To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from British Coal regarding the refusal of insurance companies to insure properties previously affected by coal mining subsidence.

British Coal has confirmed that from time to time it has been approached by individuals saying that they are unable to get insurance because their property has suffered subsidence damage. In such cases, British Coal has, in general, offered to contact the insurance company to spell out the extent of its remedial obligations in respect of any subsidence damage arising from coal mining.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He and I debated the matter on the Adjournment recently, but since that time I have been made aware of two further cases in which insurance cover has been refused—one in respect of subsidence damage that occurred 30 years ago and the other where the damage needed repairing by means of decoration only. Will he maintain pressure on the insurance companies, through the Association of British Insurers, to ensure that they are aware that such properties are usually sound properties and a good insurable risk?

I will certainly undertake to continue to do that. Of, course, as we know, almost all those properties are in any case covered by the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently had a constituency case in which insurance was not so much refused as charged at a much higher rate than it otherwise should have been? In normal circumstances, my constituent would have been able to get a much reduced rate. Is my hon. Friend further aware that there is therefore considerable concern that the coal mines in my constituency, which have been there for some years, have caused a problem in that regard?

I understand the problem, and I think it fair to say that, when examined in detail, most cases arise from a misunderstanding by the insurance companies of the provisions of the 1991 Act. If my hon. Friend lets me have details, I will see what I can do to pursue the case.

But why is not the Minister getting tough on insurance companies that run seminars about exploiting the loopholes and avoid meeting the legitimate claims of customers?

The hon. Gentleman loves going for the cheap headline. He would have done both his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and me a bit more courtesy if he had been present to listen to the detailed Adjournment debate on the subject.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on measures he plans to assist small businesses.

The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of Business Links to provide high-quality business support across the country.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that many businesses in the west country are well served by the low interest rates, low inflation and freedom from the job-destroying social chapter that the Government have brought about? Does he agree that what many small businesses now want is the early introduction of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill to blast away much of the red tape that is ruining their lives? Is not it a great pity that Opposition Members continue to delay and oppose that measure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I entirely agree with him. The House debated the Bill yesterday, and I hope that it will complete its stages tomorrow.

One traditional small business is the British pub. What will the Minister do to stop what is happening to it? What will he do to stop cheap imports, investigate the leases that are doing so much damage and prevent rents from going through the roof? Pubs are an endangered species, and the Minister is responsible.

In fact, the brewing industry has invested a tremendous amount in new pubs—as the hon. Lady would see if she visited a few.

Industry as a whole is immensely grateful to the Government for the steps that they have taken in respect of Business Links and other measures. More export credit is now available to smaller businesses, for instance. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, of the press release issued today by the Engineering Employers Federation? He certainly should be, as one of his colleagues from the Department was present for the federation's breakfast-time briefing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about Business Links. He has been fortunate, in that one of the first Business Links in the country serves his own constituency. I am glad that he recognises the important role that such links will play in providing for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. It is, I think, no secret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to publish a White Paper on competitiveness in the near future.

The Forum of Private Business estimates that small firms are owed £50,000 million in late payments, and every survey of small firms suggests that late payment is their key problem. When will the Government act, and introduce a statutory right to interest on late payment? Why is theirs the only major political party that does not support such a measure? Is it simply because they are so in hock to large companies and other contributors to their funds that they cannot help small business?

That is absolute rubbish. We issued a consultation paper last November; the hon. Gentleman just needs to wait a little while.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in so far as small manufacturing businesses are capital intensive —in contrast to small service industries—the abolition of capital gains tax would have a particularly beneficial effect on the unquoted manufacturing sector? As a Minister in the sponsoring Department, and as one who cares passionately about these matters, will my hon. Friend ask the Department's economists to investigate? There is now a growing suspicion that the abolition of capital gains tax could provide the biggest job creation programme that the country has seen in 20 years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am always willing to consider the points that he makes, but he will appreciate that his question is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will probably be one of the first of many Budget submissions to my right hon. and learned Friend.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Director General of Ofgas to discuss consumer protection.

