To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average investment per employee per annum in manufacturing in the period from 1987 to 1991.

During the period 1987–91, investment per employee in manufacturing averaged £2,700.

Despite progress, does my right hon. Friend agree with the aims of the National Manufacturing Council for the need to double investment in the next few years? Does he further agree that there has never been any excuse for investment such as our competitors achieve, because of the increased level of profitability that this country has had under this Conservative Government and the previous one?

I very much welcome the work of the National Manufacturing Council of the CBI and am much encouraged by the ambitious targets that it has set. I agree that the present economic statistics are as favourable as I can remember.

Does not the President of the Board of Trade realise that the figures for investment per employee depend on the number of employees? Is he saying, therefore, that the 600 Pirelli workers in the cable factory at Eastleigh, who lost their jobs last year because there was no house building to support their cable production, were part of a cunning plan to improve British statistics?

The hon. Gentleman will know that a major change is going on as British industry achieves higher levels of productivity. He would serve his country far better if he recognised the need to do that, and stopped making ridiculous party political points out of the exercise.

In promoting investment, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech last week in which he complained of Euro-sclerosis? Is not Euro-sclerosis bad for British investment? Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on maintaining the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers to stop damaging legislation coming—

Order. That does not relate one jot to the main question. The President will reply to the first part of the question, please.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to the Stockton lecture that I gave last week. It is vital that the whole of the Community addresses the issue of competitiveness. From that we will all gain.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average rate of interest on loans from financial institutions to small firms and the average period for repayment.

The most recent Bank of England study shows that the average margin over base rates is slightly under 3 per cent. for businesses with a turnover of less than £10 million. For term loans, 26 per cent. were repayable over a period of up to five years, and the remainder over longer periods with 15 per cent. repayable over periods exceeding 20 years.

It is difficult to reconcile the daily experience of small firms with the Minister's answer, because they are being strangled by short-term loans at prohibitively high interest rates that do not appear to bear any relation to the base rate. Why do not the Government establish new joint ventures with the financial institutions and the banks to provide long-term, low-cost finance, like our more successful competitor countries? Or is he happy to perpetuate the curse of the British economy— short-termism?

The hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard the answer. What we have seen, and what the answer shows, is that many of the long-term loans are taken out on favourable conditions. We currently have the lowest base rate for some 20 years —5.5 per cent. That is welcomed by British industry.

While one recognises the present very low base rates and low rates of inflation, which can only be good for investment intentions for small and other companies, does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a demand among smaller companies for longer-term, non-equity finance? In that regard, will he accept our congratulations on the new venture capital trusts and ensure that those trusts look at amounts below £2 million, which will be relevant for smaller firms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly points out some of the schemes that have been taken forward—and, indeed, some that were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent Budget statement.

Will the Minister acknowledge that as businesses benefit from the recovery, their ability to repay loans can be inhibited, because they are being squeezed by large companies by which they are owed money but which are slow in repaying it? What progress are the Government making towards presenting firm—as opposed to general—proposals to ensure that companies are not prevented from paying their debts because their customers do not pay them?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are currently consulting about the problem of late debt payments. Overall, our information suggests that the position may not be as bad as it was, but I accept that it is a serious issue. Once our consultations are concluded, we shall announce our considered opinion.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many animal traps were exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

The information requested is not available from official sources.

May I remind the Minister that in this country we still manufacture snares—which slaughter large numbers of wild animals—and leg traps? I know that the Minister is an animal lover; is it not inconsistent that leg traps, whose use is illegal in this country, should be exported, and will he close that loophole?

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know, however, that the Department of Trade and Industry is not responsible for the design of animal traps, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that the Department of the Environment is responsible for United Kingdom policy within the European Union. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends in those Departments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in many parts of the world, rodents and other pests cost countries immense amounts of money, and also have a tremendous impact on food sources? Is it not good, therefore, that British manufacturers are supplying equipment to deal with the problem?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I understand, however, that there are no significant exports of such traps from this country.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the gas industry.

Together with the Office of Gas Supply, I will shortly issue a consultation paper on the future regulation of the gas industry.

