asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, when he next meets the chairman of the Post Office, he will raise with him the matter of delays to Her Majesty's mails and, in particular, the failure to honour the first-class post.

Yes, Sir. I normally discuss at our meetings the plans of the Post Office to provide a more efficient and economical service.

Is it not a gamble whether a first-class or a second-class letter will arrive first? Is my hon. Friend aware that a first-class letter posted from the House of Commons reached me in London W8 three days later?

Of course, there are criticisms to be made of the service that is offered by the Post Office. It has been through some difficult times, particularly with industrial relations. However, the recent agreements that have been reached between the Post Office and the principal union hold out a very good prospect that the service will be improved. I hope that in future it will be far less of a gamble and a far more reliable service.

While everybody wishes the Post Office to achieve maximum efficiency, especially by the use of modern methods and full post codes, is not the Post Office saying that unless the post code is used in full, first-class letters will be treated as second-class letters? Does the Secretary of State approve of that? Will he take steps to ensure that it does not happen?

Mr. Speaker, I did not fully follow the hon. Gentleman's question. I wonder whether he could be permitted to repeat it.

Briefly.

Yes, briefly. I understand that the Post Office's view is that unless the full post code is used there is no guarantee that first-class mail will be treated as a first-class service. Is that not wrong? Will the Secretary of State try to do something about it?

That is essentially a matter for the management of the Post Office. It will endeavour to offer the best service possible in any circumstances, but to give it the best possible chance of providing a really first-class service the use of the post code is highly desirable.

Is my right hon. Friend surprised to learn that a constituent of mine who wrote asking me when my next surgery was to be held, in order to seek the benefit of my advice and experience, received my reply, giving him that information, several days too late? I learnt of that only this week when I received a letter saying why he had not attended my surgery. If a letter posted from the mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, in a House of Commons envelope with a first-class stamp on it, arrives late, how does an ordinary individual in this country stand a chance in hell of getting his mail delivered first-class the day afterwards? It is scandalous.

I am amazed that my hon. Friend's constituents are not aware of the regularity with which he holds his advice bureau. It is most uncharacteristic of him to hide his light under a bushel. The figures show that getting on for nine out of 10 first-class letters are delivered the following day. I do not believe that that is good enough, and the Post Office does not believe that is good enough. I hope that the new agreements that have been reached will lead to a more constructive attitude on the part of all those in the Post Office towards providing a better service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office management in Bradford has been appealing to the public not to use post offices during several days of each week which are regarded as exceptionally busy? Is he further aware that those appeals follow the closure of many sub-post offices in my constituency and elsewhare? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that sub-post offices are not shut on the basis of arbitrary and unclear criteria and that customers who use post offices are given a reasonable service?

Sub-post offices are not closed on arbitrary and unfair criteria. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are closed, they are closed on clear grounds. I am sure that it is only sensible that the Post Office advises people that, if they want to get the quickest possible service, they should remember that there are busy days and lightly loaded days. That is no different from reminding people that buses and tubes are more crowded during the rush hour than at off peak times.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist the development of the footwear manufacturing industry.

My department has a wide range of schemes currently available to assist the development of industry, including the footwear manufacturing industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way for the Government to help the footwear industry is to encourage the introduction of new technology, especially microelectronic process control technology, which will safeguard, rather than lose, jobs?

Yes. In addition to the substantial grant which the Department of Trade and Industry gives the industry's research association, which last year was in excess of £500,000, officials in my Department are engaged in negotiations with representatives from the industry on the use of advanced techniques in the manufacture of footwear.

Is the Minister worried about the influence of the British Shoe Corporation on the British footwear market?

There is a retail commitment, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar and to which we refer from time to time. I appreciate that there have been discussions about this matter in the all-party footwear committee. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw my attention to any specific matter, I shall consider it seriously.

In the context of the future of the footwear industry, has my hon. Friend seen early-day motion 834, which asks the Government to act on the danger of the United States Government imposing quotas on exports of footwear to that country? Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to make a statement?

