To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of his reduction in the grant of the National Consumer Council.

I am confident that the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers as a whole.

How can the Minister justify that statement after making a cut in the grant to the National Consumer Council? When will he restore that cut to protect consumers in this country?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the National Consumer Council has done well over the years with funding increases, from some £0.32 million in 1975-76 to £2.47 million in 1994-95—an increase of some 80 per cent. in real terms. I think that that shows the Government's commitment to the National Consumer Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while consumer bodies such as the National Consumer Council have a role to play, consumers' interests are best served by maximising competition within free and open markets? Is that not what the Government have been achieving over the past 15 years through the rigorous use of competition policies and, most important, by privatising the old state-owned nationalised industries so that consumers' interests now take top priority?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We have seen time and again that competition reduces prices. Perhaps the most outstanding example of that is telecommunications.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufacturing products in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available.

In 1979, the United Kingdom had a surplus of £2.7 billion in manufactured trade. In 1993, there was a deficit of £7.8 billion. Since 1979, the volume of UK exports of manufactures has grown by 60 per cent.

As the Minister mumbled those disgraceful figures into the Dispatch Box, perhaps I can spell them out a little more clearly. The £2.7 billion surplus in 1979, in real terms, at current prices, would be a £6.8 billion surplus which, after 15 oil-rich years, is now a £7.8 billion deficit. What is the latest Government thinking about a scapegoat for that? Is it the foreigners, the unions, or Labour local authorities? Is it too much to expect the Minister to give us a parliamentary first today and stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the country for representing a Government of the most appalling economic and industrial incompetence?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Labour-controlled local authorities have anything to do with the manufacturing decline of this country, he lives in cloud cuckoo land, as do most of his hon. Friends. If he and his colleagues had been in power, there would have been no reform of the trade unions, no privatisation of public utilities and every business man in the country would have fled because of the tax impositions advocated by Labour Members.

As one of those hon. Members who, probably more than many others, recognised the vital role of manufacturing industry, I fully support the Government's new approach to it and their recognition of its importance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government continue to create the right climate for the expansion of manufacturing industry, especially low inflation and low interest rates which are essential to the success of this vital sector?

Yes.

When does the Minister expect to publish his report on the competitiveness of British manufacturing industry? Will he set out in that report his Department's priorities specifically to rebuild the British manufacturing base so that we can secure the advantages of the post-GATT eighth round? Will he be prepared to build into that incentives for companies that make long-term commitments to research and development and innovation in order to counter the short-termism which so often discourages such enterprise?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The Minister invited the House to imagine what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in power. Why does he not admit that if a Labour Government had transformed a surplus of £7 billion at 1993 prices to a deficit of £7 billion in 1993 he would be demanding that they resign? Why does he not take that message himself? Why does he not admit that the cumulative surplus under Labour was more than £80 billion and that the cumulative deficit under the Conservatives has been more than £80 billion? Is that not the real measure of the appalling damage done to our manufacturing industry by 15 years of Conservative rule?

If the hon. Gentleman, with his total lack of understanding and knowledge of industry, had been in power, the deficit would have been £17 billion rather than £7 billion. If he examined the percentages for a moment, he would find that the deficit now is 1¼ per cent. of gross domestic product and the surplus in 1979 was 1½ per cent., so the difference is about 2⅔ per cent. That total number in terms of the size of the economy, when compared with the increase in the surplus on services, is almost meaningless.

Is it not a fact that our balance of trade in manufacturing was falling very sharply in the 1960s and 1970s and especially in the latter part of the 1970s but that since then our record in manufacturing exports, output and productivity has for the first time since the war been better than the average of our main competitors? Does that not mean that in the past 15 years we have made up much of the ground lost when Labour was implementing its industrial strategy to turn British Steel into the world's largest loss maker and British cars into the butt of international music hall jokes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To cite just one statistic, in the three months to the end of February our exports to Asia have risen by 25 per cent. in value. In the same three months last year, they rose by 11 per cent. in value. Britain's success in increasing our manufacturing exports is unrivalled by that of any other country.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further assessment he has made of the impact on consumer advisory services of the real-terms reduction in grant to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux plays an important and valuable role in its support of local citizens advice bureaux. We have more than doubled the grant in aid paid to NACAB in real terms since 1979-80, and I am confident that maintaining the grant in 1993-94 will enable it to provide continued support.