Is the Minister aware that, for a little more than 10 years, British Gas has operated a domestic meter replacement programme, which has undoubtedly been in the interests of the domestic consumer? Will he assure the House that, as that programme has begun to slip, he will take steps to ensure that the consumer interest is served, and British Gas returns to the programme that it originally promised?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which relates particularly to a factory in his constituency. As he knows, this is a matter for British Gas and Ofgas, and I understand that discussions are in progress.

How has regulation of the gas industry compared with the days of public ownership, in terms of the delivery of better service and lower prices? Can anything be learned from our other denationalised industries?

Since privatisation, domestic gas prices have fallen by more than 23 per cent. and industrial prices by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.

Is the Minister fully committed to ensuring that the Energy Saving Trust works effectively? If so, what steps will he take to ensure that the gas industry contributes financially to the trust, so that it can save energy, rather than allowing it to go on being wasted as it is now?

I understand the importance that is attached to energy efficiency. The achievement of carbon savings by that means is one of our Rio commitments. Discussions are in progress with all interested parties.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread disappointment that three of British Gas's five new business headquarters are located in the south-east, and that the furthest north is in Nottingham? Can he think of any reason, for business purposes, why British Gas should not put one of its headquarters in the region from which the gas comes, or where the majority of consumers are? Will he press British Gas—if it does not wish to become South-East Gas—to distribute its new area headquarters in the north, Scotland and Wales, to provide a regional identity that matches some of its loyal customers in those regions?

Coming from the party that set up many of the nationalised industries, all of which had their headquarters in London, that is pure humbug.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to assist manufacturing industry in the regions.

All United Kingdom manufacturers will benefit from the underlying strength of the economy and the best set of economic indicators for many years. Our new initiatives for integrated regional offices and business links will help to ensure that manufacturers in the regions can take full advantage of this.

Are not the 200,000 British manufacturing jobs that have been lost since the last general election a sign not of success but of Government failure? When will the Secretary of State take positive action to stem the haemorrhage of skills, talent and enterprise from regions such as the north, or is he content, as usual, merely to sit back and see the country's future being poured down the drain?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand that most of the jobs have been lost because of the drive for efficiency and improved productivity on which the future of those companies depends. There is no choice but to make our industries competitive. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to see this country's economy cut to ribbons, all they have to do is say that we should overman it and have levels of productivity that are not world-competitive.

Will my right hon. Friend continue with his splendid set of policies, which have played an important part in the spectacular resurgence of British manufacturing in the past two years, and which have led to an increase of 1 per cent. in manufacturing output in the month of January alone?

In the spirit of your instructions, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.

Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that, as the recovery gathers momentum, the new jobs will occur in the areas of high service employment, not in the manufacturing areas of Scotland, Wales and the north? Does he not realise, therefore, that special incentives are needed for manufacturing industry in those regions?

I do not believe in the overly simple generalisations in which the hon. Gentleman dressed his question. Large parts of our manufacturing industry are extremely competitive today and stand poised to seek the upturn in world trade which is evidently on its way.

Although I recognise the immensely improved economic climate that has been brought about as a result of the Government's policy for manufacturing industry—not least the base rate, interest rates and the establishment of business link, one of which is, I am pleased to say, in Macclesfield—will my right hon. Friend accept that the reintroduction of capital allowances would be of immediate benefit to manufacturing industry and would perhaps bring investment based on success, which this country needs?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks about business link, and I am delighted that Macclesfield is one of the first centres to have such a facility. He will remember, however, that manufacturing output in the fourth quarter of 1993 was 2.2 per cent. higher than a year ago, and that continued opportunity exists without any change to the fiscal arrangements, which must be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is aware that, for many purposes, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office have a dual role in attracting inward investment to Wales. I am also sure that he, as a good European, will accept that many regional authorities in Europe are playing an increasing role in attracting inward investment. Does he agree that the Welsh Office should have the lead role in attracting that investment to Wales?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the remarkable achievements that have taken place in Wales as a result of the activities of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency in the past 10 years. I should have thought that he would support and build on them, without looking for structural change.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most assists manufacturing industries in the regions is long-term low inflation, which we now have, low interest rates—we now have the lowest since 1972—and the fact that we have the lowest level of strikes since 1891? Does he agree that those three trends would be reversed if the Labour party ever got back into power?

