Labour party. A company is successful—it increases its profits and its value—and the Labour party complains. Labour Members want to see failure, not success.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the progress of his deregulation unit in reducing the number of rules and regulations affecting small businesses.

We announced about 450 deregulation measures on 19 January. Many of these will substantially benefit small businesses—for example, the abolition of the statutory audit, which will remove a useless cost from tens of thousands of small companies; and the rise in the value added tax threshold, which will free up to 75,000 small businesses from the tentacles of VAT. In future, we shall judge regulatory proposals first by the results of a small business litmus test.

In view of the tremendous commitment by the President yesterday and by the Minister responsible for deregulation, which is supported by both sides of the House, will the Minister instruct the deregulation unit to alter the individual divisional objectives that apply to the working practices of the 11,389 officials in his Department? Will he provide an incentive-related pay scheme so that the more rules and regulations his officials get rid of, the more they will be paid?

I hope that if we were to introduce such a scheme, it would apply to Ministers, too. All officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are fully committed to deregulation, as we well understand that that goes to the very heart of the competitiveness of British industry. It is the wealth that industry produces which pays the wages of all of us.

Is the Minister aware that most people will see this latest gimmick of the Government as a very thinly disguised means of reducing the protection of workers in industry in order to maximise profit? Is not that the sole intention of the legislation?

The hon. Gentleman, who, as a union wrecker and a keen supporter of the dock labour scheme, had an important part to play in the destruction of the port of Liverpool, knows quite well the consequences of absurd regulations for the jobs of British workers. I am happy to say that, as a result of our getting rid of the dock labour scheme, British ports are expanding again. The port of Liverpool is doing more trade today than it did in its heyday in the 1950s.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement made this week to modify rules on portable electrical appliances will be warmly welcomed, particularly by hoteliers in my constituency? They say that the burden on their businesses caused by regulations, especially those relating to testing electrical appliances, has been onerous and has affected their profitability.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are keenly aware of the advantages that will accrue to smaller businesses and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, particularly to tourist businesses in the west country, if we continue to take an imaginative approach to deregulation.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to extend the scope of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to embrace services as well as goods.

The Trade Descriptions Act has always applied to services as well as to goods.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain why the Government have done nothing to protect consumers from rogue cowboy firms such as those that install double glazing, carry out car repairs or service household appliances?

The simple fact is that the hon. Lady's question referred to the Trade Descriptions Act and she asked whether it would embrace services as well as goods. I have explained that it does. Under section 14 of that Act, there were 171 prosecutions in 1991–92 and 238 in 1992–93. On conviction in a magistrates court, a person is liable to a fine of up to £5,000 or, in a Crown court, an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the procedures established by his Department to determine whether a particular regulation is a burden to business; and if he will make a statement.

If Parliament is to take rational decisions, hon. Members must be informed in advance of debates of the costs that proposed legislation would impose on business. In future, a compliance cost assessment will be published with all such regulations put before Parliament. The procedures for preparing CCAs are set out in a guide which I have placed in the Library of the House.

Is the Minister aware that, although existing statute allows Ministers to replace health and safety regulations if they are out of date, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, which received a Second Reading last night, gives Ministers the power to repeal health and safety legislation without replacing it? On the day when it has been reported that accidents and ill-health at work will cost employers between £4 billion and £6 billion, will the Minister tell the House of one health and safety regulation or law which Ministers would not have the power to repeal if the Bill becomes law?

All that we seek to do by that provision in the deregulation Bill is to repeal legislation that is wholly redundant; we already have that power under legislation passed since 1974. The Health and Safety Commission has requested that change because it recognises that its cause is not assisted by all sorts of nonsense cluttering up the statute book. The Agricultural (Ladders) Regulations 1957, for instance, which regulates the number of nails that must be put in wooden ladders, and all sorts of unnecessary restrictions have been replaced by new British standards and more modern legislation.

Is it not less than satisfactory that the only safeguard against ministerial misjudgment in the exercise of delegated powers of deregulation is the consideration of a 90-minute debate on statutory instruments that are unamendable by the House? My hon. Friend may argue that there is consultation before the orders are drafted. In the case of the proposal to abolish charter market franchises, the representations were 10:1 against, but the Government are still going ahead with it. What confidence, therefore, can people have in consultation?

It comes as no surprise that the majority of those who responded to that consultation exercise possessed the monopoly privileges which we propose to abolish. Of course they were against taking away from themselves an undesirable privilege which they now possess, but I am satisfied, as a result of consultation, that the British public generally will benefit from the removal of antique, mediaeval restrictions which have no place in the modern age.

Does the Minister regard as an antique, mediaeval regulation the protection of consumers, particularly in relation to small lorry firms which, in future, will be able to park lorries under six tonnes wherever they wish and, once they receive licences, will no longer be monitored by the Department of Transport? Will he ensure that he consults the Department about the safety of our constituents before he goes ahead and abolishes rules that protect them?

I make it absolutely clear that we neither need nor desire to reduce public protection in health and safety or in other areas. In the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, as the hon. Lady will know if she has read it, there is a requirement that necessary protection should not be removed if the order-making power that we seek will be used. I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Lady mentioned, but if she would like to write to me about it, I should be happy to look into it.

Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that the European Commission is intent on banning through regulation the use of the United Kingdom standard 240-volt plug? Is he further aware that the intention is to replace it with the inferior European two-pin model? How does he anticipate that that would affect the United Kingdom electrical market? What can be done about that?