On Monday.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Ofgas the British Gas meter replacement programme, about which I have asked him before? Specifically, will he confirm that Ofgas has now agreed that British Gas can complete the programme by 1996, a year later than originally planned? Can he justify an arrangement that will mean consumers paying more for gas that they do not actually receive, and the loss of jobs in the meter manufacturing industry?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the director general, but, prompted by the hon. Gentleman's question, I will be sure to do so.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that gas consumers will be protected from any real increase in gas prices, at least until 1997?

The price cap that currently applies to British Gas—RPI minus 4—will continue to apply. My hon. Friend will have had a chance to study the consultation document, and will know of the ways in which we are trying to deal with the various transitional issues surrounding, in particular, the elderly and disabled.

After the general election in 1997 or 1998, will the Minister still be in a position to guarantee that there will be no losers? He will be aware that the regulator, the managing director of Alliance Gas and the director of the Gas Consumers Council have all said that there will be losers as a consequence of what was announced this week. Can the Minister guarantee that they are wrong, and that no one will have to pay higher gas prices—particularly the lower paid and disadvantaged, who, as everyone agrees, will be most vulnerable?

I share the hon. Gentleman's certainty that I shall be on the Government Benches in 1998 and will be the Minister for Energy at that time. The Opposition are scaremongering. In 1985, during a debate on the privatisation of British Gas, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said:

"There is no evidence that the Bill"—

"will improve efficiency, provide a better service or produce cheaper gas."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c.780.]

It is right that the consultative document should work to help the Government to obtain greater competition in the industry, but will my hon. Friend deal with the fears that have been whipped up by the Liberal Democrats, particularly in the west country, where they are saying that the west country will have appreciably higher gas prices than the rest of the country? I should like to hear my hon. Friend's view on that.

There is a lot of scaremongering by the Liberal Democrats as well as by the Labour party on this issue. It is true that, on certain assumptions, there may be an increase of about 17p per week for the average consumer in the far south-west as a result of transportation charges. However, competitors of British Gas believe that they will be able to reduce prices to the average gas consumer by about 70p a week. In other words, rather than being worse off, the average south-west gas consumer, will be considerably better off as a result of competition.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the Post Office more commercial freedom.

This is one of the issues being considered in the Post Office review.

It is about time that we had the results of that review. Why is the President of the Board of Trade conducting such a vendetta against the Post Office? Why are not the Government prepared to give it the commercial freedom that would make it an even more profitable business than it already is? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the recent Post Office survey in which 77 per cent. of those asked wanted to keep letters, counters and parcels together as one business and wanted that business to be given commercial freedom?

The hon. Lady will have read the Select Committee report, as have I, and will have welcomed the fact that it unanimously advocates change. The Government are deeply aware of the significance and importance of the Post Office and we wish to give the Select Committee report and a wide range of other representations proper consideration. As soon as we have concluded our review, we will make our results public.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Post Office is begging for privatisation? Will he explain the advantages that privatisation would bring to small and rural post offices?

My hon. Friend and the House will know that 19,000 of the 20,000 post offices in this country are already in the private sector, so they have considerable opportunities to trade commercially. They are interested in acquiring further opportunities and the Government are considering that. All these matters would be better considered when the Government respond to the review that we are now conducting.

Did the President of the Board of Trade see Monday's report to the effect that the chief executive of the Post Office has had talks about privatisation with Warburg in the City? As there is no Bill before the House dealing with the privatisation of the Post Office and as there has not even been a statement to the House about the Government's intentions for the Post Office, who gave the Post Office authority to have talks about privatisation? Was it the right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] The House will note the contempt in which its procedures are held by Conservative Members. As no statement has been made about the Post Office review in the two years since it was set up, will the President take some time off from his canvassing work among his Back Benchers to tell the rest of us whether the Post Office will remain where it belongs, providing a public service in the public sector?

There we have it—we are begged by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) to let the Post Office be more commercial and urged by a Labour-chaired Select Committee unanimous report to make it more commercial, yet the official spokesman for the Labour party will not even let the chief executive use the word. That is the best example of socialist suppression and totalitarian attitudes that I have ever heard.

Did my right hon. Friend note that the all-party Select Committee report unanimously observed that if the Post Office is to meet increasing overseas competition, it is essential that it should have commercial freedom? The report left open the question whether privatisation or any other method should be used to achieve that objective.