My hon. Friend has little to worry about, because it is evident from Labour Members' questions that there is not the slightest chance of that party ever getting back into power. The fact is that the economic circumstances are now as good as any that I can remember. We must all back British industry in its quest for increasing world markets, enjoying the fact that exports are at an all-time record level.

Will the President of the Board of Trade examine closely the opportunity to keep our highly skilled engineers in the shipbuilding industry at work by making available for ship conversion the small element of assistance that is available in other European Union countries?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is a complex issue. Broadly, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to seek to eliminate those subsidies, not to increase the numbers available. However, we must always consider what specific effects they may have on British shipyards. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry was able to announce that we were able to give temporary help to Swan Hunter in the difficult circumstances it faced.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to manufacturing industry in Britain would be the danger of the high social costs that would follow the implementation of the social chapter, and that it would make so much of our industry uncompetitive in world markets? What representations has my right hon. Friend received from industry on that subject?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of the social chapter. It so happens that, by coincidence, I have a press release from the CBI which addresses that point specifically in terms of the Labour party's policy on the social chapter. It says that it

"ignores the rest of the world, ignores the whole purpose of the single market, and ignores the unemployed."

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to assist the traditional industries of Leicester.

I recently conducted the annual review of city challenge, which is available in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. A decision on future progress will be made shortly. The first business link in the country opened in Leicester on 27 September, with some £725,000 funding from the Department of Trade and Industry. Combined with the other measures that we are taking, we are doing a considerable amount in Leicester.

What would the Minister say to Mr. Charles Bradshaw, the managing director of a major clothing company in my constituency, who complains that the Government have allowed numerous manufacturing companies in Leicestershire to go to the wall, that Leicestershire's industry has suffered enormously and that they are looking to the Government for real help in reviving manufacturing industry? What help in reviving manufacturing industry and getting it off its knees are the Government intending to give?

I can only say that if the person to whom the hon. and learned Member is referring is complaining, he is probably disappointed with the representation that he is getting in the House—a disappointment with the Opposition which is shared by Conservative Members.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Marconi Radar of Chelmsford has a manufacturing base in Leicester, and does he accept that the damage done to GEC Marconi in Leicester by the Opposition parties and by certain newspapers will only have been redeemed— hopefully—by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) on the "Today" programme the other day? Will he congratulate our hon. Friend on seeking to redress the imbalance caused by the Opposition parties?

That does not need an answer from me. I am always happy to congratulate my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that there are 30,000 jobs in Leicester and the surrounding county in the traditional industries of clothing and textiles and that, if the multi-fibre arrangement is phased out by 2005, many of those jobs will disappear? Would he estimate how many jobs will be left in 10 years' time?

We all recognise the importance of the traditional industries in Leicester, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. May I point out to him that, in the Leicester travel-to-work area in January 1986, unemployment was 9.7 per cent. and that the latest figure is 8.8 per cent.—a reduction of more than 10 per cent? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of donations given by companies employing members of his deregulation task forces to political parties.

That information is not known to my Department or to me. The implication behind the question shows the essentially puerile approach of the hon. Lady and her party to the serious need to reduce business costs as a means of reducing unemployment.

Did the Minister make an assessment of health and safety records, or of the breaching of any regulations by those companies before he appointed them? Did he ask consumer groups for their views of the companies, or was he concerned only to know how much the companies had donated to the Tory party?

I was concerned to know only how to improve the competitiveness of British industry by getting rid of redundant regulations and making more cost effective those that are necessary, and hence reducing unemployment. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is more interested in playing party games.

Will my hon. Friend consider a list of donations by trade unions to members of the Opposition Front-Bench team, and will he consider whether it would make them worth employing for the deregulation task forces?

