To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.

The regional development organisations make a significant contribution to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. In 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available, they were significantly involved in attracting 54 investment projects by foreign firms to the United Kingdom, involving some 6,000 jobs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in thanking the Northern Development Company in particular, which has succeeded in attracting some £3.5 billion-worth of inward investment to the north-east, creating or safeguarding some 35,000 jobs? Will he compare its successful efforts at industrial regeneration with the record of the National Enterprise Board, which made 100 investments, 35 of which went bust and 37 were sold at a loss to the taxpayer?

My hon. Friend is wise to remind the House of the disastrous experience of the National Enterprise Board, but he is also right to point out that the north-east has been particularly successful in attracting inward investment to this country, a significant amount of which I have had the privilege of seeing.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the north-east shares with areas in the south-east the problem of endemic long-term unemployment. When he considers the regional development map in due course, will he bear in mind the fact that the causes of that regional endemic unemployment will not have been solved because we will not have the new roads? Will he ensure that the Department is generous in the timing of a new map?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are obliged to review the map from time to time and we will do so, but against a statistically accurate background. I know that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at seeing the overall levels of unemployment now falling consistently month by month.

Does the President of the Board accept that, despite the recent difficulties of the Welsh Development Agency, in the period from 1976 until now it has performed a remarkable job? It now needs every support, not only from the Welsh Office but from the Minister's Department and the Treasury, to maximise inward investment into Wales and the UK generally and to help self-regenerative growth within the area?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the great success that the Welsh Development Agency has had, but he will remember that it has enjoyed that success against the background of fiscal policies that have made this country extremely attractive to inward investment. The most constructive thing that he and his party could do is support the Government's determination to avoid the on-costs of the social chapter, which would undermine Welsh competitiveness.

Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge the good work done by the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation, particularly in south Humberside, where he will recall opening the Kimberly-Clark plant? Will he guarantee that, whatever boundary changes the local government review comes up with, the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation will still have responsibility for attracting inward investment to south Humberside and Scunthorpe, where it has had so many successes?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the considerable success that Government policy has had in attracting inward investment to this country. I assure him that we will continue with those policies. Indeed, we are increasing our efforts to support them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of overseas companies that have decided in the past six months to invest in Devon and Cornwall has risen sharply compared to previous years, thanks largely to the efforts of the Devon and Cornwall development bureau? Does he agree, however, that that is not just a reflection of growing confidence in the UK economy but a new recognition that the south-west, with its skilled work force and improving communications, is now firmly open for business?

My hon. Friend makes a remarkable and eloquent point on behalf of the south-west. I have visited his part of the country recently. The transformation that has taken place since I was last a Member of Parliament for that area is remarkable.

The President of the Board of Trade will be aware of the excellent work done by Scottish Enterprise. Recently, jointly with a constituent of mine in manufacturing, it had identified major possible small hydro projects in Vietnam. Unfortunately, no overseas aid was available. Would the President welcome greater influence over the distribution of overseas aid in his Department?

I should certainly welcome any increased influence if it were available, but that does not mean to say that I shall be allowed to get it.

We welcome the presence of the President of the Board of Trade today and congratulate him on keeping his post. It must be the first Government reshuffle that prepares for opposition.

The hon. Gentleman is playing the traditional Labour party game—singling out an example of something that has gone wrong in order to generalise, to the maximum damage of the British economy. Unemployment is decreasing in the north-east, as it is in the economy at large. Instead of trying to find ways of explaining that away, the hon. Member should get to his feet and praise it.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on constructing an interconnector for gas between Britain and the continent of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

We want freer trade in gas throughout Europe. I believe that a private sector gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Belgium will play a major role in achieving that.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the private sector is keen to finance its own pipeline to the continent? Does he agree that it is about time that the European Community moved towards a single market on energy?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion of Government funding contributing to the building of the interconnector, although I recently met my Belgian counterpart to begin negotiations on a treaty between the UK and Belgium to cover the interconnector.

If the Minister believes in a free market in gas throughout Europe, why is his Department preventing other Norwegian fields from going through the Frigg delivery system and landing at St. Fergus in my constituency? Does not that reveal an inconsistency in his approach, or is he just against St. Fergus as a landfall point for gas?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am committed to the continuation of St. Fergus as a major terminal for gas, whether it be from Norway or from other sources. I recently had representations from the chairman of the Banff and Buchan Conservative association, urging that Britannia gas should arrive at St. Fergus.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the introduction of full competition in the gas supplied to the domestic consumer could result in a drop in prices of about 10 or 11 per cent. to them? Will he therefore introduce a full liberalisation of the gas market to domestic consumers, and allow independent companies to come in and compete with British Gas?