My hon. Friend played a distinguished part in the Select Committees's unanimous report, which I have read and to which we shall respond. The open-minded approach of hon. Members of all political parties to that report contrasts with the clam-like attitude of the spokesman for the Opposition.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference for the nuclear energy review.

I shall announce the terms of reference in due course.

When the Minister reverses the lethargy in his Department on this issue, will he be able to tell us whether the terms of the review will allow for the early closure of the out-of-date Magnox stations? As one who is not anti-nuclear in principle, may I ask whether the terms of the review rule in or rule out the construction of any new nuclear power stations?

The review will seek to address such issues. I have taken careful note of the hon. Gentleman's stance on the matter.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the nuclear power review takes full account of the remarkable improvements in performance achieved by our nuclear industry, not least the world-ranking performance of Hinkley Point advanced gas-cooled reactor?

I agree that Nuclear Electric has improved output and reduced costs considerably in the past couple of years. A major tribute should be paid to the senior management and work force of Nuclear Electric, who are committed to making a success of nuclear power in this country.

Does the Minister accept that the review was started in secrecy because of the links between the nuclear industry and the military and because of the Government's determination that the industry should be shrouded in secrecy?

The hon. Gentleman probably asks me more questions on this issue than all the other hon. Members put together. He is presumably busy trying to prove conspiracy theories of that sort, but he is wrong.

Will the review take into account the full costs of insurance of nuclear power stations and the full costs of decommissioning? Will it ensure that those are not offset by subsidies or other devices that make it unclear whether nuclear power is viable?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure clarity in costing, which I am sure will be one of the matters with which the review will want to deal.

Does my hon. Friend recall that at the beginning of last year, at the time of the coal review, he said that the nuclear review would take place in 1993? We are nearly halfway through 1994, yet we are still waiting for its terms of reference. Does he realise that the nuclear industry, its employees, plant and technology depend heavily on the review?

I understand my hon. Friend's impatience and I assure him that I will bear those factors in mind.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the sale of Hawk trainer jets to Indonesia by British Aerospace.

I have received a number of written representations from Members of Parliament and others about the sale of Hawk trainers to Indonesia.

Does the Minister agree that, with 200,000 people reported dead in East Timor and with John Pilger reporting that Hawk jets are being used for aggression against East Timor, there is now a case for stopping any licensing of arms sales to Indonesia?

I have never seen a report from any reputable organisation which suggested a figure of 200,000. The maximum number that I saw in the United Nations report from the 1970s was some 80,000. I am not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman about the horrendous numbers of people killed in the 1970s, but if he believes that the problems of East Timor—which are, in any event, entirely different now from what they were 20 years ago—will be solved by an arms embargo, he is entirely mistaken. Furthermore, I note that as there are no aerospace companies or aerospace employees in his constituency—

There are.

If there are, it is even worse. I note that he is only too happy to salve his conscience by putting at risk the jobs of people in the aerospace industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hawk trainer is the finest of its kind anywhere in the world, which is why it was bought by the United States and many other countries? If the Hawk were denied to Indonesia, would not the Indonesians buy an inferior aircraft and would not that mean that we would be exporting jobs to whatever country supplied that inferior aircraft?

My hon. Friend is right about the Hawk, but it is not only a question of selling the Hawk to Indonesia. The points made by people such as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) put at risk sales of the Hawk not only to Indonesia but to other countries. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) would also be prepared to put at risk the most successful training aircraft and the jobs that go with it in this country.

The Minister will appreciate the fact that this is a major humanitarian issue, whether the number of casualties was 80,000 or 200,000. He will be aware that Hawk aircraft have been observed on bombing runs in East Timor in most years since 1984. What assurances did he seek, before giving export licences, that the 24 Hawks that he approved last year would not be used in the same way? Can he guarantee that we can believe those assurances?

I do not know which Hawk aircraft the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he mentions bombing in East Timor since 1984; nor do I know where he got that information from. He will be aware—it has been stated in the House many times—that we have received specific assurances. I repeat my question: is he saying that he is not prepared to support the sale of these aircraft to Indonesia? What criteria would he use for the sale of such aeroplanes to India? He says that he wants an industrial strategy, but, at the same time, he seeks to undermine the most advanced aerospace industry in western Europe.