I have seen that early-day motion, which has been signed by colleagues with constituency interests in footwear, and I agree with the thrust of it. With our full backing, the Community has registered the strongest possible representation to the United States Administration that, if exports from the EC to the United States are to be curtailed, that would be unjustified and oblige the Community to take advantage of its powers under the general agreement on tariffs and trade to be compensated fully for injury caused to our exporters. It would not be understood in this House if the Americans introduced such a protectionist measure, because it would not sit easily with their professed belief in free trade.

In the event of the Americans not matching their actions to their beliefs and quotas being applied, will the Government ensure that such quotas are applied country by country, or on an EEC basis, whereupon the Government will put pressure on Brussels to ensure that there is a country by country allocation of those quotas, as the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation has asked the Government to do?

I should not like to go down that path, for the simple reason that, at this stage, only the International Trade Commission is making representations to the American Administration. The ITC is not part of the American Government. Indeed, the American Administration has a good record on resisting the overtures of organisations, such as the ITC, with regard to the introduction of protectionist measures. I do not know whether we shall get anywhere near what the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I hope that the record to which I have referred remains good.

If the position to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred came about, and vast quantities of cheap shoes were being dumped on the English market to the detriment of our footwear industry, following early-day motion 834, would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider appropriate measures to protect our industry?

It would be a case of retaliatory action, and we are nowhere near that at the moment. As I said in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I do not think we should be led down that path at this stage. The United States Administration have always resisted protectionist measures. Obviously it is our profound hope, as it is the hope of the European Community, that they will resist them again.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many submissions have been received to date in response to his Department's consultative document, "Burdens on Business".

We have received 78 submissions so far — 22 from business and other organisations, and 56 from firms or individuals.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will applaud the initiative that he has taken to seek to cut away unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, which are indeed a burden on business? What further action does he propose? Will he bear in mind the increase—some of us would say regrettable increase — in Common Market regulations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. The initiative to which he referred has been carried forward by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young of Graffham. He hopes to make a statement on the matter before both Houses rise for the summer recess.

As the Minister knows, we support his attempts to reduce the burdens, especially on small businesses. Nevertheless, does he accept that the statistical base for the health of the small business sector is now so inadequate that we are unable to monitor properly the effect of Government policy? Does he further accept that it would be possible to set up a better monitoring system without increasing the burdens on small businesses? Will he take steps to put that into operation?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we have a paucity of statistical information with regard to the small firms sector, particularly about employment in that sector. It may be possible to introduce new measures. Perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry should consider a new way of trying to get at that information. Only recently I had a meeting in my office with representatives of Dun and Bradstreet, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, produces the statistics for small firms in the United States. Certainly those statistics are more prolific. Of course, I have great difficulty in trying to balance increasing the statistical base and not increasing the burdens on small firms in regard to form filling.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing small businesses is the attitude of Government officials? In America, officials will go into a small firm with the sole aim of trying to help the entrepreneur, but here officials are far too often unsympathetic and at times antagonistic.

The attitude of certain officials has been identified in the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny report. I am anxious, wherever possible, to encourage officials to be more user friendly.

Will the Minister confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General warned the Government recently that many small firms are not maintaining good health and safety standards? Does not that warning underline another report which shows that firms with fewer than 100 employees, although they account for only one in 20 of the work force, account for half of all machinery accidents? As the Government have already cut the Health and Safety Executive by 13 per cent., do not those figures make nonsense of the proposal in the document that small firms should be self-regulating in health and safety matters? While many small firms are responsible, will it not mean that the health and safety interests of far too many workers will be left in the hands and at the whim of cowboys and sweat shop operators?

The right hon. Gentleman sought to make a similar point in the debate on small firms on 21 June. I should emphasise that the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny report, to which he referred, is not necessarily wholly the work of the Department of Trade and Industry. In fact, it transposed the views expressed by small business men who were interviewed in the "Burdens on Business" scrutiny. We have to try to find the right balance between licence and liberty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his foreword that there was no question of our removing necessary protections for employees, consumers or the public at large. However, we are determined to reduce the unnecessary burden and to simplify and rationalise those controls which must be retained.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to the number of motor vehicles of Spanish origin which were sold in Britain in 1984.