I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that legislation would be brought forward, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, in order to introduce competition.

I want to return to the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the subject of Norwegian gas. Are we going to have to wait until Norway is in the European Community before the matter is resolved? Will it be resolved on the basis of Britain being in a minority of one once again?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman—I am not surprised at the Scottish nationalist Member. We are in negotiations with the Norwegians and want to support Britain's best interests. I find it extraordinary that the official Opposition should urge a collapse on our part to agree to whatever requests the Norwegians make. That is not looking after Britain's best interests.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association to discuss prospects for the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association. I spoke after its annual general meeting on 3 December last year, since when I have had a number of meetings with the industry and my officials keep in regular contact with the association.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of electricity for major energy users using the electricity pooled price system continues to place a great burden on the major steel industry in this country? Will he respond to the report that he received from Stephen Littlechild on the subject only yesterday or the day before, and say today that he will allow trading outside the pool system for major energy users such as steel workers in my constituency, so that they can carry on making the best special steel in Europe for many years to come?

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that those are matters for the director general, who is reviewing the position. They are issues which my officials and I regularly discuss with the association to ensure that we and, if necessary, the director general are fully aware of its views.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can in government and Europe to get rid of the remaining subsidies that so many European firms still give to their steel industries and which damage the British economy so much? Will he continue to press for what is probably one of the most important European issues—to get the market in steel operating on a fair basis?

I agree with my hon. Friend that achieving a level playing field and getting rid of state subsidies is a prime objective and the best way to ensure that efficient British producers can benefit from a single market. It is an objective to which I have given a great deal of time and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press for progress. I think that progress is being made, albeit more slowly than we should like.

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

Effective regulation, together with the introduction of competition, is bringing considerable benefits to consumers. Domestic customers, for example, have seen a 7 per cent. reduction in prices, in real terms, over the past two financial years.

Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that about £12 million has been awarded by themselves to the chairmen of the electricity supply industry? Does that show that the regulatory bodies act in the interests of the consumer or in the interests of the electricity companies?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's view on salary increases clear. On the subject of the future of electricity prices, the Director General of Electricity Supply is currently conducting a review of the distribution price mechanism. I understand that he is likely to report within the next two or three weeks.

Does the Minister accept that it is an expressed view of the Electricity Consumers Council that the benefits of privatisation have been passed on to the shareholders, but not in full to the consumers and that, in its view, electricity prices are at least 5 per cent. too high? What action will the Government take to ensure that the benefits that they claim come from privatisation are passed to consumers in the form of lower prices?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. It is slightly unfortunate that he did not listen to my initial response. I made it clear that there had been a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms in prices for domestic consumers over the past two years as a direct result of privatisation.

What will the Minister do when he is faced with a proposal from the electricity companies to sell the national grid? Does he remember that when the Government sold all the electricity companies, they made £5 billion? Is not he surprised that the electricity companies now expect to get back £4 billion of that just by selling the national grid? Does not that suggest that the price of privatisation was a bad bargain? Will he demand that the public, who built the national grid, get some of the money, or will the electricity companies make a windfall profit at the expense of a public already thoroughly fed up with paying for bigger boardroom salaries?

The hon. Gentleman is so blinded by socialist dogma that he will not recognise the considerable benefit to domestic consumers as a direct result of privatisation. There has been a 7 per cent. reduction in electricity prices in real terms and there are likely to be further reductions. There have also been significant reductions for all industrial consumers other than the very large ones.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation he has made of the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget in the months of April, May and June on its safety advisory services to senior citizens and others.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of how the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget will affect its service to (a) people with disabilities and (b) others.

The Gas Consumers Council has indicated that it will continue to be able to carry out all its functions including services to the disabled and to senior citizens.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the cuts, the Gas Consumers Council will not be able to afford to reprint its leaflets on gas safety? That is happening at a time when many elderly people have defective gas appliances. Is it not both a folly and a disgrace to remove those resources from the leading organisation responsible for informing customers of gas safety?

I am not aware of any proposals by the GCC to cut back on its literature, whether relating to safety or otherwise—

It is a disgrace.

Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) really suggesting that the Government should not seek in any way to control expenditure on the GCC? Is it alone to be exempted from expenditure restrictions?

Does not the Minister understand that, of the £209,000 savings, only £2,000 will be saved by the Department of Trade and Industry? In fact, we have spent that. £2,000 by asking these two questions. The other £207,000 will be savings for the gas people. Can we have a guarantee that that £207,000 will not go into the hip pocket of the chairman of British Gas?

At the end of the day, additional costs to British Gas effectively mean that consumers have to pay more for their gas. The Government have a duty to restrict expenditure, in an equal way, across the consumer bodies as a whole. There is no reason why the GCC should be exempted from that.

Why does not the Minister simply tell the House the truth? If he speaks to Captain Ian Powe, who heads the GCC—which the hon. Gentleman obviously has not done—Captain Powe will tell him that he is no longer able to reproduce the key gas safety leaflets for tenants, senior citizens and others advising them about the perils of gas and of not maintaining gas appliances.

Scaremongering may come naturally to the hon. Gentleman, but it does not make a sensible contribution to an important discussion. My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is fully confident of being able to carry out all its functions.

Not true.

It is true. But, like other consumer councils, it is having to absorb a small reduction in its budget. It is right that it should have to restrict public expenditure as do similar bodies.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to discuss with representatives of the West Cumbria development agency the future of local development.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to meet West Cumbrian representatives in the near future. Officials in the Government office for the north-west are in regular and close contact with the West Cumbria development agency. As the Minister with responsibility for the north-west, I go there frequently and I should be happy to see those representatives if the hon. Gentleman were to request it.

I raise the issue that I have raised repeatedly during the past 12 months in the House —the empty 500,000 sq ft former Volvo factory in Workington. What is happening in the Department? What efforts are currently being made to try to find either a tenant or a new owner on the international market of footloose industry that is interested in coming to the United Kingdom?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have shown willingness to help Cumbria in many respects in recent years. During the past three years, £12 million has been invested in projects designed to provide improved facilities for business and commerce alone, and that is part of a continuing programme spear-headed by English Partnerships.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about security of sub-post offices. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Security in sub-post offices is an operational matter for the Post Office in conjunction with the individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who own them. The Post Office takes security throughout the post office network very seriously and keeps it under constant review.

Given the alarming number of attacks on the staff of sub-post offices, including the recent tragic murder of a sub-postmaster on the Archway road in my constituency, will the Minister give an assurance that he will have urgent talks with the Post Office about the funding of vital security measures such as alarm systems and closed circuit television?

The whole House will wish me to express condolences to the family of the hon. Lady's constituent who was murdered. The Post Office pays for safes, alarm systems, including panic buttons, and counter security screens. The cost of additional security measures that are deemed necessary is a matter for the individual post office. I will closely consider what the hon. Lady has said in this case, but the facts are still under investigation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a serious matter, and that in my constituency a few years ago a sub-postmistress was murdered in most tragic circumstances? Is my hon. Friend further aware that many attacks are carried out, particularly in remote areas, by people who have first committed car crimes? In one case, thieves towed away a safe using an agricultural vehicle. Will my hon. Friend tell the Home Office that we expect a much more robust attitude from it to the whole question of car crime?

I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, have taken a number of measures which show their determination to crack down on crime and those who commit it.

In respect of the long-term security in the sub-post office network, the Minister will be aware that I am opposed to the privatisation proposals, which we will fight every inch of the way, but may I seriously appeal to him not to break up the Post Office? If the Government are determined to privatise it, may I urge them to keep the Post Office together, as every other post office in the world has been kept together? I realise that there is no accounting cross-subsidy, but there are considerable organisational cross-subsidies and a synergy between the different elements of the Post Office which must be maintained.

The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has devised a scheme that is warmly welcomed by the people who run post offices. It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman opposes our plans for privatisation in this case. He has never supported any of the others. If he had supported this, I would be very worried.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the contribution of Japanese investment in the British car industry in securing jobs.

Japanese inward investment to the United Kingdom car industry has been very substantial, with total planned investment of more than £2 billion, creating more than 7,000 direct jobs. The wider benefits have also been significant, particularly among components suppliers.

Britain and the Government have enjoyed wide and considerable success in attracting Japanese investment, with nearly half of all that made in Europe in the last 10 years coming to this country—as is evidenced by the successful business men who have chosen Finchley in which to live. To what does my right hon. Friend ascribe that success? Is it the Government's low corporate taxation, the welcome that we give such companies or the success of the DTI's efforts? None of those would be offered by the Opposition.