The difference between us and the Labour party is that it, as a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, is concerned to load extra costs on British business and to destroy jobs, whereas we are concerned to listen to the voice of experience in British business, to reduce those costs and to promote employment.

Is the Minister satisfied that he gets good value for the millions of pounds that his Department spends on company investigations, bearing in mind that, although there have been 82 published reports, only four directors, and no company auditors, have been disbarred? Is he concerned about the fact that, to investigate companies, his Department has often been known to hire accountants from companies that are themselves the subject of investigations, and that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—partners from companies that have been criticised by his Department often sit on the disciplinary panels—

Order. I have brought to the attention of the House several times lately the fact that Question Time is not a time for debate. We are dealing with direct questions. Will the Minister respond?

In deciding whether to pursue prosecutions against those who have breached company law, we follow the normal rules by which all parties in government have always operated. We take proper legal advice, and we believe in acting by due process of law.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in removing regulatory burdens, other than opening hours, on food retailing businesses.

A review has been completed of controls on a number of foodstuffs covered by European Community hygiene directives. Departments are also looking at the problems caused to retailers by food temperature controls, and at the scope afforded by the EC general hygiene directive to simplify existing domestic regulations.

Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the horrifying material in the book by Christopher Booker, a man of Somerset? Will he act on that material? If he opens the book at random, on page 145 he will see how a local government official went into a shop—not, alas, in my constituency—said, "I have the power to close businesses like this down," and then visited the shop, a bakery, three times during the following six months. Will he act to help shops in my constituency that, again at random, have come to my attention, such as those in North Curry and Kingston St. Mary?

As I appear in the book, I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to me as part of the horrifying material. We should all be grateful to Mr. Christopher Booker for the publicity that he has given to some of the horrors of over-regulation and excessive zeal by some enforcement officers. I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the items well to the fore in the deregulation initiative.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern in the north-west about the impact of out-of-town shopping centres on existing town centres? Will he talk to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to changing planning law to make impact on existing retail businesses a planning consideration when deciding on new applications? If he cannot do that, will he assure retail businesses in the north-west that they will not go totally out of business and lose thousands of jobs simply because of the present inadequacy of the planning laws?

As an act of kindness, I shall show my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hon. Lady's question.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Prime Minister on his achievement at the last Edinburgh summit, which means that 75 per cent. of all EC legislation must be tested for employment measures? Will he urge the Community to take that further so that it can create more employment?

I shall do precisely that in Brussels tomorrow. It is vital that Europe does not continue to export jobs to other parts of the world as a result of failing to cost the impact of the regulations that it has sometimes unthinkingly issued in the past. As for the future, we shall provide a systematic mechanism for costing the impact of regulations. I hope that it will produce better regulations.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of illnesses caused by food poisoning and that it is vital that food safety is not imperilled by deregulation? Will he give us an absolute guarantee that safety in this matter is paramount?

I agree that there is a sensible point of view to be taken on this question. In our deregulation initiative, the costs for business will not necessarily be the deciding factor in the decision whether to allow a regulation to continue or to be introduced. It is always a question of balance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, losing one's balance can sometimes get one into trouble.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in United Kingdom exports over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

In the first 11 months of 1993, export volume was over 3 per cent. higher than in the same period a year earlier.

My hon. Friend will be aware that much of our increased trade is with the booming economies of Asia. But is he aware that a trade mission from the Suffolk chamber of trade and commerce is currently in Malaysia and Singapore? Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating that mission on securing orders which will boost employment in the county of Suffolk?

I echo what my hon. Friend says. The chamber of commerce mission there has been very successful. Despite the efforts of Mr. Andrew Neil and others, it has achieved more orders than last year.

The House will welcome the export efforts of our major companies, but, despite their heroic efforts in difficult circumstances, the United Kingdom's balance of payments problem remains acute. That can be put down to the policies of the Government.