According to statistics produced by the industry, 95,348 Spanish-built cars, 4,759 light vans and 193 lorries were registered in the United Kingdom in 1984.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern among those connected with the British motor car industry about the apparent ease with which Spanish producers sell their products here and the not so ready access that British manufacturers enjoy to the Spanish market?

We are very much aware of that. As my hon. Friend knows, this problem arose because of the agreement signed between the Community and Spain back in 1970 before we joined the European Community. We are dealing with it under the terms of the accession of Spain to the Community, and there are three principal measures which will be helpful.

Too long.

Yes, probably so, but that was the best arrangement that we could negotiate. In the circumstances, I think that it is a reasonable one.

In view of the imbalance of trade between Spain and Great Britain in motor vehicles and the fact that there is now apparently to be another phasing-in period, despite the fact that the Spanish motor industry is now bigger than our own, why should we agree to this further phasing-in period, and why cannot we adopt the attitude of other countries to imports?

The hon. Gentleman is a bit late in putting his point. After all, it was the Labour Government who renegotiated the terms of our membership of the European Community. If he thinks that it was possible to gain better terms for Britain, he should have made his point then. However, the opportunity did not arise again until the accession of Spain to the Community. The agreement which we have now negotiated is making the best of the bad job that we have had since 1970 in Spain's relations with the European Community.

Given the present problems of selling cars to Spain or to any other European country, does my right hon. Friend consider that the recent agreement in Europe on exhaust emissions will benefit us in selling cars to Spain or anywhere else?

That agreement was not designed to benefit the motor industry. It was designed to benefit the environment. However, I think that the Germans might have thought of the possibility of imposing a speed limit on their autobahns first if they were really serious about guarding their environment.

The Secretary of State acknowledges that it is a very difficult agreement for the United Kingdom, and I understand—

Order. I should not really have allowed the supplementary question posed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). It is rather wide of motor vehicles of Spanish origin.

I was seeking to ask the Secretary of State a question arising directly out of his answer—

Order. Since I allowed the supplementary question, I think that is fair enough.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

We face a difficult decision. We must decide whether no agreement is better than the agreement reached ad referendum. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that that is a difficult decision. On balance, it would appear that to accept the agreement would hurt the motor vehicle industry less, not only in Britain but in the Community as a whole, than to reject it. I hope that we shall get a satisfactory resolution of those important outstanding technical points.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation to date of his revised regional strategy.

It is too early to measure the effectiveness of the revised policy, which has been in operation for only seven months. We shall make an assessment as soon as possible after the new incentive package has had time to work through into additional job opportunities.

Does the Minister agree that there are many structural improvements planned in Britain which, although not in development areas, if expedited could be of immense importance to those development areas? Does he further agree that such schemes would qualify for social funding? If so, who is responsible for making that decision, and how many schemes have been designated to date?

I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic that a project in one area may have an impact on a development area. However, in general, those projects will not qualify for assistance under the present scheme, and they never have.

Regarding the regional strategy for the south-west, does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest handicap to its economy is the dreadful bottleneck on the A30 at Okehampton and the state of the A30 into Cornwall? Will he please lend his weight to those of us who want a reversal of the Select Committee's disastrous decision about the southern part of the Okehampton bypass?

Every time I have been in the south-west I have heard a similar tune. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales was party to the decision to cut regional assistance? Is he aware that yesterday, on Welsh television, the Secretary of State deplored the loss of social fund assistance to mid-Wales, although that loss is the direct result of the withdrawal of assisted area status, to which he was a party? Since in the 12 months to April 1985 Brecon and Radnor, deprived of regional aid, has seen unemployment rise faster than in any other Welsh constituency — three times as fast as the increase in Wales as a whole—will the Minister assure the House that he will restore assisted area status to mid-Wales?