Is not it absolutely typical that the Opposition constantly ask the Government to do more for companies such as British Aerospace but still complain when they do? Is not that absolute hypocrisy and double standards?

Yes.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to assist the shipbuilding industry.

We provide the industry with assistance from the shipbuilding intervention fund and the home credit guarantee scheme.

Is the Minister aware that it is exactly a year ago this week that the Swan Hunter shipyard on Tyneside went into receivership and that, since then, more than 1,300 jobs have been lost? Does he accept that, if shipbuilding is to survive on Tyneside, we need a new owner for Swan Hunter to take the yard out of receivership? Can he say today that the Government would welcome a new owner for Swan Hunter and can he give an assurance that the Government would give all possible assistance to a new owner to secure new shipbuilding orders on Tyneside, especially in the export market?

I am happy to confirm something that I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would know. The Government have been seeking for the whole year to assist the receiver to obtain a buyer for the yard and we seek to assist the yard now, as we have done consistently, to obtain further export orders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main hope for shipbuilding areas may well come from attracting new companies such as Nissan rather than propping up high-cost, inefficient industries as happened in the case of British Shipbuilders? How much Government money was poured into British Shipbuilders? Was not it a great deal more than was given to Nissan to create long-term jobs in Sunderland?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that in public ownership British Shipbuilders was not competitive, and absorbed a great deal of the taxpayers' money, without using it effectively. He is right to draw attention to the benefits of inward investment, which the Government have strongly encouraged, but which the Labour party has at times positively discouraged. I return to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers): we wish to see a new owner for Swan Hunter, and we shall continue to assist the receiver to find one.

When considering the overall pattern of the shipbuilding industry within the United Kingdom, does the Minister attach any weight to the effect on our offshore construction yards? We should look at what is happening in Italy, with the building of the Spirit of Columbus. That is extremely important for our offshore construction yards. Is it possible for the Government to consider how we can balance the needs of the shipbuilding industry with those of the offshore oil and gas industries? That is an important question in terms of the money contributed by the Department of Trade and Industry.

I assure the hon. Lady that the Minister for Energy and I keep in close contact about the possibilities of offshore construction for the oil industry, as well as for shipbuilding orders. If the hon. Lady has a specific point to make—about the Spirit of Columbus, for example—perhaps she would like to write to me about it.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce any changes in the administration and operation of the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

That is being considered as part of the Post Office review.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge, however, that in rural areas especially there is genuine apprehension about the possible introduction of fundamental changes that could adversely affect not only the sub-post office network but the Royal Mail delivery service, and in particular the uniform standard charge? Is not it possible for the Department to come to some agreement with the Treasury to lift the existing Treasury constraints to give the Post Office the commercial freedom that we all acknowledge that it needs as we approach the 21st century, so that we do not have to go through with the suggested fundamental reorganisation?

I know of my hon. Friend's concern, but he will also know of the Select Committee's unanimous report that there has to be change. However, I can assure him that the universality of delivery and the universal charge for the services of the Royal Mail are not under review. They are sacrosanct. I have made that clear before, and I have pleasure in repeating it now.

Why does not the President of the Board of Trade listen to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and give the Post Office commercial freedom now? He could do that right away. All the delay is allowing European competitors to come into the British market and clean up, which is against the interests of the Post Office. Why does not he allow the Post Office to invest its own money, instead of being restricted by arcane Treasury rules? Why does not he allow it to enter joint ventures with other European operators to conquer the European mail market? Surely his option of privatising the Post Office, whether in BP style or otherwise, will threaten the interests not only of the Post Office but of rural deliveries and post offices, so that all his hon. Friends will be swept aside at the next general election.

The hon. Gentleman must know that the principal foreign-owned organisation that is entering this country is the Dutch post office, and that the Dutch Government are about to float shares in the Dutch post office in order to ensure its freedom to operate in the commercial market. I will not anticipate the outcome of our review, but the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will understand that the concept of major state organisations trading with taxpayers' money, and therefore being able to undermine and undercut the private sector, represents an extremely unattractive prospect for the jobs of all the people who work in the companies that could be affected, many of whom live in the constituencies of Labour Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abiding characteristic of the organisations in the long list of companies that we privatised during the excellent and successful privatisation programme under the previous Prime Minister, was that in public ownership they were by and large unsuccessful and loss-making? In the present case that is not so, and as the Post Office is already so successful and profitable—no commercial criticism of its functioning has been made by anybody outside—it will not need the upheaval that my right hon. Friend has in mind, provided that it can be freed from Treasury bondage.