The Minister did not mention that he has cut the grant to citizens advice bureaux for the current year. Citizens advice bureaux in the west midlands, an area which he knows very well, last year received the largest number of inquiries of any region in the United Kingdom, but they will be unable to provide the same level of service to consumers in the forthcoming year. When does he intend to make good the cuts?

As I have explained, there have been no cuts. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the west midlands, as I hope that he will join me in congratulating Conservative-controlled Wolverhampton council on increasing the grant paid to the citizens advice bureaux in his own constituency. When the Conservatives took control, they increased the grant by some 25 per cent. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate them on the excellent job that they are doing.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the representations made by his Department to the European Commission concerning Interreg 2 and maritime borders.

Northern Ireland does not qualify for a sea border Interreg programme because it does not have an international sea border with another member state. However, the Government are confident that there will be increased support for Northern Ireland under a successor to its Interreg programme with the Republic of Ireland.

Does the Minister not appreciate that if the Interreg 2 programme remains confined to maritime borders and is not expanded to include maritime regions, as would be consistent with the policy, Northern Ireland and Scotland will suffer in comparison with the southern corridor through north Wales to Dublin? Does he understand our annoyance that when our European representative, Jim Nicholson, went to the European Commission, the Commissioner told him that he was sympathetic but that the Department of Trade and Industry was being unhelpful? Does the Minister not realise that his duty is to represent not only England and Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Scotland?

I do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman about representing the whole of the United Kingdom. The land element in Interreg 2 is much larger than the maritime element. There is no justification for the comments that the hon. Gentleman alleges were made to Mr. Jim Nicholson. It is vital to ensure that Northern Ireland, especially Belfast, gets a reasonable proportion of the land element of Interreg 2, which can be used to ensure that Belfast and other ports in Northern Ireland remain competitive with those of the south. The Government continually tell the Commission that there must be no unfair subsidies that would put the ports of Northern Ireland at a disadvantage.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the current deliberations on the Interreg 3 programme, and how important it is that south-east Essex should be successful in its application, so as to develop its infrastructure and therefore improve its manufacturing competitiveness?

I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry will ensure that those arguments are heard loud and clear in the Commission.

Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government's promise to give top priority to the links not only between Holyhead and Dublin but between Pembroke and south-east Ireland still stands, and that they are working on it? Will he confirm that in Wales the Welsh Office will be in charge of administering the programme?

As I understand it, the local Departments will administer the programme. Representations are being made to the Commission and the results, including those relating to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, will be known in June. I repeat what I said about the need to ensure that all the ports in the United Kingdom are treated fairly.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the competitiveness of industries in Buckinghamshire.

Under the Government, we now have the lowest interest rates for nearly 20 years, manufacturing productivity at an all-time high, and we have the lowest underlying inflation for the past 26 years. Investment in plant and machinery is up nearly 50 per cent. since 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a competitive world economy it is important not only for large British companies but for small and medium-sized companies, which form the majority of employers in places such as Aylesbury, to get used to exporting as part of their regular business planning? Will he ensure that the welcome new business link office in Aylesbury, and other measures adopted by the Department, will provide advice to enable small and medium-sized employers to go out and break into overseas markets?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Like many people, I believe that job creation in the future will come from the small and medium-sized business sector. We in the Department of Trade and Industry are determined to reinforce the efforts of that vital part of the British economy by providing a first-class advisory service through the business link movement. We are also determined to push on with the export promoter initiative, which has now attracted about 75 secondees from the private sector to my Department to help and advise the small companies that we wish to see pioneer export markets.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be meeting the gas and electricity regulators to discuss the effect of the early payment of fuel bills.

I meet the gas and electricity regulators from time to time. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of the gas and electricity companies on their regulated business.