The balance of payments percentage figures are lower now than at any time since 1982.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is extreme concern in my constituency among manufacturing industries? The chairman of one such company came to see me last week to say that his company has two £500,000 orders waiting to be signed in Malaysia. Will my hon. Friend use his best offices to ensure that the damage caused by the editor of The Sunday Times is put right as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend. If I may, Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, who has written to me to

"express the concern of trade unions about the damaging consequences for jobs in British industry if the current restriction on the involvement of British companies in public work projects imposed by the Government of Malaysia is not lifted … We therefore support the government's efforts to restore good trading relations and we are confident that our trade union colleagues in Malaysia take a similar view."

We welcome the exchange that the Minister has had with the TUC. Does he accept that Her Majesty's Opposition have always given their full support to our export drive, and continue to give it full support today— and will continue to do so in the future? Anyone who seeks to maintain the contrary is guilty of base calumny.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's confirmation that the Opposition will do all that they can to help British exporters. I am not sure that that was always the case in the past.

I recognise that a beneficial change for exporters was the improvement in the Export Credits Guarantee Department regime announced in the Budget. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at the bonding support to small and medium-sized businesses? As those businesses increasingly win overseas orders, they come up against their bonding limits and, in some cases, they are prevented from even tendering for overseas contracts because of the bonding support position.

I am perfectly happy to look at that matter on behalf of my hon. Friend. I should point out that, during the past two years, the premium rates have reduced by some 27 per cent. and the amount of cover made available to British industry has increased by some £2 billion. Today, I see that the ECGD has announced that it is supporting a major new order with GEC Alsthom in inner Mongolia.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further estimate he has made of the number of gas appliance installers who are failing to register with the Council for Registered Gas Installers.

I have made no such estimate.

What action does the Minister intend to take to reduce the number deaths—one a week—caused by carbon monoxide poisoning? Is it a part of the Government's deregulation policy that they allow thousands of cowboy outfits to install gas appliances?

All businesses must register and, of course, we have no intention of imperilling safety.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in Germany.

Industrial production rose by nearly 3 per cent. in the UK last year, but fell by 7 per cent. in Germany. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission are forecasting that the UK will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.

Would my right hon. Friend like to spell out some of the reasons behind the remarkable change in the industrial prospects of the two countries? Will he hazard a guess as to whether that change will be permanent?

The reasons are to be found in the fact that our exchange rate is competitive, our interest rates are low, our industrial relations are the best in 100 years, our inflation is low and our productivity has been rising significantly. That gives us a remarkable opportunity if we can contain the inflationary pressures, which the Government are determined to do.

The President of the Board of Trade must be aware of the tremendous input of the people of South Yorkshire in those figures. Will he, therefore, ensure that the Rechar money to create that manufacturing base is made available to improve on those figures?

We shall do whatever we properly can to ensure that the Rechar money is distributed where it can do the most good. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that none of the excellent indicators to which I have referred could have been achieved without the dedication of the British work force. The fact that we now have the trade unions off the backs of working people means that we have achieved quite remarkable productivity gains.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that worry German industrialists is the way in which social and welfare costs in Germany are loaded on to employers' costs and the costs of employment? In this country, the same social and welfare programmes are funded by the taxpayer. Does that not represent the best possible deal for British wealth creators and the British social programme? Will my right hon. Friend use his role as the defender of the interests of the wealth-creating sector and of other Whitehall Departments to ensure that that deal is not broken, no matter what emanates from Brussels in the future?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important aspect of our competitiveness. Underlying the Government's strength is the opt-out provision, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which gives us a real opportunity to pioneer in Europe and to change attitudes towards the costs which increasingly mirror the anxieties of the Europeans.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that we can maintain adequate industrial growth without a successful engineering steel industry? How can he justify the grossly inadequate response of Her Majesty's Government to the unfair practices in the EC steel-producing areas?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry secured clear assurances from the European Commission in December that there would be no revenue subsidies, that there would be close monitoring of any aid given to the industry and that there would be a reduction in capacity. He will also welcome the fact that the privatised British Steel is now one of the most effective steel producers in the world.

How much does my right hon. Friend estimate that industrial production will be reduced by the damaging speeches of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on the Pergau dam?

I have no doubt that the speeches of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and of the leader of the Labour party would be capable of reducing jobs in Britain, provided that one condition was fulfilled, and it is extremely unlikely that that would ever happen—that anyone took a blind bit of notice of either of them.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of steel production covered by the treaty of Paris is manufactured in the United Kingdom.