My hon. Friend must not anticipate any changes that the Government may wish to decide on. However, I cannot agree that we privatised only unsuccessful loss-making organisations. For example, we privatised British Telecommunications, which was a profitable organisation. We privatised the electricity companies and the gas companies. What has happened as a result of the 1980s privatisation programme is that major nationalised industries serving a domestic market from a monopoly base have become competitive world-class companies, trading across the face of the earth to the greater benefit of the British economy.

Does the President realise that this summer it will be 330 years since Britain was last invaded by the Dutch? The Government may well be proposing to celebrate that event by taking a stiff gin—and who could blame them—but Admiral van Tromp's successors, as the President has recognised, are back, in the form of the Dutch post office. What plans does he have for our defence?

It surprises me not one whit that the hon. Member draws for his philosophy and his practical proposals on the deep archives of history. My concern is tomorrow, not yesterday.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the expected benefits to the north-east from regional assistance.

Regional selective assistance is expected to continue to contribute to job creation and the safeguarding of jobs in the north-east.

Quite aside from the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) is entirely wrong in his history, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that his view of the future is also wrong, inasmuch as regional selective assistance is now creating up to 16,000 jobs in the northern region and 175 companies currently have an offer of regional enterprise grant? Is he aware that one of the 40 companies that have successfully obtained that assistance from his Department is today expanding its number of employees from two to five? Surely that shows the seed corn of future prosperity in the region and in the United Kingdom generally?

I am happy to confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted. It is a remarkable tribute to the success of the regional selective assistance programme that there are 16,000 jobs in the north-east in current RSA projects. It is not irrelevant to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that, since 1979, 36,000 jobs in the north-east have been associated with inward investment. I suppose that if they were in Dutch companies, the hon. Gentleman would not have allowed them in.

Is not the Minister aware that the level of industrial assistance to the north-east has almost halved since 1979 under his Government? How on earth does he expect the potential of regions such as the north or towns such as Darlington, to be realised when his Government are actively disinvesting from them? When will he realise that spreading economic prosperity to all the regions and all the nations of the United Kingdom relies on active Government?

The most important factors for the economic success of the north-east, and of the whole country, are having a sensible tax climate and sensible industrial relations and avoiding the social chapter—all of which the Labour party would not do. May I perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that £1.5 billion of Government money in the form of regional aid has gone into the north-east since 1979?

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the average non-wage employment costs for manufacturers in Britain, France and Germany.

In 1992, non-wage costs as a proportion of total labour costs were 29 per cent. in France, 23 per cent. in Germany and 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

Those figures demonstrate beyond all shadow of a doubt the competitive position in which Britain finds herself. Does it not show that it is not the actual wages that matter in competitiveness, but the costs loaded on to employers by Governments, over which employers have no control? Is not that why German and French employers know that Britain was right to resist the social chapter and that their Governments were wrong, and is not that why Britain, alone in Europe, is experiencing economic growth on all fronts?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The certain message of the campaign that the country is about to see waged is that the Labour party and the Liberal party, with their proposals for adding social costs to our industrial costs, are hell-bent on the destruction of jobs in this country.

Is not it the case, however, that, while our labour costs, direct and indirect, are one fifth lower than those of Germany and France, and while their productivity is two fifths higher and their unit labour costs are more than 15 per cent. lower, labour costs, both direct and indirect, are not at all the best guide to competitiveness?

They are just one guide. The vital issue is the level of productivity that goes with wage costs. The Labour party must ask itself just what it has been doing by encouraging the overmanning and restrictive practices of the trade unions that have done so much to undermine those matters down the years.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will issue his White Paper on competitiveness.