At those meetings, will the Minister put pressure on the regulators to ensure that any profits made by the power companies from advance payments will be returned to the customers in terms of reduced bills, especially for those who could not afford to go through the loophole, as the wealthy did, and make advance payments? Will the Minister put pressure on so that those least able to afford the bills will have a reduction?

That is a matter for the companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I have noticed that Midlands Electricity has announced that £500,000 of income derived from interest from pre-payments will be donated to the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust. I very much congratulate Midlands Electricity on that initiative.

Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the regulators the fact that consumers are pleased by the substantial reductions, in real terms, in their energy bills since the privatisation of the once state-owned monopolies?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The position is in stark contrast to Labour's record when in power, when electricity prices rose by 22 per cent. between 1974 and 1979.

Is the Minister aware that a number of the regional electricity companies have misled their consumers? East Midlands Electricity has on its form:

"VAT on electricity—There is no need to make an additional payment and East Midlands Electricity does not encourage you to do so."

"Additional payments can be made using the payment slip below."

As I understand it from what the hon. Gentleman said, the company was telling consumers about the choice available to them. The nature of the hon. Gentleman's question reveals all. If he were Minister for Energy, which God forbid, he would be saying exactly what must be done in terms of billing and what consumers must do, depriving consumers of all choice.

With regard to the early payment of bills, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating my constituent, Mrs. Scott, whose home I was privileged to visit on Monday? She has come up with a far more effective way to reduce her fuel bills, using the Government's splendid new home insulation grants which are now available to all pensioners.

I will, of course, congratulate Mrs. Scott and my hon. Friend. I dare say that the scheme will go particularly well in Midlands Electricity areas as I suspect that it has been funded with the help of the Neighbourhood Energy Action Trust.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the power of the utility regulators over high charges and preferential boardroom share options.

The utility regulators have sufficient powers to protect consumers' interests over a range of issues, including prices. The remuneration of company directors is a matter for the company concerned and its shareholders.

Is the Minister aware that the chairman of Yorkshire Water, Sir Gordon Jones, stands to make £260,000 profit on his share option deal, but is giving many of my constituents the single option of accepting expensive, unaffordable metering? All other water consumers have no option but to pay unacceptable and extortionate charges. When will the Minister give real power to the regulators and redress that injustice?

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the arrangement, I suggest that he buys some shares in the company, attends the annual general meeting and speaks out there. In general, the position is substantially improved compared with that under the Labour Government, when such individuals were paid large sums for turning in large losses, which were ultimately subsidised by taxpayers. Now, at least, profits are being divided, part among employees and part among directors. That seems a significant improvement.

Is it not typical of the Opposition to show envy about the success of companies and the share option schemes, which are valuable only because the companies have done very well? Is it not a fact that many of the executive share option schemes about which the Opposition complain are linked to employee share option schemes, which are also valuable if the company has done well?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is an important element in providing incentives to companies to become more efficient, which is in the general interest of consumers. As the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) shows, never has the difference between the two parties in the House been so amply demonstrated. As defined by Winston Churchill, while capitalism involves the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism means the equal sharing of misery.

Is the Minister aware of the extreme public anger and fury in Yorkshire about the actions of the water regulator, who has extended his power through the President of the Board of Trade despite numerous letters from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, thus allowing the chairman of Ofwat's Yorkshire customer services committee to be sacked by the regulator? Does that not smack of power, patronage and preference, which is out of place in a public service such as the water industry?

It is a bit of a cheek for a Labour Member of Parliament to accuse the Government or any organisation such as Ofwat of nepotism or partiality. It was, after all, the last Labour Prime Minister who appointed his son-in-law as Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington. The director general of Ofwat gave evidence this morning to the Select Committee on the Environment and I am sure that he is capable of defending himself. Ofwat has rejected claims that the director general has acted in any way improperly in making appointments to the customer services committee. Of course, a balance must be drawn between experience and turnover.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries in the far east to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.

There are currently plans for six ministerial visits to the far east, including trade missions, in the remainder of the year. On present plans, I hope that on those missions I will visit Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.

