asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the effect on United Kingdom trade of the United States Administration's stated determination to maintain the open-trading system.

I welcome the recent confirmation by United States Trade representative Brock that the policy of the United States Administration will be to work for a more liberalised trading system. The maintenance of open trade between the European Community and the United States and the avoidance of a slide into protectionism will be of advantage to United Kingdom trading prospects.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any major interference with the freedom of world trade can only be damaging to the British economy since Britain is so dependent on importing a high proportion of foodstuffs and raw materials?

That is undoubtedly true, bearing in mind the factor mentioned by my hon. Friend—namely, that about 28 per cent. of our gross domestic product is represented by exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conference in Geneva concerning flags of convenience.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development conference held in Geneva in May 1981, with particular reference to proposals for phasing out flags of convenience.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent United Nations Conference on shipping held in Geneva with particular reference to open registry shipping.

As my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne said in another place on 24 June, the special session of the UNCTAD committee on shipping to discuss. open registries was attended by a United Kingdom delegation, including advisers from the General Council a British Shipping and the National Union of Seamen.

A resolution was passed calling for an international convention imposing economic requirements for ship registration on all States. These requirements might be enforced by the closure of ports to the shipping of non-complying countries. The Government are opposed to States being forced to surrender their national Sovereignty in this area and by such means. Either of these steps would establish precedents dangerous to the trading opportunities of the British fleet, and hence of the jobs which depend upon them. For these reasons the great majority of Western countries, including the United Kingdom, voted against this resolution.

The Minister is saying that we are leading the industrialised world in opposing the phasing out of flags of convenience, and thereby finding ourselves in opposition not only to the wishes of the Third world—which finds the flags of convenience a form of exploitation —but—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his remarks in an interrogatory form.

Does the Minister accept that we are taking a position opposed to the wishes of the Third world, to the interests of our merchant seamen and to the interests of fair international competition?

The hon. Gentleman has profoundly misunderstood the position. Considerable efforts were made to achieve a consensus solution, which would have avoided the difficulties. I assure him that the proposals have serious implications for the employment of British seamen.

Does not the Minister realise that in the se days, when not only highly pollutant cargoes such as huge quantities of oil, but dangerous chemicals and radioactive waste traverse the high seas, we need higher not tower, standards of safety and navigation? Is he aware that by promoting flags of convenience rather than curbing them, he is acting disastrously against the interests of Britain?

The Government stronly support international agreement aimed at high safety standards both socially and environmentally. The developing countries' proposal made it clear that the cost of the improved safety and social standards would be too high for them. Therefore, their proposal endangered the principles that the hon. Gentleman was enunciating.

Is not the hon. Gentleman misstating the reality of what happened at UNCTAD? Is not the reality that the Government did not want to phase out flags of convenience because they are prepared to accept the permissive attitude adopted by other countries towards international standards and because they are hostile to any trade unionism practised on flag of convenience ships? Why do not the Government come clean? Why do not they do what a previous Conservative Government did at IMCO in 1959 and oppose flags of convenience actively?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation. The Government are intent on the maintenance of high international standards in the way that I have described. One-third of the tonnage on the United Kingdom register is foreign-owned. It would be extremely serious to risk that tonnage and the jobs of British seamen that go with it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why British owners choose to go under flags of convenience is that exorbitant and uncompetitive rates are asked of them by the National Union of Seamen?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. British ships that are affected by non-competitive rates are sold and they leave the British register, to our disadvantage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a conflict between the point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and the rather flamboyant contributions that have been made from the Opposition? If it is possible, will my hon. Friend work towards a situation where flags of convenience are no longer allowed? Does he agree that in the long run they are not upholding standards of safety and good behaviour at sea?

It is far from true that all open registry ships are dangerous or that all others are safe. The British Government are working for high standards by way of international agreement. In some respects the debate about open registry ships is not relevant to the maintenance of high standards.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what short-term changes he anticipates in the pattern of British trade, which may arise from recent fluctuations in the value of the £ sterling against the dollar.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the estimated effect of the recent fall in the value of the £ sterling on the volume of United Kingdom exports; and whether he will make a statement.

It is not practicable to evaluate the effects of particular parity changes on trade flows, although some broad estimates have been made of the consequences for the volume of United Kingdom exports of changes in sterling's effective parity against all our major competitors.

Given sterling's vulnerability to short-term fluctuations, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best policy for British exporters is to continue to concentrate on reduced costs and increased efficiency and, wherever possible, to go for higher added value?

Most certainly.

Although the recent fall in the value of the pound will increase the margins on exports, does my right hon. Friend agree that our remarkable export achievement when the pound was high demonstrates that attention to quality, delivery on time and customer service are just as important, if not more so, as the level of the pound in achieving export success?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The latest surveys undertaken by both the CBI and the Financial Times suggest that export performance is holding up remarkably well.

I accept that efficiency is important. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems that has to be faced is the extreme volatility of sterling? Does not a move of 30 per cent. in a matter of months cause great problems for industry? Will the Government consider the EMS as a means of getting some stability into foreign exchange?