The White Paper on competitiveness will be published on 16 May 1994.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that the key markets in which Britain will have to compete in the future are those in the far east, and that we shall not have to compete just in Europe? Does he agree that the European idea that markets somehow require a level playing field is the antithesis of what we need, which is the development of this country's comparative advantages? This will require us to keep control not only of the regulatory structure under which our industries work but of the way in which we deal with and handle our labour.

My hon. Friend will understand that if we are to have a market that is free and fair, there must be a regulatory system that is common to all parts of it. She can be very sure that if we are not able to influence the regulatory system in other parts of the market it will be rigged against the interests of British exporters.

Before the President publishes his White Paper on competitiveness will he read the unanimous reports of the Select Committees on Science and Technology and on Trade and Industry that were published recently? These point out that there are a great many factors other than price competitiveness in the overall national competitiveness scene. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the Committees' many recommendations on precisely the question he has raised —how to increase productivity?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has particular knowledge of, and a particular interest in, this matter. He will find that our White Paper on competitiveness does address the much wider horizon that he has in mind.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the promotion of British exports overseas.

I have received many representations praising the successful partnership between the Department of Trade and Industry and British exporters in overseas markets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, rightly or wrongly, there is among British business men a widespread perception that too many of our embassies are better equipped to promote genteel diplomacy and cultural relations than aggressively to pursue British commercial interests? Can my hon. Friend, knowing the commitment of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to putting British interests first, expand on what further steps might be taken to make a profound cultural change?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend, in that I think that the commercial posts overseas are professional, dedicated and extremely well run. I spend most of my life visiting them. As I thought that my hon. Friend might raise such a question, I have here 16 examples of letters written within the last month by companies praising the work of the commercial sections of our embassies. Of course, not every one of them is perfect, but 16 letters in a month is not a bad record. The partnership between the export promoters, the Department of Trade and Industry market branches and the commercial posts overseas that now exists is providing our exporters with an unrivalled service. In 1992, the Brooking Institute said:

"Perhaps the most clearly presented and coherently marketed package of export assistance programmes is that of the United Kingdom."

As this question is about exports can the Minister tell us what is the current visible trade deficit? When was our trade last in surplus?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. However, I can say that the current trade deficit is about 1.5 per cent. of gross domestic product. When trade was in surplus, the maximum under the last Labour administration was about 1.25 per cent. It is a very small percentage of our total trade. The fact is that we export 20 per cent. per head more than the Japanese and 80 per cent. per head more than the Americans. In export performance, we have the fifth highest figures on earth, with 1 per cent. of the world's population. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will start giving our exporters some praise.

An area in which we hope to do well in future will be that of aerospace exports. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the skilled work force in Lancashire that is employed by British Aerospace and by many small contractors and which is involved in the production of the Eurofighter 2000, which had its international debut at Warton in Lancashire last week?

I would be delighted to do what my hon. Friend asks.

The House will welcome the Minister's statement about trade with Vietnam and the fact that he has encouraged our exporters to penetrate that market. What about that other tiger economy of Malaysia? Have we reminded the Malaysians that they have a £1.3 billion surplus with our country? Have these matters been taken up with the European Union? Have they been taken up with GATT negotiators? Where are we with the Malaysian Government?

I can say to the hon. Gentleman—not to him personally—that one of the major causes of getting into disputes with Malaysia are the comments and activities of some of his hon. Friends.

Is not one of the best ways to promote British exports to draw attention to some startling and positive facts that have emerged recently, including the fact that the UK machine tool industry was in surplus in 1993 on its balance of trade and that machine tool exports to the United States increased by nearly two fifths over the previous year?

My hon. Friend is correct in asserting that there are many sectors of British industry that are not merely world competitors but world beating. The only thing that stands between them and their continuing success is the possibility of Opposition Members being put in charge of our economy.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made to recruit the expertise of exporters in the private sector to assist his Department to promote generally British exports.

The President and I have invited leading United Kingdom companies and business organisations to second to our Department high-calibre senior managers with export expertise. These companies have responded very positively. We have recruited nearly 80 of these people and more are on the way. We are confident that some companies that have not yet seconded an export promoter will do so shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. It demonstrates, possibly, why there has been such an improvement in recent years in the promotion of exports by our embassies overseas. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that one of the major industries in my constituency of Mid-Staffordshire is the pottery industry? He will be aware that Wedgwood has its headquarters in Barlaston, and that the well-known sanitary ware manufacturer of the name of Shanks in the town of Armitage—

Order. The hon. Member might save his descriptions for a debate on trade and industry and put his question now.