Will my hon. Friend accept my appreciation of the recent support that he has given to the Jetstream aircraft in my constituency? Is he aware that Jetstream has recently established a spares department in Singapore to service an increasing fleet? Will he ensure that on future trade missions Jetstream aircraft will be promoted as first-class aircraft and that the back-up services will also be promoted as first-class services?

I am only too delighted—I am sure that I also speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—that any mission that we take to the far east should include companies from my hon. Friend's constituency. I also extend that invitation an all hon. Members. If there are companies in their constituencies which they think can export successfully to the far east, we should be only too delighted to include them. As a result of the missions that we have undertaken over the past two years, sales to Singapore were up some 30 per cent. in 1993 on 1992 and some 30 per cent. in the first three months of this year. That is true throughout the whole of the far east and I am sure that that will continue to be the case.

With due respect, the House welcomes the Minister's globe-trotting activities, but in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) is it not a fact that our world trade has steadied while that of France has increased? On his missions abroad, does the Minister think that our embassy and high commission staff are sufficient for the job or do we need more? Are we sure that the dead hand of the Treasury is not lying across our exports? What can the Minister do to ensure that there is a level playing field for the British when dealing with the French, the Germans and the Americans and not a tilted playing field?

Our strategy, which has developed over the past two years, gives us a business plan in each of the major markets of the world and these are supported by the posts overseas. We discuss staffing levels through the joint export promotion directorate, and at present I have no indication from it that we are below strength or below the plans that we have set out. We are showing British industry —I am glad that we have its support—that we are giving it as good a service as that received by any company in any country anywhere in the developed world.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on business confidence.

All the major business surveys show that British industry is increasingly confident about the future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that confidence is rooted in the fact that Britain is now a low interest rate, low inflation and growing economy—[Interruption]—attributes which Labour Members appear to find derisory—and that we also have a relative competitive edge in Europe and the world which Opposition party policies would jeopardise, probably at the cost of millions of jobs, through their socialist and strikers' charters?

Order. I need hardly remind hon. Members yet again that it is the Executive who are being brought to account during Question Time. It is not an Opposition party which must have its policies questioned but the Executive.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that since 1981, the volume of United Kingdom manufactured exports has grown faster than in France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

Does the Minister accept that business confidence in the northern region was greatly knocked by the Government's decision to cut the grant to the Northern Development Company? In view of the continuing success of that company—of course, local authorities and the private sector are maintaining their commitment to the NDC—and as the northern region is crying out for jobs and investment, what possible sense could there have been in the Government's decision?

The confidence of the business sector in the north will be affected by the state of the order book and the effectiveness of its ability to compete. That is what matters to industrialists. We will do our best to continue to support them within the resources available to my Department.

In relation to business confidence in Bedfordshire, my right hon. Friend is aware of the situation of Lancer Boss Trucks in Leighton Buzzard. Can he assure me that his Department will do all that it can to help the receiver to sell the company as a going concern so that manufacturing jobs in the fork-lift truck industry in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, can be retained?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the House would want to hear about this extremely important matter. It is extraordinary that when jobs and investment in manufacturing industry are at stake, Labour Members seek to turn it into a national joke. The fact is that Ministers and officials have already been in touch with both the company and the receivers. My Department will do all that it can to assist, but it cannot become involved in the receivers' administration of the case. However, there seems to be a good prospect of an offer being made for the Lancer Boss group as a whole.

For a Government who claimed that business confidence depended on the level of taxation, how does the President of the Board of Trade explain to business people the fact that the Government have increased taxes to a record level and imposed a savage increase in taxation on every family in the country? Is not that another example of the Government's economic incompetence damaging Britain's business interests?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. All the latest business surveys show growing confidence. The reason for that growing confidence is that British industry wants a competitive exchange rate, rising productivity, low inflation and low interest rates. Under this Government, it is getting all four.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the average numbers of United Kingdom jobs created or maintained for every £1 billion earned by United Kingdom exports.