It can primarily be ascribed to a Conservative Government who welcome Japanese investment and who introduced the industrial relations reforms that mean that Japanese companies setting up in the United Kingdom can operate as productively and profitably as in Japan, and to the fact that Britain does not have a Labour Government.

Putting to one side the Minister's juvenile remarks about the reasons for investment in Britain, is he aware that it is widely welcomed throughout the country? The increasing level of local manufacture is also much welcomed. If the Minister can get down to industry and leave silly politics to one side, should not his next step be increasingly to concentrate design and development in the UK, which has many outstanding skills ready for exploitation? What will the Minister do about that?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like political reality coming into his long and distinguished industrial career. However, he is right to say that we must maximise research and development facilities and our ability to design cars, which is formidable. He is also right to emphasise that we must give British industry the back-up and support to meet all its needs, which will ensure that the British automotive and components industries continue the success that they have enjoyed over the past few years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as long as we are in government, we will continue to do that.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further responses he has had from companies to his White Paper on competitiveness.

British businesses have been very positive about the White Paper on competitiveness. Its analysis has been accepted and its new initiatives welcomed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that only by companies continuing to improve their competitiveness, as set out in the White Paper, will the United Kingdom economy continue to enjoy growth, will living standards continue to improve and will unemployment fall—as is happening throughout the country and in my constituency in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the politics of envy and unfairness as espoused by the socialists on the Opposition Benches would destroy the competitiveness of UK companies?

I heard what my hon. Friend said. I wholly agree with the thrust of his observations, which is why one takes such satisfaction from the most favourable set of economic statistics that we have enjoyed for many a long year.

I welcome the White Paper, but it is unfortunate that there was an absence of Treasury involvement. Will the President of the Board of Trade make representations to his colleagues on the Treasury Bench for time to be made available for a full debate on the competitiveness of British industry, the backcloth being both the White Paper and the Select Committee report on the same subject?

I welcome the opportunity to debate the competitiveness White Paper, and the Government ensured that such a debate took place the other day. Conspicuously absent from that debate was any Labour Member.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report by the Institute of Economic and Social Research? It showed that whereas UK manufacturing productivity lagged badly behind Germany in the 1970s, we out-performed Germany's growth in the 1980s; and that whereas we lagged behind other G7 members in the 1960s and 1970s, we were ahead of most of them in the 1980s. Does not that show that our supply side reforms in the 1980s helped to close the gap with our competitors? The period that we were in real danger of becoming a skivvy economy with Mickey Mouse jobs was not under this Government but under Labour.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the lesson that, in productivity, we significantly caught up our European competitors during the 1980s, as a direct consequence of the supply side reforms that the Government introduced. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the fact that we still have not yet achieved the productivity levels of some of our European competitors, and we must achieve that if we are to be truly competitive.

Do Ministers approve of the predatory pricing policies of Rupert Murdoch and The Times?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not approve of predatory pricing policies, and if they offend the law, we are under a responsibility to examine them, but he would not expect me to make specific comments about the matters to which he referred unless they had been properly considered and reflected on.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the depth and, indeed, the width of his White Paper on competitiveness, which has been warmly welcomed by broad sectors of industry, but might not a bit be missing? The White Paper is silent on the supply and price of capital to the capital-intensive small and medium-sized manufacturing sector. Given the growing worldwide shortage of risk capital, making Britain the most attractive place for mobile international risk capital would in turn help our manufacturing and small firms sector. Will he make representations to the Treasury on that so that we may be competitive in that regard as well?

I know of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the matter. He will know that the White Paper referred to those issues—indeed, specifically to inquiries that are now being conducted in the Treasury as part of its normal responsibilities and budget-forming judgment. The White Paper did not avoid the issues. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry referred to page 99 and following pages. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a glance at that important part of the White Paper when he has a moment during the long recess.

Would it run counter to the White Paper if Railtrack were allowed to push up the costs of transporting by rail the coil and the raw materials for British Rail plc? Will he look at that matter? Does he agree that, unless Railtrack holds back, British Steel plc may find it hard to keep open some of its smaller plants?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the prime responsibility for Railtrack falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My Department is always interested in matters of competitiveness, but not, however, in those that are hypothetical and put in a scare technique method, long in advance of the risks having materialised.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the competitive Ford workers in my constituency who yesterday helped to secure Ford's investment decision to place its largest industrial research plant at Dunton? Ford UK placed it there because of the Ford workers in my constituency and because labour relations in Britain are now so attractive that we are the most competitive country in the whole of the Ford spectrum for that massive investment.