So what is my hon. Friend doing to promote sanitary ware and china ware overseas?

If my hon. Friend went to the countries round the world that I have visited he would not have to worry about the promotion of sanitary ware. As for fine china, we have established within the Department of Trade and Industry a group of tabletop manufacturers under the chairmanship of Royal Doulton to examine exactly how we can bring linen, cutlery, glass and china companies together to promote our exports across the world, and not least to ensure that all our embassies have the very best of British when anyone visits them.

Given the enormous amount of fence building that the Tory Government and Tory Ministers will have to undertake with the African National Congress, what steps has the Minister taken to improve and increase Britain's trading links with the new Government of South Africa?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be leading in the near future a major delegation of British companies to South Africa. The South African market has enormous opportunities for us. We are in the process of completing a strategic market plan for South Africa. We are analysising those sectors in which British companies can offer the best product, the best services and the best consultancies. The South African market will be a major target market for the Department of Trade and Industry, in partnership with British industry.

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is aware that exports will not be helped if we adopt the European Community circular of directive 92/58 which insists that, by 24 June, all exit signs for fire safety are replaced by those depicting a little man running downstairs, because they will create additional costs for all our manufacturing industries, our town halls, the House of Commons and every library and information centre in the country.

I think that I can safely leave that question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs who is very good at finding signs of little men running downstairs.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd in the brewery industry; and if he will make a statement.

Since the beginning of the year, my right hon. Friend and I have received three letters from or on behalf of IEL lessees. They were largely concerned with the rents charged by IEL for its pubs, the treatment of tenants and the compatibility of the IEL lease with European Community competition law. I also answered a written question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 21 March.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that, in the building at the moment, there are several hundred tenants of Inntrepreneur who are lobbying Parliament in Committee Room 14? Will he see those people and, when he sees them, will he tell them that although the beer orders may have been legally adhered to by Inntrepreneur, it has drifted away from the spirit of those beer orders? Would he further explain to them why it is that, although the Inntrepreneur lease is in contravention of article 85 of the European constitution of the treaty of Rome, the Government continue to take no action against Inntrepreneur?

I am afraid that, in the course of my busy day, I will not have the opportunity to meet those who the hon. Gentleman tells me are in Committee Room 14. Had I had notice of their being here today, I might have been able to arrange it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because we have had several meetings on such matters, I take seriously the points that he and others make and I will always be prepared to take up with companies such points in future, as I have in the past. As regards allegations that the lease is in contravention of EC law, that is, of course, a matter for the European Commission and not for me.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress on his proposals to privatise the remaining Government stake in electricity generation.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to sell, subject to market conditions, some or all of his share holdings in National Power plc and PowerGen plc in the financial year 1994–95.

Will the Minister tell us whether the forthcoming sale of shares has in any way influenced the Government in opposing the Energy Conservation Bill or in any way influenced them in their decision to table 216 amendments to the Bill? Before he formulates his answer, will he bear in mind the fact that it is not a good idea inadvertently to mislead the House in tactics for private Members' Bills?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the decision is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend and I cannot answer for him.

As Nuclear Electric is still in public ownership, does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation of that industry is crucial to the future of the nuclear industry?

I am aware that Nuclear Electric wishes to be privatised and I am aware that a number of my hon. Friends support that aspiration. As my hon. Friend knows, we have to await the Government's decision on the terms of reference of the nuclear review and then the outcome of the nuclear review before I can make any announcement on the Government's policy on that matter.

May we now take it that we all understand the real reason why the Energy Conservation Bill was blocked? Does not that tell us what a short-sighted understanding of matters the Government have because they are not able to recognise the enormous economic and financial gains that would come from an energy efficiency programme? Why on earth cannot they understand that it is disgraceful to think that the promotion of privatisation will be successful—according to their terms—to the extent that they will encourage waste and unnecessary over-consumption of electricity? What a reflection that is on the bankruptcy of our economic system as well as the Government's privatisation programme.