In 1993, 12.9 per cent. of crude steel production covered by the treaty of Paris was manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister realise that, notwithstanding the statement made about the courageous performance that he put up in Brussels in December, the other steel industries in Europe are far more subsidised than the industry in Britain and there remains a serious danger to British steel industry jobs? What can he say to steelworkers in my constituency working next door in Port Talbot about the safety of their jobs in those circumstances?

I recognise that there is continuing concern about illegal subsidies paid to other European producers. I assure the House that we want the Commission to act as vigorously against those subsidies as it has against the alleged cartel.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the transformation in the British steel industry, which was losing £1 million a day in 1979 and is now the most efficient steel industry in western Europe?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all at British Steel—management and work force—on what they have achieved in productivity gains. We now want them to be able to take advantage of their productivity improvements and their competitiveness against other European steel producers.

In December last year, the Minister promised before his negotiations in Brussels that he would save British Steel capacity and jobs from unfair subsidised competition. Why has he failed to deliver that promise? Why have all his negotiations proved to be such an abject failure? Will he give a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in capacity in British Steel and no further job losses? Or are all his words to come to nothing?

British Steel does not appear to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. It is reported to have said:

"Mr. Sainsbury has done well pushing our line over the last few months but it appears he has not found support around the table."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that the steel industry has been made efficient in Britain as a result of privatisation, the best way in which the continental industries can reach the same level of efficiency is to be privatised and not subsidised?

My hon. Friend puts the point extremely effectively. Privatisation would lead to a much more efficient European steel industry.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to visit Japan to discuss investment in the United Kingdom.

I have no plans to visit Japan in the near future, although I had a most useful visit in January, during which I had the opportunity to discuss inward investment with several key Japanese industrialists.

As the Secretary of State and his Government have given up encouraging British investment in British industry and rely increasingly on the Japanese, on his next visit would he like to discuss with Japanese industrialists who are thinking about investing here the shabby way in which British Aerospace treated its partner Honda when it sold Rover behind Honda's back? What does he think that that will do to encourage the confidence of Japanese investors?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that discussions took place with Honda about these matters as they were taking place with BMW. The fact is that the board of British Aerospace decided that the best interests of British Aerospace and the company that it looked after were served by a deal with BMW. It would do the hon. Gentleman a great deal more good if he would now concentrate on building on the success of the deal that is available rather than on the problems of one that is not.

Is there not some irony in this new-found love of Japanese investment among Opposition Members? Did they not complain bitterly when Honda first became involved in Rover? Is not the lesson of the days when Red Robbo and his mates were cranking out Allegros and Marinas—that is, when they were not asleep or on strike—that the less say that politicians, particularly Labour politicians, have in who runs the car industry, the better?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the disastrous investments that the Labour party made in the British motor industry, which were partly responsible for its collapse and, therefore, the fact that so much of it is now foreign owned. The United Kingdom has more than 41 per cent. of total Japanese investment in the European Community, and it must be in the interests even of Opposition Members to understand that we should admire that, praise it and seek to build on it.

Does the President of the Board of Trade realise the amount of damage that will be done not only to our prospects for future investment from Japan but directly to Rover if there is a complete breach between Honda and Rover? Is he prepared to play an active part in ensuring that such a breach does not happen?

I have no grounds for believing that either side is approaching the difficult negotiations that it has to undertake with anything other than a realisation that they must be successfully concluded. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, the moment I appeared, the consequence would be simple—sboth sides would ask me for taxpayers' money to support their own ambitions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a major reason why this country receives the lion's share of Japanese investment in Europe is that non-wage labour costs are much lower in the United Kingdom than on the continent? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the differential is maintained?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the opt-out clause that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated is so important. Japanese investors in this country know full well that they have a Government who are sympathetic to their interests and who will fight their corner as British companies when they invest here, so they have continued to come. The surest way of choking off Japanese investment would be to have a Labour Government, with their determination to impose on Japanese potential investors costs that they would not wish to pay.