The best available estimate is that £1 billion of visible exports is likely to be associated with around 30,000 jobs.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that clearly demonstrates what many of us have known for a long time: Britain has and always will be a trading nation and we must export to provide jobs and the wealth of the country? Does not last week's announcement that British car exports to Japan increased by 30 per cent. demonstrate that we are now in a competitive situation? Is not it time that we recognised that competitiveness and a flexible labour market go together, and those who would impose regulations on our labour force and load burdens on our employers would destroy competitiveness, destroy exports and destroy jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a competitive industry. We must do everything that we can to ensure that it stays that way, and the' most important thing is to deny power to the Labour party.

If all is so well, as the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister have repeatedly said this afternoon, why is there such a lobby on the Tory Benches for the President of the Board of Trade to replace the Prime Minister? Is not it a fact that many Tory Members find the present situation in the country so appalling that they want to replace the Prime Minister with the President?

Order. As I said earlier, this an opportunity to question Government policy, not to question individuals or Opposition policies. I suggest that the Minister replies to the first part of the question.

The second part of the question made me so cross that I have forgotten the first part.

I call Mrs. Lait. Let us have a sensible question from a woman.

I will try to restrain my anger. When does my hon. Friend expect accurate statistics from the European Union about trade within member states?

I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact estimate. I have no reason to believe that the way in which the statistics are collected here means that they are any less competently done or accurate than they are in other European states. There is a bedding-down period and it will affect the balance of trade figures in all the countries of Europe for some time yet.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will assess the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumer Council's budget on the availability of advice to the public on gas safety.

The Gas Consumer Council has indicated that it expects to be able to carry out all its functions within the budget allocated for 1994-95.

In that case, can the Minister say why only this morning the Gas Consumer Council told me that the impact of the cuts would be borne by leaflets and the provision of information? Does he ask me to believe his account of the impact on safety campaigns in the gas industry, or to believe the Gas Consumer Council's account?

My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is confident of being able to carry out its current functions. It will have to absorb a small reduction in its budget, in accordance with the necessary restrictions on public expenditure as a whole, but it is absolutely typical of the Opposition parties that they fail to recognise that the alternative to reductions in public expenditure is increases in taxation.

Why do we need a Gas Consumer Council?

It was generally felt when the gas industry was privatised that there was a need for consumer protection and that the best way to achieve it was through the operation of Ofgas and the Gas Consumer Council. The Gas Consumer Council, together with other similar consumer bodies, must be able to show that it is working hard in the interests of consumers in order to justify its continued existence.

To ask the President sof the Board of Trade what recent increase there has been in the staff of the Insolvency Service agency's disqualification unit.

The Insolvency Service's disqualification unit has recently been increased by four staff on loan from other Government Departments and by two fully qualified staff seconded from the private sector. In 1994-95, we propose to provide further resources to enable up to 15 extra staff, including secondees from the private sector, to be added to the complement of the unit. Official receivers will be committing more of their resources to disqualification and prosecution work. As a result, disqualification proceedings against unfit directors are expected to increase substantially within 12 months of completion of training of the new staff.

The Minister's announcement of a total of 15 extra staff is welcome, but it is hardly likely to make much of a dent in the increased demand on the Insolvency Service from the increase of over 400 per cent. in bankruptcies since 1987. What does the Minister say to the National Audit Office's report on the Insolvency Service last year, which stated that up to 50 per cent. of directors who merited disqualification would not be disqualified because the resources were inadequate, or to the admission—

Order. This is Question Time. I must have brisk questions and brisk answers.

Since 1989-90 the number of staff employed in the Insolvency Service has increased from 1,400 to 1,800. There has been, as a result of the recession, a significant increase in the workload of the service with which it has coped extremely well. We are aware of the problems that were identified by the National Audit Office's report. We are considering methods of addressing those difficulties and I am waiting now for the report of the Public Accounts Committee, following which I shall, I hope, be in a position to make an announcement.

rose—

I call Mr. Malcolm Moss.