The right hon. Gentleman made a speech about the by-election last night in the steel industry debate, and he has not stopped talking about it since. We were all waiting for his comments. The social fund is of relatively small magnitude as applied to Wales. The fact is that Wales came out of the review of regional policy relatively well.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of exports to other member countries of the European Community in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the value in 1978, at constant prices.

In the year to May, United Kingdom exports to the other members of the European Community amounted to £35 billion compared with £13·5 billion in 1978. Those figures are at current prices. Constant price figures are not available, but a rough estimate of the increase in volume would be about 40 per cent.

Although there has been a satisfactory and commendable increase in British exports to the Community since 1978, does my hon. Friend agree that the increase would have been greater if British exporters had enjoyed the exchange rate stability that membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system would have given them?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We should not forget that the substantial increase in our exports, to which I have referred, has taken place without our being a member of the EMS, and that all countries, whether in or out of the EMS, are affected by exchange rate fluctuations.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the balance of payments situation between Britain and the other members of the Community is likely to continue to deteriorate if what is happening, for example, in Halifax in West Yorkshire continues? The Philips factory there, which is efficient, where there has been a major improvement in productivity, where wages are low—an aspect which the Government claim leads to job security —and where not one day has been lost as the result of industrial action in the last 13 years, has been closed down, with Philips having transferred production to Naples in Italy. Does the Minister agree that that is a scandal in relation to manufacturing industry in Britain? What do the Government intend to do about that? Will they just sit back and allow jobs to be lost in such circumstances?

I am, of course, sympathetic to the constituency problem that the hon. Gentleman raises. Although he refers to a deteriorating balance with the EEC, in the first quarter of this year our total visible trade with the Community was roughly in balance.

Those figures show how important a market the EEC now is to our manufacturing industries. However, would not our relationship with the Common Market be that much better if we had free trade in the service industries? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a major area where we could have considerable success by using our initiative?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that point was stressed by the Prime Minister at the conference last weekend in Milan.

Are not the figures made to look much better than they are by the inclusion of oil exports to the EC, which were virtually non-existent in 1978 and are now worth about £12 billion a year? Is it not a fact that in manufactured trade, which is what really counts, our share of the EC market has fallen sharply since 1978 and that we now have an enormous deficit of £9 billion? That is the true measure of the damage that the Conservatives have done to British industry.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman and I am amazed that the Labour party should constantly pick out Britain for criticism. Many other countries export oil. Why should we not do so?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further initiatives he has taken to seek to facilitate access by small firms to procurement contracts for supplies to his Department.

In addition to previous measures to improve small firms' access to Government business, my Department recently published a new version of our booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts". That gives an up-to-date account of what the main purchasing Departments buy, their basic procedures and whom to approach.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that initiative. What proportion of Government procurement goes to small firms? Do such figures as are available include sub-contracting by small firms?

Only recently I authorised a study, which is being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry, into the destination of sub-contracts as they are placed by major Ministry of Defence suppliers. I hope that that information will be available early next year, but in the middle of the year at the latest. That would improve the statistical base to which reference was made in an earlier question by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Does the Minister see it as his job to do battle with other Government Departments, for example, to achieve a target for small businesses engaged in procurement from the the Government? What success does he have in such negotiations with other Departments?

I do not know that I would use the word battle. That might be appropriate when referring to the relationship to which I referred, with the Ministry of Defence. If it was a battle, certainly we won it, and I was pleased with the response that I received from the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is now the Minister for Information Technology. It is a role of mine, as Minister with special responsibility for small firms, to cross departmental boundaries and try to encourage Departments to respond in the way that the Ministry of Defence responded.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while it is helpful to provide information to small businesses to enable them to deal with the labryinth of bureaucracy, that is not enough? Is he further aware that we need a change of attitude in his and other Departments to give a slight discrimination in favour of small businesses, instead of keeping to the old pattern, which many in the Departments tend to do?