Does the Minister recall hearing the Minister for Industry assuring the House in the statement on Rover in January that his Department would do all it could to help the relationship between Honda and Rover to continue? In view of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that, the moment he appears, taxpayers' money will be required, will he explain what his colleague meant when he said that the Department would do all it could and tell us whether he and his Ministers are doing anything at all to keep the relationship open?

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that we have had conversations with both parties on a continuing basis, but there is absolutely no guarantee that my Department's offering in some way to facilitate the dialogue would be in the best interests of either of the parties negotiating.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecasts have been made for industrial growth for 1994 in the United Kingdom and in other EC countries.

The United Kingdom and Ireland are estimated to be the only EC economies where industrial production rose last year. Both the Organisaton for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these excellent forecasts demonstrate that many British companies are thriving in the economic framework that the Government have put in place, particularly low interest rates, low inflation, low corporation tax and the important supply side performance of the past 15 years? Is not this the best way to promote industrial growth—for the Government to put in place the right framework and let industry get on with it?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We believe that the present framework is one of the most exciting to have been available to British industry in recent decades. We give a wide range of additional support to our companies in many different sectors and will continue to ensure to the best of our ability that the services that we provide are of the highest standard.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect more sales of the airbus to the United States? When will the general agreement on tariffs and trade on outstanding aerospace matters begin? Will he pledge that the Government will fight the corner for that great industry?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will do all that we can properly do to support that industry. The negotiations that were left outstanding at the initial conclusion of the GATT round are scheduled to be completed as early as practicable. We shall continue to watch carefully to see what happens. I do not wish to make a forecast about the precise sales, which must be a matter for the companies involved.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regional offices have been established, and where; and what further locations are planned.

There will be 10 integrated regional offices and a number of sub-offices. I shall arrange for the locations to be published in the Official Report.

The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he also reassure the House on the methods of co-ordination and co-operation to be established between the offices, local training and enterprise councils, local chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities—all of which will be particularly important in the development plans of the Sussex prime port of Newhaven?

I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the port of Newhaven. The creation of the integrated regional offices will facilitate the sort of co-operation between Departments, training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce and industry and local authorities to which he refers.

There will be new integrated regional offices in 10 regions: London; South East, based in London and other locations in the region; South West, based in Bristol; Eastern, based in Cambridge and Bedford; East Midlands, based in Nottingham; West Midlands, based in Birmingham; Yorkshire and Humberside, based in Leeds; North East, based in Newcastle; North West, based in Manchester; and Merseyside, based in Liverpool.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Japanese companies opened their first European manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom in each of the calendar years from 1987 to 1993.

From information available to my Department it is not possible to determine whether any particular investment during the period in question is the first by a Japanese company in Europe. However, the number of Japanese manufacturers making their first investments in the United Kingdom in each of the years from 1987 to 1993 is as follows: 1987, 23; 1988, 15; 1989, 29; 1990, 34; 1991, 23; 1992, 17; and 1993, nine.

I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to congratulate Yorkshire and Humberside development association on the successful conference on Anglo-Japanese partnership last week. Will he acknowledge that many of the investments that the Japanese brought to this country required the co-operation at local level of Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that Labour-controlled authorities have an excellent record in co-operating with development organisations to produce those settlements? Does he also agree that the shortfall in numbers shown by the two figures of 17 and nine that he gave for the past two years is the result of a complex number of factors? It certainly provides no evidence that the rejection of the social chapter by the Conservative party helped to secure Japanese inward investment.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the figures show beyond any doubt what we all know—that the Japanese industrial economy has been going through one of the most difficult periods since the war. I would be the first to recognise that local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative, largely behave in a responsible way in trying to help the Government and all those involved in inward investment to secure satisfactory arrangements. I wish that the Labour party in the House of Commons would act with the responsibility of local authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why Japanese companies have invested in this country is our system of low regulation levels compared with those of many of our counterparts in the EC? Will he join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his stalwart action in stopping any changes to the blocking minority in the Council of Ministers?