I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's welcome for that important decision. I had the pleasure, just this week, of discussing with the chief executive officer of Ford the long-term plans for his company. He stressed to me that there were considerable opportunities for the United Kingdom, provided that we can achieve the competitive standards that would then attract his board to back the United Kingdom as a base in Europe.

Is the President aware that yesterday's report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put Britain bottom in Europe for rights at work, with a mark of zero out of 10? If he is aware of that, will he confirm that that report could find no evidence that the social chapter had destroyed jobs in any of the countries that applied it? But it did find that Britain spent less on training than any other major European country. In the light of that report, will not even this Government now recognise that the key to competitiveness is a secure, skilled work force, and that we will not build the best work force in Europe on the basis of the worst rights in Europe and the poorest training in Europe?

The key to competitiveness is running an economy that enables our companies to win and attract people to base their investment here. The hon. Gentleman would do far better to recognise that the most important aspect of the job market is the fact that this country's economy is generating jobs faster than are the economies of most of its European competitors, because its climate is working economically and helping it to lead Europe out of recession. That is the Government's important achievement, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman says by way of selective quotation will undermine it.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on his Green Paper on the Post Office.

rose—

A reshuffle!

I can tell the House that the result that I am about to announce is just as good as the result that the reshuffle will produce.

At a time when the Post Office is facing increased international competition, and when the German and Dutch Post Offices are being privatised, would not it be entirely wrong to handicap British industry by denying it the advantages of privatisation and access to the capital markets?

My hon. Friend would not expect me to make any premature decisions. We are consulting widely on the future of the Royal Mail, and we have published an excellent Green Paper. Although the Green Paper expressed preference for the Government's proposal, we will listen carefully to what all right hon. and hon. Members, and people outside the House, have to say before we reach a final decision.

Is not it pretty disgraceful that the chairman of the Post Office should jump on board the privatisation proposal in the Green Paper in the way that he has? Nearly all the chief executives and other officials who have been involved in the privatisation of gas, electricity and other utilities have responded similarly, rather than by recognising their public responsibility to operate public services. Has not that something to do with the Government's policy on monetarism and the private market?

That is one of the most preposterous statements that I have heard from an Opposition long famed for making preposterous statements. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the trade union movement seems to be entitled to have his view paraded in the House as though it were the ultimate document; when the chairman comments, what he says is regarded as an insult and an abuse. I do not understand what democracy means to Opposition Members.

In running scare stories about the future of sub-post offices, are not the Labour party and its socialist allies the Liberal Democrats in great danger of crying wolf just once too often, given that the future of the sub-post offices has been secured in the Green Paper?

My hon. Friend enables me to make the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made a few moments ago. The proposals for the sub-post offices have been warmly welcomed by representatives of the owners of those post offices, which shows once again that the Government have got it right and the Labour party has got it wrong.

Will the President of the Board of Trade admit that 40 per cent. of the business of sub-post offices consists of the payment of cash benefits, and that a secure system for such payment is long overdue? Will he give the House and the sub-post offices a guarantee that they will not be charged for access to any new technology that may be introduced for secure payment and that banks and supermarkets will not be allowed access to that system, thus destroying the livelihood of those running sub-post offices?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands that the sub-post offices already provide some banking services. The issue is whether they should be allowed to provide wider banking services. Nothing so characterises the difference between the Government and the Labour party as the fact that Labour wants to stop people from doing things, while we want to expand their opportunities.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on local authorities that are already launching an anti-privatisation campaign—for instance, my local authority in Colchester, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab alliance? Are not those local authorities wasting their time in running unnecessary scare stories and should they not concentrate their efforts on keeping their council tax down?

That would be extremely attractive to local tax payers. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that I shall have to listen extremely carefully to all the representations and judge them on their merits before recommending to my colleagues the way in which we should proceed as the Green Paper consultation period comes to an end.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss his White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win."

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the TUC. I had a discussion with the TUC in the run-up to the competitiveness White Paper. We are always ready for a constructive exchange of views with the TUC.