Broadly, I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps the impression has been given by the Government that we do not discriminate in favour of small firms, though I have heard it said by colleagues that we try to remove the disadvantages of size for small firms. In truth, we discriminate in favour of small firms. We have been doing so since 1979, are doing that now and will continue to do so. Many of our schemes are tailored only to the small firms sector. In some of the measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is, for instance, the small firms corporation tax rate, and 75 per cent. of the schemes which are referred to in "Support for Business", the new publication which we have issued, are targeted at the small firms sector and are not available to large firms as a whole. Indeed, nor shall they be, because small firms have the wealth and the employment creation potential.

What proportion of the contracts let by the Department of Trade and Industry are competitive contracts as against non-competitive contracts such as those let, say, to Aish and Company of Poole, which ripped off the Government through excess profit-taking and had to pay back £400,000 to the Department of Defence, and, indeed, must pay back more?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to be familiar with the company to which he has referred. If he has a specific complaint, perhaps he would write to me or come to see me. I shall certainly have a look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Hall Russell, Shipbuilders, Aberdeen.

It remains the Government's intention to privatise Hall Russell.

Does the Minister accept that his frustrations in trying to privatise Hall Russell are as nothing compared with the frustration of the work force over its lack of employment? Both stem from the same source, the shortage of security of orders. Will he therefore make it clear that from the Government's point of view there is no inhibition, prohibition or bar on Hall Russell obtaining a share of any non-naval shipbuilding orders which may be available? To make those possible contracts more commercially viable, w ill he make sure that that yard is classified as a yard that has the capacity at least of having access to the intervention fund?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the real problem is the shortage of orders, and it should not be confused with the issue of privatisation. As to whether Hall Russell ought to be a yard that seeks merchant orders, the hon. Gentleman will know that all but one of the orders that it has received in the last rive years have been military orders. It is a matter essentially for British Shipbuilders whether it regards the yard, if it remains within British Shipbuilders, as a defence yard or a merchant yard. Any decision that British Shipbuilders makes, of course, has an impact on other yards and other merchant yards and on the orders that they must get. That has to be taken into account. As to the intervention fund, we shall be making a statement on that soon, but we have indicated that it is unlikely that, as a general rule, the intervention fund will be available to privatised warship yards.

In view of my hon. Friend's reply, can he confirm that the best long-term prospect for Hall Russell in securing naval and merchant orders will, indeed, be in the private sector, where it will be relatively unshackled? On a more general basis, can he tell the House whether he is satisfied with the progress that has been made in selling other warship building yards?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the yard is likely to have as good, if not better, security of employment by being in the private sector. It remains the position, of course, that Hall Russell is still pursuing certain other orders. There was the statement about the OPV3s in the defence debate the other day, and there are other tenders in which the yard is interested. As regards general progress of privatisation, my hon. Friend will know that Brooke Marine was sold in May. I am pleased to say that the sale of Yarrow to GEC has now been completed with the consideration previously announced and with the acceptance by British Shipbuilders of a small contingent liability, should further redundancies arise. The other yards will be on offer soon.

On the question of Hall Russell, may I ask the Minister to accept that the yard has had a very high reputation for its activities and efficiency over the years, and that the confusion and uncertainty that exists about its permanent ownership cannot but make it very difficult for the management to secure the orders that are desperately needed to keep the yard going?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern, although, of course, the work load will continue until August 1986. As I have said, the yard is interested in certain other orders. The basic problem is the order book, not privatisation.

Is it not clear to the Minister by now that the Government's desire to privatise the yard has added another layer of uncertainty and difficulty to the problems which the yard would have faced in any event? Would it not be wise for the Government not blindly to pursue privatisation but to reconsider whether the yard should be retained as part of British Shipbuilders? If they are not prepared to do that, will they change some of the rules and influence British Shipbuilders to ensure that a wide range of orders are available by broadening the capability of the yard? The Government can show their intention to BS because, after all, they are the authors of the privatisation policy, not British Shipbuilders.