There is a resemblance, Madam Speaker, although my hon. Friend is not quite as good-looking.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay a warm tribute to the staff employed by the Insolvency Service for the way in which they have. coped with the dramatic upturn in work in recent years. We must try to find more flexible means of taking on staff to cope with such peaks as well as troughs in the work. The consultancy studies presently being undertaken will help to do that and we want to be able to contract and expand the service according to the work available. Thus, we shall not have to take staff permanently on to the books who will be under-utilised at times when there is not enough work for them.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much was invested in research and development by British industry during 1992-93; and what percentage this represents of gross domestic product.

In 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, UK businesses undertook £7,930 million of research and development, equivalent to 1.3 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Investment in research and development by British industry is about one third less than that of our industrial competitors. Does the Minister agree that as a society we should be devoting something like 1 per cent. more of our GDP to research and development? What proposals do the Government have to achieve that?

Investment in research and development is a matter for companies to take into consideration when they come to formulate their plans. I was encouraged by the CBI innovation trends survey which showed that 50 per cent. of companies had plans to increase their expenditure on research and development in 1993.

Will my hon. Friend consider the relative position of our research and development in comparison with Japan, the United States, Germany and all the other countries in the EC? Have we done well enough in relation to those countries? If not, we will go down the tubes.

I agree with my hon. Friend. If one compares our figures with those for Japan and Germany, the UK is behind. However, we are above the other countries in the European Union.

Does the Minister agree that it is important for our international competitiveness to improve our business expenditure on civil research and development? Has not the time come for Government incentives to ensure that companies invest in research and development? Does he consider tax incentives to be a good way forward?

We will always look at any representations that are made. The Government have a good record on rates of taxation for companies and it is for companies to decide how they wish to invest. There have been huge investments in this country.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to meet his European counterparts to discuss reducing the number of general directives affecting small businesses emanating from Brussels.

As my hon. Friend will realise, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no exact counterpart in Europe—he is unique.

The problem is the over-zealous interpretation of general directives by Whitehall officials on which other countries take a relaxed view. Is my hon. Friend aware that in Spain there are 63 fisheries officials based in Madrid—1,000 miles from the coast? That is just like running the Wembley cup final with the referee in Aberdeen. In this country, there are more than 300 fisheries officials looking after fisheries business who are based in ports. In the future, we should make sure that we pursue general directives only when other countries pursue them as rigorously as we do.

As my hon. Friend will know, I am responsible for the single market compliance unit, so I am always interested in the sort of stories that he brings to the House. It is vital that Britain does not impose differential burdens on its employers and businesses. We must apply the lightest possible regulatory touch, learn from the experience of other member states and take a more imaginative approach to some of the European Union directives.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among those offering bed-and-breakfast facilities and holiday cottages that a forthcoming European directive may prevent them from taking deposits for holidays? That would have a devastating impact on those small businesses. What are the Government doing to prevent that devastation?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in deregulation—he is usually on the other side of the argument. I well appreciate the problems, as reported to the hon. Gentleman, that confront bed-and-breakfast establishments and I assure him that they do not lack for an advocate in the Department of Trade and Industry.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total balance of trade with the European Union over the most recent five-year period for which figures are available; and what was the balance for manufactures only in the same period.

In the five years to 1992, the UK had a cumulative trade deficit with the rest of the European Union of 1.8 per cent. of GDP. The deficit in manufactures over the same period was 1.6 per cent. of GDP.

The figures show that our cumulative trade deficit with the European Community has now broken through £100,000 million, which is equivalent to £8,000 per British family. Is not there a case for an inquiry into why there is such a huge deficit compared with the profit that Britain used to have on its trade with Europe before it joined that ridiculous socialist organisation—especially as the Government recently changed the statistical basis for calculation, which makes matters look better?

I would hope that, without such an inquiry being set up, my hon. Friend would know the answer. The explanation is simple—it is that we have not been sufficiently competitive in selling our goods in the European market in the way that Europe has been successful in selling its goods in Britain. Until the hard lessons of that fact bear upon the industrial, commercial and political world, we will continue to have a deficit.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on current progress with the export promoter initiative.

Excellent progress has been made with this initiative and 75 high-quality export promoters have now been recruited.