Why does not the Minister accept the recommendations of the Select Committee report on competitiveness in relation to a training levy, encouragement of research and development and restraint of dividend payments? Will the Minister reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about yesterday's OECD report on training, which showed a dramatic decline in the 1990s in this country so that expenditure is now a quarter of that in Germany? Will the Minister respond to a recent report, sponsored by his own Department, which pointed out that the top 200 international companies spend three times as much on R and D as on dividend payments whereas the top 362 companies in this country spend twice as much on dividend payments as on R and D? What will he do about those problems?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully the White Paper on competitiveness and we welcome the interest, even from the Opposition, in this important subject. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the White Paper responds significantly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report and gives particular emphasis to the importance of training and education. It includes a wide range of new initiatives costing £300 million further to strengthen and build on what we have already done to improve our standards of training and to raise the quality of education—measures which were opposed consistently by the Opposition parties.

When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC, will he point out to them that the infrastructure of the United Kingdom is important for our balance of trade? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Steel is now saying that, because of what has happened today, last week and the week before, he will now have to reconsider the means by which steel is transported in the United Kingdom? It is not just the passengers who are being affected by the rail strike but freight.

My hon. Friend makes an obvious point clearly and strongly. It is extraordinary that it is a point not appreciated by the Labour party, which has consistently failed to condemn the unnecessary dispute.

A few minutes ago, the President of the Board of Trade said that British industry should continue efforts to catch up with our European competitors. Is he aware that many industries, not least the engineering steel industry, have not only caught up with, but have surpassed, their European competitors, but that has done them little good in the face of unfair competition? Quite a few months ago, the Minister told the House that he had secured a guarantee that the unfair competition would be monitored. What has been the result of that monitoring and when will industry and the trade unions be aware that the monitoring has taken place?

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the achievements of the privatised British steel industry. He will surely recognise that the improvement from over 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel to under four hours, which is the latest figure, is as a result of the productivity gains achieved by the private sector management. I share with the hon. Gentleman concern about achieving a level playing field. We are making progress, as I told the House earlier, and the Commission has made it clear that it is prepared to open proceedings against any companies that breach the agreement reached on 17 December.

If the TUC genuinely wants competitiveness and wants British business to win, would not the best thing it could do today be to tell its union members that industrial action in pursuit of inflationary wage demands is undermining everything that British industry will need in the years ahead to fight in an increasingly competitive world environment?

My hon. Friend makes an eminently sensible suggestion. I can only add that another useful and sensible thing that it could do to help the competitiveness of British industry and its own influence would be to sever its links with the Labour party.

In the light of the OECD report published yesterday, which cited trade unions, consultation and collective bargaining as being good for labour market efficiency, will the Minister be urging on business the extension of trade union rights and trade union recognition as a way of improving British competitiveness?

No. We shall leave those matters to be decided by management in consultation with their own work force.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the cost of running Post Office Counters Ltd. as a separate business.

Since 1986, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been run as a separate business, negotiating arm's-length contracts with clients and suppliers. On this basis, the company has been consistently profitable.

The Minister will know that the Post Office directly subsidises 10,000 post offices to the tune of £30 million a year and that those post offices are to be found in rural and small urban areas. Given that they are the areas that will suffer any losses, will the cross-subsidy be maintained in future? If not, will not it mean an accelerated death for rural and small urban post offices?

The House knows by now that we have made clear the value that we place on the maintenance of the network of sub-post offices. If we had not been able to satisfy the sub-post offices of our good intentions, they would not have welcomed our proposals in the way that they have.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount of money owed by his Department to suppliers in 1992 and 1993 which remained unpaid after 30 days from the presentation of invoices.

The information in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman could be made available only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department's annual surveys of its payment performance showed that in 1991–92, 80 per cent. of invoices were paid either within 30 days or within the agreed credit period. The corresponding figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 were 90.5 and 90 per cent. respectively.

Talking about disproportionate cost, what about the firms that are struggling because they have not been paid? Why does not the President of the Board of Trade ensure that his Department pays its bills promptly or within 30 days instead of setting a bad example to other firms which are also dragging their feet paying suppliers? Is not this just another case of, "Physician, heal thyself"?

I have just told the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial improvement—from 80 to 90 per cent.—in the Department's practice in paying its bills within 30 days or according to the period set out in the contract. We hope to do better still, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is not unanimity, even in the small business sector, about the argument for making compulsory the payment of debts within 30 days or any other period because many people fear that such legislation could be used by big companies against small companies.