We must take into account — as, indeed, British Shipbuilders must—the position in other yards where jobs are at stake. There has been agreement on both sides of the House that the underlying problem is orders. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think that somehow the problem can be concealed if the yard is kept in the public sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to aid the traditional industries of Leicester.

Firms in Leicester are eligible for assistance through my Department's national schemes of support.

Does the Minister not recognise that those schemes are wholly inadequate to meet the savage burden of unemployment which afflicts a city which was once very prosperous? What is needed is a specific undertaking to aid the traditional industries of Leicester, rather than the platitudes with which pleas have been greeted during the past six years.

I do not agree that there is any longer any such thing as a traditional industry. Even those companies making traditional products are now using new production techniques, so, to that extent, they are newer industries.

"Leicester's knitwear industry has improved to such an extent that most firms will be able to guarantee their employees full time working until the end of the year, after their return from holiday fortnight.

Sec. Bill Boggen of the Knitwear Industry Association says there was confidence and optimistic atmosphere in the industry."

Does my hon. Friend agree that Government policies have dramatically improved investment and productivity in industries such as those in Leicester? Would he care to build on that by having a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about bringing down interest rates whenever practicable to help the industries in Leicester?

Interest rates are rightly a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is in the interests of industry and commerce generally that the Government should continue to reduce public expenditure so as to give my right hon. Friend as much room as possible to manoeuvre on interest rates.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems in Leicester outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) are absolute nonsense? Leicester is doing considerably better than it ever did before. Rate capping has come in and ensured that business men are now getting on with running their businesses. More jobs are appearing on the scene, and young and useful enterprise companies are now creating additional jobs. The only thing that Leicester actually needs is for the Government to get off our backs, for there to be less form-filling and for there to be continued help and advice from the small firms centre, which does so well.

After today's exchanges, I am sure that the residents of Leicester will agree with me that it is my hon. Friend who is doing his best to protect the interests of the city of Leicester. There is no mileage in peddling doom and gloom about any city.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of payments deficit with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Information on the United Kingdom balance of payments with individual countries is not available. In the period from January to May 1985 the United Kingdom had provisional crude trade deficits of £1,331 million with Japan, £76 million with South Korea and £184 million with Taiwan.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern of hon. Members of all parties about the difficulties that our exporters experience in getting into those markets. However, is he aware that the inconsistencies and unfairnesses in our own duties and those of our European partners often make our case far more difficult to argue? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that recently penal anti-dumping duties were imposed on certain importers of Japanese electronic typewriters? It just happened that one of those companies had duties in excess of 50 per cent. imposed while two other companies, the wholesale prices of which were similar, had no penal duties imposed on them at all. The reason was that those two companies—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question, not give reasons.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the two Japanese companies which had no duties imposed on them happened to be selling their products through Olivetti and Adler, their European distributors? As a result, British businesses are being charged extra for their electronic typewriters.

I should like to investigate the cases that my hon. Friend mentions. With regard to electronic typewriters, an anti-dumping case was opened against Japan in March 1984. The Commission found considerable evidence of dumping, and imposed definitive duties on imports of Japanese machines on 19 June last.

Is it normal practice for the Government to encourage trade with a country from which they still withhold official recognition?

Yes, Sir.

Instead of harping on about the difficulties of getting into those markets and lost orders, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to companies such as Davy McKee, which has just won a splended order in South Korea against Japanese opposition?

I am happy to do so, and to say that our exports to South Korea increased by almost 50 per cent. in the first four months of this year.

What steps are the Government taking to make sure that assurances given to British car component manufacturers following collaborative deals between British and Japanese motor vehicle producers are worth more than the paper they are written on?

I do not think that our car industry would enter into agreements with the Japanese which they, as British motor manufacturers, did not feel to be worth while.