No. Neither the House nor the country can come to that conclusion from my previous answer. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose dedication to the whole cause of energy conservation I recognise and, indeed, share, that I am surprised if he wished to bring up that particular subject, that he did not comment on the suggestions in the consultation paper, which I published with the Director General of Ofgas, which is important in the gas market with regard to promoting energy conservation. He may like to consider that and I will be very happy to discuss it with him.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss electricity prices.

I meet the Director General of Electricity Supply regularly.

Given the disquiet on both sides of the House about rumours of differential pricing of utilities, and particularly of gas, as we heard earlier, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not allow differential pricing of electricity? Does he agree that such differential pricing would be a huge disadvantage to people, particularly those in rural communities? He has an opportunity to give a clear commitment here and now.

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He should know perfectly well that there is already considerable regional differential pricing.

How seriously can we take Opposition Members when they express concern about electricity prices or the interests of consumers? If they had had their way, would not they have insisted that—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are dealing with Government policy and not with activities or policies of the Opposition. Will the hon. Gentleman transpose his question?

Did not the Opposition oppose Government policy to ensure that we had competition in electricity generation so that consumers' interests were paramount? Do not they always put the interests of producers and vested interests first?

Yes, as so frequently, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of the privatisation of the electricity industry, there has been a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction in the price of electricity to domestic consumers. I have to say again to Opposition Front-Bench Members that if they do not realise that there have been long-established regional pricing differentials on electricity, they really need to use their Short money more effectively.

When the Minister next has a meeting to discuss electricity prices, will he bear in mind the fact that the successful intervention of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and of Ministers in attracting companies such as Hualon to Northern Ireland, could be threatened because of the very high cost of electricity in Northern Ireland and the need for Northern Ireland consumers, both domestic and industrial, to have access to cheaper electricity?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that issue. He and I have discussed it in the past. I will again bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

In advance of my hon. Friend's next meeting with the director general, will he join me in congratulating the Merseyside and North-Western electricity board which has announced not just a reduction in its electricity tariff, as have other boards, but a £10 rebate to every consumer in the north-west which will do most for those in greatest need?

I will indeed congratulate MANWEB on its £10 rebate and its 1 per cent. reduction. In addition, the Midlands board has reduced its prices by 2 per cent. The North Western electricity board has announced a 6 per cent. reduction from April 1994. The South Eastern electricity board has made a 2 per cent. reduction and given a £8 rebate. Time and again, the success of privatisation is recognised in the way in which regional electricity companies are bringing down their prices to domestic consumers.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase expenditure on civil research and development.

Information about my Department's planned expenditure on civil research and development up to 1996–97 was given in the recently published "Forward Look of Government-Funded Science, Engineering and Technology".

There was not a great deal of factual information there. The Minister will be aware that, in per capita and absolute terms, Britain spends less on civil research and development than our major competitors. Is he aware that a recent study by the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the competitiveness of British industry states that one of the reasons for that is short-termism? What is the Minister doing to overcome the short-termist culture that is holding back British industry?

The hon. Gentleman makes several points. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already said, we will be addressing some of those issues in the White Paper that will be published next week.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real relative shortfall in research and development spend in Britain is in the private sector? If companies do not maintain an adequate research and development capacity of their own, they are less likely to be able to implement innovative change. Will that be one of the issues that will be addressed in the competition White Paper?

My hon. Friend touches on an important point which needs to be addressed by private companies. A number of companies that I see are spending significant amounts on research and development. That is very important, and it is also important to create the right framework which enables companies to put their investments to one side. That is certainly something which we shall consider.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chair of British Coal to discuss pit closures.

Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I meet the chairman of British Coal as necessary to discuss a variety of coal industry matters.

Is the Minister aware that it adds insult to injury for miners who have recently lost their jobs—there are no pits left in north Derbyshire now—to be told that they did not want the coal for the nation, when they are having to suffer massive imports and opencast coal mining on a massive production line? Is there anything more sickening for communities than to see bulldozers tearing up the countryside in areas where pits have been closed? The bulldozers will be there for 10 years, digging big holes and dumping toxic waste. Will the Minister tell British Coal to stop these developments and will he tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to stop planning applications for opencast developments?

As occurs so frequently nowadays, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong and wrong again. Coal imports are down.