While the figures that my hon. Friend has just given clearly show the good example being set by his Department, which is very important, does he agree that options are open to firms of all sizes—for example, the granting of discounts for cash—that encourage prompt payment, and we do not necessarily have to have recourse to unwieldy law?

As the Minister with responsibility for deregulation, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there may be market solutions to the problem that are better than centralised regulation. I am grateful to him for the interest that he takes in this matter and for his useful suggestions.

Would not the President of the Board of Trade be doing British industry in general a service if he were to encourage all Government Departments to meet their responsibility to make early payment right across the place? I am sure that he recognises that cash management problems, especially in small businesses, are extremely acute at the moment and likely to continue to be so. Therefore, will he have a word with colleagues in other Departments and ensure an evenness of policy?

There have been two questions implying that I am now the President of the Board of Trade —I am afraid that I have not seen the most recent news on television.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to change the criteria relating to regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement.

The Government keep the criteria relating to regional selective assistance under continuous review to ensure that we get the best value for money and that the RSA scheme makes an effective contribution to the competitiveness of British industry.

Does that mean that the Minister agrees with the DTI spokesperson who said that there was increasing emphasis on the quality of the jobs created, and is he therefore looking for excuses to cut regional selective assistance—yes or no?

I hope that, because of her interest in the subject, the hon. Lady will be aware that expenditure on regional selective assistance last year was substantially greater than expenditure the previous year. We expect expenditure this year to be further increased.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest information he has on the level of exports of manufactured goods.

In the latest three months, manufactured export volumes were 8 per cent. higher than those of a year earlier, and were at an all-time record level.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that exports, manufacturing output, productivity, retail sales and business confidence are up, while we are keeping down the social costs on business, the rate of strikes, interest rates and the rate of inflation, gives us the best opportunity for increased growth, new jobs and rising living standards for everyone?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but the key needs are to ensure that that confidence is maintained and that business in this country realises how good the news is. It would be helpful if, from time to time, Opposition Members supported us in that aim.

When did the United Kingdom last have a balance of payments surplus in manufactured goods?

We last had such a surplus at the end of the 1970s. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The fact is, however, that the proportion of manufactured goods as a percentage of the economy of this country is no lower than the proportion in France or in Italy. Our surplus on invisibles is growing. Our volume of manufactured trade and exports has stabilised since the mid-1980s; the decline that continued remorselessly when the Labour party was in power has stopped.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that engineering employers in East Anglia have recently reported a considerable improvement in export performance? Is not that good news? As our exports to the European Union are rising faster than our exports to countries outside the Union, is not it vital that, as a Government and as a country, we continue to work at the heart of Europe?

Of course my hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, the manufacturing deficit continues to decline. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) used to be always on his feet saying that it was a danger and a disgrace that the deficit in manufactured goods was likely to increase, but now that it is falling he sits on his hands and looks at his feet.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect of the reduction in the National Consumer Council's budget on its work in 1994–95.

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

Does not the Minister consider that reducing the budget of the NCC by £430,000 a year will seriously impair its ability to represent consumer interests? Is that reduction being made because the NCC's recent report has embarrassed the Government? For example, it showed that single pensioners in the south-west have to spend 9.1 per cent. of their income simply to pay their water bills.

We take no lessons from the Opposition on the funding of the NCC. In 1976–77, funding was £452,000. The latest figure is £2.47 million which is an increase in real terms of 46.5 per cent. so we will shall take no lessons from the Opposition.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham to discuss the impact of subsidies to other EC steel industries.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham.

If the President of the Board of Trade were to visit any of the steel plants in Rotherham, he would find a strong sense of partnership and co-operation between trade unions and managers, contributing to the success of the British steel industry. Does the Minister agree that the demotion of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the most anti-partnership and right-wing Minister in the Cabinet —to the Department of Employment shows that the partnership policies needed to make British industry a success have no chance at all until the next election?

If the hon. Gentleman were to visit any section of British industry, he would find now a much greater sense of partnership between management and work force; they are not two sides, but one side of industry. That is, of course, a result of the reforms of industrial relations introduced by this Government, which were consistently opposed by the Labour party, which the hon. Gentleman supports. Those reforms have contributed substantially to the increase in productivity and to the improvement in the performance of British industry of which we should all be proud, rather than constantly denigrating it as the Labour party does.