What is the point of bleating about the Japanese if we are not prepared to compete with them seriously? As an example, what is the point of complaining, as the Prime Minister did, that the Japanese are holding the yen at an artificially low level when we are doing all that we can to hold the pound at an artificially high level against the yen through the use of damagingly high interest rates?

The hon. Gentleman was complaining that the pound was too low a short time ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the United Kingdom market for maximum weight heavy lorries has been gained by domestic manufacturers over each of the last 10 years.

In 1984 domestic manufacturers had 41·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom market for heavier weight commercial vehicles. The corresponding share in 1975 was 61·9 per cent. I shall include in the Official Report a table showing figures for the past 10 years.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise that that means a drop of 20 per cent. over that period? Does he recall that of the arguments put forward, particularly by the road lobby, for the increase in heavy lorry weights, one of the strongest was that it would increase the domestic manufacturers' base? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that those figures point to exactly the opposite having happened? Will he make sure that he nails any similar fallacy that may be used in current discussions about increasing heavy lorry weights?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in heavy lorry weights. The major part of the fall in the British share of that market occurred from 1975 to 1979, when it went down by 13 per cent., at a time when industrial relations were particularly bad and productivity was particularly poor. However, I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the European dimension and the effect that it may have on future product development of vehicles in the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite that reduction, which, as we said, happened in the earlier stages of the decade, the amount of work and effort being put in by the management and work force at Leyland Vehicles—coincidentally in Leyland in my constituency — shows the strength that the company now has in world markets and the high quality of the trucks that it is now making?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the vigorous representations that he makes on behalf of the work force at Leyland vehicles. I also congratulate the company on the success of its new designs and on its new models, which are producing an increase in the market share for Leyland vehicles.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the deficit in manufacturing trade with Germany and Japan, respectively, in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

In the 12 months to May the crude deficit on our manufactures trade with the Federal Republic of Germany was £5·4 billion and with Japan £3·1 billion.

Do these alarming German figures show that we may be making a serious mistake in trying to make Japan the scapegoat for our trading problems, when many of the complaints about Japan fall apart on careful examination? Is my right hon. Friend willing to make representations to the German Government, asking them what steps they are taking to reduce the deficit, particularly when a significant part of this stems from clear abuses of the Anglo-German trade agreement and of non-tariff barriers?

My hon. Friend is on a bad point in being an apologist for Japan. Our policy is not to achieve a particular balance with each trading partner in each category of goods. Our quarrel with Japan is over its trading tactics, the barriers against imports—not just against the United Kingdom but against other countries — which we find almost impenetrable, the use of subsidy on exports to an excessive degree, and its control of the yen.

Is not the way to tackle deficits, whether with Germany, Japan or any other country, for Britain to seek to win a larger share of world markets? Is not the way to do this for the Government to assist manufacturers to win crucial export orders by assisting where necessary with loans to purchasers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is possible for us to do that without being dragged down into the subsidy quagmire?

In the trade between ourselves and Germany, happily, not a great deal of subsidy goes into the dumping of exports on each other. The way in which to get more of our exports into Germany, particularly our maufacturing exports, is to follow the example of Jaguar, which, from a very poor position a little while ago, has been increasing its exports substantially by the simple expedient of producing what the German customer wants.

What precise lessons have been learnt by the Government from the Bosporus bridge affair, and what changes in Government policy might we expect to see?

The lessons that we have learnt are that, first, we must look with caution upon Japanese Government statements until they are backed by Japanese Government action in the same direction as the policy statements. Secondly, our companies must try even harder to be thoroughly competitive in every direction, including their choice of partners in such important contracts. Finally, the Government, too, must make sure that we are ready, on hand, with a quick response, within sensible limits of subsidy and assistance to our exporters. That lesson is well known, and was successfully carried through in the way that we beat the Japanese to the Korean steel mill contract recently.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the geographical distribution of funds under the business expansion scheme to small firms.

I am aware that many investments under the business expansion scheme have been located in the south-east and the midlands. I am keen to encourage greater use of the scheme in other parts of the country, and I am glad to note that more BES funds are now being launched outside London.