May I welcome the considerable progress now being made? We have long needed an effective link between the high-quality commercial sections in our overseas missions and our high-quality exporters in Britain, especially the potential exporters in our constituencies.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall take this opportunity to say a word of thanks to the many companies—rather less than 75—that have seconded high-quality staff to my Department. They are having a profound effect and are working extremely well with the 80 officers that the Department has seconded to survey and report on the 80 senior markets to which we export.

How many people in the right hon. Gentleman's Department are involved in promoting the export of coal, so that pits such as the Tower colliery in my constituency will not, through sheer vindictiveness, be forced to close on Friday because of the incompetence of both the Government and British Coal?

The hon. Lady can go on making such remarks for as long as she likes, but the reason why British Coal's pits have been closed is that they could not produce a product for which there was a market at a price that people were prepared to pay. If anyone has the slightest doubt about that, he should reflect on why the private sector is negotiating to take over pits that have been closed by British Coal—it is because the private sector believes that it can make a success of them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest export promoter for British industry is for it to design and manufacture products that the rest of the world wants to buy, produce them at competitive prices and of excellent quality, deliver them on time and give good after-sales service? That is the great export promoter for Britain and that is what Britain is doing at the moment.

My hon. Friend is proving himself a great export promoter, by articulately putting over the only message on which industrial export success can be based.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support he is giving to the British telecommunications industry.

The Government's policies of liberalisation and encouraging competition have created a world-class telecommunications sector and we have seen a 30 per cent. reduction in British Telecom's charges to the consumer in real terms since privatisation. My Department is working closely with all parts of the United Kingdom telecommunications industry, including the manufacturing sector.

Does the Minister understand that his obsession with competition is undermining British Telecom's ability to compete as one of the big four or five international telecommunications companies? Why is he not doing something to allow British Telecom to get into the American market instead of giving favoured treatment to cable operators and other international telecommunications companies to enable them to operate here, without having reciprocal agreements for BT?

That was—I Interruption.]

Order. Do I understand that there is a disturbance in the House? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes.") Then let us end it.

That was an extraordinary outburst from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey). Competition in telecommunications has resulted in a reduction in costs to the consumer. More people have telephones in their homes now than before privatisation. We are keen for British Telecom and the other telecommunications operators to become world-class companies and, by freeing them from the state sector, we have allowed them to do so.

Is the Department fully encouraging the exciting new development of telephones in aeroplanes?

I am always interested in any new developments. My hon. Friend, who spends some time on aeroplanes, may take advantage of that service.

Does the Minister know of another exciting experiment—sending video down telephone wires? At long last that is starting in Britain, but the technology comes from France, Canada and the United States. What is he going to do about it?

It is being exploited by British Telecom.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only do we have the most liberalised telecommunications market in Europe, but that that liberalisation has led to a dramatic improvement in the quality of service since the industry was privatised and to a massive increase in investment and productivity, all of which the Opposition choose to ignore?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The quality of services has improved, prices have been reduced and both domestic and business consumers have benefited, as have the taxpayer and the economy.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the report of the construction industry task force relating to fire safety.

The working papers of all seven business task forces—including those of the construction group—were placed in the Library of the House on Wednesday 30 March.

I am grateful to the Minister. Does he believe that there should be much wider publication of those papers, especially the paper relating to the construction industry task force in view of its serious recommendation for the repeal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971? If we repeal that Act, are not fire precautions and safety checks likely to be weakened?

I do not accept that for a moment. It is vital that we maintain proper regard for safety in any reforms that might take place, and that we will do. The recommendations of the construction industry task force have since been superseded by a new review of fire legislation and the organisation of fire safety enforcement. Mr. Alf Thompson, the chief officer of the Durham fire service, is one of the five members of the team involved, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the concerns of professionals will be taken properly into account.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the countries to which it is planned to send trade missions supported by his Department.

Worldwide, more than 20 ministerial visits involving trade missions are planned in the remainder of the year.

Clearly, my hon. Friend will be a very busy and much-travelled man. May I congratulate the Department on the emphasis placed on overseas trade missions? What is the Department's budget for such missions and what emphasis is placed by it on promoting the export of engineering products?