I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the support of my hon. Friend, as well as others of my hon. Friends, for the negotiations that he is conducting.

Does the President accept that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) will be greeted with astonishment and disgust by my constituents in Longbridge? Does he not recognise that unless the rift between Rover and Honda is repaired, the casualties will be many jobs in my constituency and elsewhere? Will he accept his responsibility to intervene and ensure that the rift is repaired and that the new partnership can be as successful as the old one?

The hon. Gentleman assumes that there is a role for the Government in what are essentially commercial arrangements. There is not a shred of evidence to show that either party wants the Government to intervene in this circumstance. If I thought that there was a danger of breakdown, that might change the circumstance, but there is no evidence of such a danger. Over the past three days, I have had personal dialogue with one of the principal players. Those people would have made very clear their views if it were necessary for me to take any positive steps at this stage. No purpose whatsoever is served when the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends raises scares of this sort, which are not reflected in the dialogue going on at boardroom level.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that south Wales has become the silicon valley of Europe, producing Japanese colour television sets and computers, and that the Staffordshire-Derbyshire corridor has become the Detroit of Europe, with its Toyota plant? Does he agree that if it were up to the Labour party's interventionist policies and support for the social chapter, there would be no Japanese investment in Britain at all?

I cannot but admire the neo-imperialism of my hon. Friend. We have achieved a triumph of inward investment in all parts of the country. The essence of the case is to keep Britain competitive so that the investment continues to come.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the operation of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to the use of associated companies to make political donations.

The responsibility for reporting political donations rests with the companies making them. Under section 234 and schedule 7 to the Companies Act 1985, parent companies are obliged to disclose in the directors' report political donations exceeding £200 in aggregate made by it and all its subsidiaries, including foreign ones. I have no plans for any further review.

Does that not show staggering complacency? Is the Minister aware that, arising from the contracts for the Pergau dam, which were let to firms contributing to Tory party funds, there is considerable suspicion here that the bribery was not in Malaysia but on the part of the United Kingdom Government?

Only those who are easily staggered will be staggered by my response, but we are not surprised at the hon. Gentleman's.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the staggering wisdom of his last reply. Will he confirm that during the 1980s British industry, under Conservative policies, grew faster than industry in any other country? Under Conservative policies, British industry is now coming out of recession faster than industry in any other country. Does that not show that investment in the Conservative party is a sound commercial decision and the best investment that companies can ever make and that investment in any other party is the shortest route to bankruptcy yet devised by man?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is staggering that the Labour party has still not learnt the lesson that improved competitiveness is the way to increase employment. As Labour Members are incapable of learning that lesson, they will never be in a position to form the Government of this country.

Is the Minister aware that, in response to parliamentary questions about 41 quangos that I tabled last year, we were told that 127 members of those bodies were connected with companies that donate to the Tory party? Is it not clear that what is going on is an auction for places on quangos— appointments in return for donations to the Conservative party?

That matter was comprehensively debated in the House recently, and the Labour party was comprehensively trounced.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average profit or loss per vehicle when the Rover car company was a nationalised industry.

The British Leyland group did not produce figures for profitability per vehicle for its constituent businesses. From 1975 until privatisation, the taxpayer invested about £3.5 billion in British Leyland. At the end of that period, Rover had trading tax losses of £1.6 billion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the British car industry was bankrupt under the weight of unions, nationalisation and socialism? Does he also agree with me that during the past 15 years of Conservative Government this country has never had it so good? [Interruption.] Even the lot opposite have given up Lambeth and cloth caps for Chelsea and baseball caps.

If we had not reversed the policies of the Labour party, instead of British car production being at the best level since 1972, it might have disappeared altogether.

On Rover, has the Minister seen the television programmes in which executives of Honda were interviewed, and said repeatedly that they were treated shabbily, and in one case treated dishonourably, by the British? Do Ministers have a view on that? Will they stand up and say what they believe has happened in that specific case?

I fear that I may have rather less time to watch television than the hon. Gentleman and I did not see the television programme to which he referred. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade confirmed this afternoon, the Government welcome inward investment from Japan and, indeed, from all other countries.