My hon. Friend's answer will be of great comfort to businesses in the north, Yorkshire and Humberside. Will he also consider whether there is scope within the business expansion scheme to enable companies to borrow sums of about £50,000? That could be of considerable assistance to them.

The business expansion scheme is for equity investment from outside rather than for borrowing. Sometimes the supply of smaller amounts of capital is difficult because the procedure of appraisal and monitoring can be disproportionate. None the less, I am pleased that 30 per cent. of companies receiving BES investment received £50,000 or less, and that 50 per cent. received £100,000 or less. I do not suggest that we are complacent about the position. We must increase awareness of the benefits of the scheme, and we must encourage the start-up of more regional or sub-regional funds.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the learning time for people to understand the schemes launched by his Department is longer than he probably expected? Does he further agree that we need an assurance that schemes such as the business expansion scheme and the loan guarantee scheme will be left in place long enough for people to understand fully the best way to exploit them?

The learning curve is longer than I expected. Sometimes I think that I must say something seven times, and then people are on to it in a flash. It is important to increase awareness of some of our schemes, which we have simplified, wherever we can. The two schemes to which my hon. Friend referred have proved to be beneficial and are much appreciated by small firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last had discussions with representatives of the bus building industry; and what subjects he discussed.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State met a delegation from Leyland Bus earlier this year. Other right hon. and hon. Friends as well as officials from my Department have maintained regular contact with representatives of the industry.

Is the Minister aware that before the publication of the Transport Bill there was almost no consultation with the bus building industry, and that the companies and workers in that industry are almost unanimous in their opposition to the Bill, which spells disaster for the domestic market for new buses? In view of that gross dereliction of duty by the Department of Transport, is it not about time that a Minister with responsibility for industry fought for the interests of workers in firms such as Walter Alexanders in my constituency, whose export record proves that it is capable of building the best double-decker buses in the world?

As a Minister with responsibility for industry, I must also take into account the fact that, even before the current measures were mooted, there was a trend of declining production and output in the entire bus building industry. That could not have been allowed to continue. As to the impact of the legislation, the detail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that we have discussed many matters with representatives of the industry, including the long-term decline in bus manufacturing and how the Government's transport proposals can arrest that decline.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have been established in the north-east since 1979.

In the north-east, an estimated 18,632 new businesses started up in the four years from 1980 to 1983.

Does that figure not show the north-east to be a region of opportunity, and should not that fact be shoved down the throats of the doom and gloom merchants in the north? How many of those businesses still exist, and what is the net surplus?

From the end of 1979 till the end of 1983, taking into account the demise of businesses, the stock of businesses in the region increased by about 8·4 per cent. That is the effect of the creation of new businesses. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Too often, the north-east is portrayed as an area where people do not wish to start new businesses and where there are no entrepreneurs. Those figures show that there is much inventiveness and innovation in the area.

Will the Minister tell the House how many businesses in the north-east have collapsed since May 1979? Although I realise that it is not his direct responsibility, does he agree that it would be much more beneficial to the region to keep pits open—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the main question.

The next part of my question will be relevant, Mr. Speaker. How many new businesses of the sort about which the Minister is talking will be needed to absorb the 1,200 miners who were made redundant from Hordern colliery in my constituency, and the 250 coke work employees who were made redundant at Hawthorn in my constituency? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Employment to do something about it?

As I have said, there is a substantial surplus of new businesses—of births over deaths. There has been an 8·4 per cent. addition to the stock of businesses. The answer to creating more jobs to cope with redundancies in the coal industry is not keeping open uneconomic pits, but creating new enterprises and new viable jobs that can last without subsidy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has had from West Lothian district council on the future of the British Leyland site at Bathgate.

None, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the primary responsibility in this matter rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

What help can the district council expect from the Department to retain the Bathgate site for manufacturing units?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the context of that question, I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Development Agency, Locate in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State are anxious to see that manufacturing facilities are continued on that site.

With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

That the draft Food Imitations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]