The budget for the provision of support for missions is some £1.7 million a year. But the key point is that, with the support of our 75 export promoters, we now have market plans for each of the major 80 markets in the world. In addition, we have a plan in each sector, which in almost every country includes engineering products. We are determined to provide a peerless and first-class service to our engineering companies exporting overseas—a service that rivals anything available in Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United States, or anywhere else.

When Ministers and trade missions are abroad will they let it be known to officials of foreign Governments and to business men that in Workington there is a 500,000 sq ft modern factory site, formerly occupied by Leyland National for the manufacture of buses, but now empty? That site is available for inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman push the factory's availability? We need a new tenant or acquisition by another company.

I should be delighted to do what the hon. Member suggests. I should be even more delighted if he were to accompany me. We could go selling as we used to do 30 years ago.

Bearing in mind the fact that many previous trade missions have resulted in billions of pounds' worth of aircraft exports, resulting in the creation of many jobs in this country, will my hon. Friend welcome the first flight of the Eurofighter and will he liaise with the Ministry of Defence with a view to setting up a trade mission to sell this aircraft abroad?

I have listened to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the answer is yes.

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

Both my right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman regularly to discuss a range of coal industry matters.

On the day of the publication of the coal prospectus, would not it be appropriate for the Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the chairman of British Coal to ensure that the scheme of enhanced redundancy payments for miners will continue after 30 April so that workers in the Tower colliery and in many other pits throughout the country do not have to face an agonising choice between losing redundancy payments and fighting for their jobs?

This is a matter for British Coal, which, I understand, has announced that terms will not be available beyond 30 April.

Will the Minister confirm that the prospectus for the sale of British Coal, which has been published today, establishes that the Tower colliery will be placed on a care and maintenance basis despite the weekend vote of the work force that it be kept open? Why is the hon. Gentleman determined to close a pit that is in profit? How can he defend a market that closes pits that produce cheap coal, making possible the production of electricity that is cheaper than gas, nuclear energy or French imports? Why are men who have doubled their productivity being rewarded by being made redundant? Will the hon. Gentleman, during the last few months of public ownership of the mines, halt the redundancy among the miners?

Even by his own standards, the hon. Gentleman is being highly irresponsible. Clearly he has not read the document that has been published. It says quite clearly that the Tower colliery is currently operating, but that British Coal has proposed its closure. It could not be a clearer or fairer representation of the actual position.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the level of United Kingdom motor car production has changed in the past 12 months; and what the equivalent figures are for France and Germany.

United Kingdom car production for the year ending January 1994 was 5 per cent. higher than for the year ending January 1993. This compares with falls of 14 per cent. and 22 per cent. in France and Germany respectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of new car registrations is up by about 7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and that the industry's productivity showed an increase of 7 per cent. in the whole of 1993? Does he agree that the reputation of British cars, once so poor, has been totally transformed in the past 10 years—hence these excellent export performances—and that they are now among the finest in the world?

I agree entirely. Ours is truly one of the success stories of the car industry. The United Kingdom is now securing huge amounts of investment in the motor manufacturing industry, something that was unthought of in the late 1970s.

I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port on sustaining a massive export effort. Does he share the views expressed by a number of major manufacturers in the area that that export effort would be improved if investment were made in the railway infrastructure, especially the west coast main line and the links into the manufacturing complexes?

Investment in the rail industry is important. As the hon. Gentleman says, since 1989 some £200 million has been invested in manufacturing facilities for production of the Astra at Ellesmere Port.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Toyota, which is sited just between Lichfield and Derby—an area which my hon. Friend knows well—will, when it comes on stream at the end of this year, make Britain a net exporter of cars? Is he further aware that, had it been up to the Opposition, Toyota would not even have looked at Britain because of their introduction of the social chapter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he rightly says, I know the Toyota factory to which he refers, as it is only two miles from where I live. Toyota made the largest single investment ever made in Europe. It chose the United Kingdom because it was confident in how the Government had transformed the economy.