I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that no such proposal is before the Commission. If it were, I am sure that we would pay the greatest possible regard to the criticisms that he has made.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the cost to British trade of the implementation of sanctions by the United Nations against (a) Libya and (b) Iraq.

It is impossible to say what the cost has been to British trade of the implementation of United Nations sanctions against Libya and Iraq.

May I ask a question that offends conventional wisdom? In view of the quite appalling and horrendous nutrition-related infant mortality that some of us have seen in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, with rows and rows of babies expiring; the ambiguities of policy, those grey areas highlighted not least by Sir Robin Butler in front of the Scott inquiry this morning; and the profound doubts as to whether the Libyan state was the prime mover in the Lockerbie crime—God knows that was awful, because it was the police in my area who had to clear it up—could not the Government at least consider whether this sanctions policy is justified and whether they have to go the whole way with Washington? After all, Iraq and Libya were traditionally British markets, not American markets. Let us not be American led.

I know the hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling on this subject, but it is not going along with Washington—it is going along with the sanctions that were approved and imposed through the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the consequences were Britain to be the only one out of 187 countries to opt out of the sanctions arrangements that were agreed and accepted through the United Nations Security Council. I cannot imagine that that would find more favour with Opposition Members than with Conservative Members.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the nature of the reply, may I ask for a Thursday Adjournment debate in your gift?

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study he plans to conduct of the competitiveness of British manufacturing with particular reference to (a) exchange rate competitiveness, (b) investment and (c) labour productivity; and if he will make a statement.

I have already announced that the Government will be publishing a White Paper on competitiveness in response to the forthcoming report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

Before the President of the Board of Trade rushes to print, perhaps I can help him. Is not it correct that, in a market economy, the chief determinant of manufacturing success is price competitiveness and that that, in turn, is largely determined by exchange rate competitiveness? Cannot that be demonstrated by looking at the increase in manufactured exports since White Wednesday, which is four times greater to those non-EEC markets against which our devaluation was greatest than it is to EEC markets? That being so, is not it crazy to allow the Bank of England to sabotage an historic opportunity to recover the manufacturing base of this country by encouraging the pound back up against the deutschmark?

The hon. Gentleman will have his own views on what constitutes competitiveness; but he may well wish to apply the test provided by today's CBI survey, which reveals that all regions report strong growth in both business and export optimism. That is excellent news for British industry, the economy and the country, and disastrous news for Labour.

Do not our recent labour market reforms mean that Britain's international competitiveness is now better than ever?

My hon. Friend has made his point briefly, and extremely well. Today's economic indicators are as favourable as any that I can remember.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although we are competitive at present and the dollar-pound exchange rate is good for British industry, over recent months—since White Wednesday—the pound has been in danger of appreciating against the deutschmark? Not only is that bad for our position in Europe but we have come up against German manufacturers which are reducing prices like mad in other markets throughout the world. While we await a report that will be of great interest to all hon. Members, is it not vital to maintain exchange competitiveness with the deutsch mark in Europe and elsewhere?

I accept at once that it is necessary to remain competitive amid all the current factors. The Labour party should bear in mind the effect that the imposition of the social charter would have on British industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of trade and the internal position of British industry have never been better than they are now? We have a real chance to flatten the international competition both inside and outside Europe. Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to scotch the myth that ours is a low-wage, sweatshop economy? It is our total payroll costs that are lower; we are not a low-wage economy. We are beginning to achieve high productivity, which will enable us to afford high wages.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a remarkable set of economic statistics behind us and our productivity has risen very sharply. That is another reason for us to cling on to our advantages, rather than frittering them away in the manner threatened by so many of Labour's policies.

Does the President of the Board of Trade really believe that we can compete with other nations when we invest less than they do? Is he aware that last week's figures show investment in manufacturing industry to be 12 per cent. down on the 1979 figure? They also show that under the Conservatives, manufacturing investment, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has in no year matched any year's investment under Labour. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to give us good news, will he tell us in what year the Government will return manufacturing investment to where it was before they ran it down?

The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be preoccupied with the results obtained from investment. He doubtless includes in his figures our investment in a range of nationalised industries that then lost money. The real test lies in the fact that British exports are at an all-time high, in a real market with real products and profits earned by real people—as opposed to phoney policies from a phoney party.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department is taking to help redundant workers in defence-related industries return to work.

In addition to the substantial help available to redundant workers from the Department of Employment, areas that are adversely affected by defence changes have benefited from the European Community Konver initiative, which was worth some £.15·5 million to the United Kingdom. As a result, a regional technology centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will receive £300,000 and Essex training and enterprise council will receive £125,000.

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the sense of pleasure and relief that was felt when the Essex bid was found to have been successful, before Christmas? Does he recognise the pleasure and surprise that Chelmsford will feel today on learning that the amount provided to assist the training of redundant defence workers will be £125,000, rather than the £54,000 that was expected?

I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that he and his constituents were misinformed about the scale of the assistance for Essex TEC. That was due to a minor administrative slip-up—"a bank error in your favour", as they say.

I welcome the successful Hampshire bid for the Konver programme, but will the Minister explain why the unanimous feeling in the Hampshire area among local authorities, business people and trade unions is that local councils and Europe care about jobs for defence workers, but they cannot point to any tangible initiative by the British Government to provide for them?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a wide range of schemes to help workers who, unfortunately, have lost their jobs in an area. We have, however, given specific help by changing tack seminars and changing tack manuals, and through a range of DTI schemes for companies in the defence sector, to help them adapt their output so that they can adapt to the changing demand for defence equipment. It would be unrealistic not to recognise that we do not want to reverse the reasons for that change of demand.