I am happy to say that the EMS is a matter for my right hon. and leamed Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade with countries in 1980.

The balance of trade with the developing countries in 1980 resulted in a crude surplus of £672 million

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her answer demonstrates the major benefit that we receive from trade? Secondly, will she and her Department continue sympathetically to examine other opportunities for increasing trade while bearing in mind that purchasing materials from developing countries is perhaps the most practical way in which we can grant them assistance?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In 1980 exports to developing countries were 62 per cent. higher than in 1976 while imports were only 29 per cent. higher. It is true that exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom to developing countries are at a high level. At the same time, the bulk of imports from developing countries to the United Kingdom are raw materials. In 1980, 40 per cent. of total imports was oil.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that Opposition Members are the first to criticise the Government for their failure to implement the recommendations of the Brandt committee and at the same time to demand increased protection for imports from developing countries? Has my right hon. Friend further noted that Opposition Members who tabled questions about the multi-fibre arrangement have failed conspicuously to be present in the Chamber to ask them?

I have noticed exactly the same tendencies as my hon. Friend. Opposition Members, who always try to have it both ways, try to parade compassion for developing countries whenever issues of aid to these countries are raised. At the same time, they demand that we should shut the doors to trade with these countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what contribution his Department is making towards a lower level of public expenditure in the current financial year.

I expect the Department's expenditure to be contained within the cash limit in the current financial year 1981–82,

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Consumer Council has recently taken a leading part in international discussions and suggested that industrialised countries are exploiting Third world countries by the dumping of poor quality goods and the use of television propaganda? Does he agree that expenditure by the British taxpayer to promote such discussion is hardly of benefit to the British consumer?

I was not aware of that. My hon. Friend having enlightened the House, I must say that I can think of more compelling claims on the public purse.

Will my right hon. Friend again examine the role of the tourist boards? For example, why cannot the hotel and travel industry undertake the role played by the board?

I assure my hon. Friend that all these matters are considered in a fraternal manner with the Treasury every time the PESC review takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the working of the Films Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the film industry is extremely concerned about the present situation? Does she agree that we have some of the best film-makers in the world and that they are having to go abroad to use their talents? Would it not help if the Government insisted on the quota being taken up by British cinemas? Is she aware that in 1980 24 per cent. did not do so?

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. I should stress that not only do we have some of the best film-makers in the world but some of the highest skills and greatest technical ability are to be found in our studios, of which other countries avail themselves. The Government recognise the value of a healthy British film industry and their policy is one of general encouragement. I hope to be making an announcement on quotas before long.

Even though we have an excellent capacity of making films, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main problem for the industry is that the public have stopped going to the cinema?

It cannot be denied that fewer people are going to the cinema. There are a number of reasons, but time does not permit me to go into them. The structure of the film industry is in the process of change. There are great advantages to be gained from the changes for the British industry. I refer to video tapes and developments of that nature. I hope that the industry will be in a position to take full advantage of the changes.

Does the Minister accept that, despite the decline in cinema attendances, there is still an important basic requirement for an indigenous film industry to provide, among other things, films for television? Is she taking any steps to ensure that the television industry makes greater provision for the National Film School? Will she assure the House, anticipating her statement, that she will not in any way erode the provision of the quota which the industry sees as an important fall-back position?

The question of any contribution by the television industry is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I have already told the House that I expect to make an announcement about the quota shortly.

Are the Government proposing to do anything about the iniquitous barring system, which is a disincentive to the British film industry?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question, I shall be pleased to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received from petrol retailers expressing concern over the domination of retail sales by the major oil companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received from petrol retailers about the domination of retail sales by the major oil companies.

During the 12 months to 18 June I received representations from 63 petrol retailers on this subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems at present is that the major multiples are so dominating the petrol distribution market that many people living in rural and semi-rural areas will end up having no chance of service or petrol? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the time has come to make sure that the needs of individual users are as respected as the needs of the great multiples?

While petrol pricing among retailers is highly competitive and of great benefit to consumers, I understand my hon. Friend's concern. There is market dominance in the supply of petrol by the big five oil companies and a degree of distortion of competition as a result. That is why the Director General of Fair Trading, following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in 1979, published his report last October and is keeping the market under review. I have expressed my concern to him and asked him to keep me in close touch with the rate of decline in the number of independent retailers. So far, I can report that that decline is not substantial.

Will the Minister expain to the bemused consumer how we have managed to achieve a $4 per barrel reduction in North Sea oil while simultaneously the multinationals in operation here have managed to put up the retail price of petrol?

I understand the point, but the answer is simple. Prices have been raised because of refining and retailing losses.

Is the Minister satisfied that the wholesalers are not engaging in discriminatory discounting arrangements which were supposed to be ended after the commission's last report? The Minister is no doubt aware of the dissatisfaction of the retail trade with the last investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Is she thinking of re-referring the matter?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that certain of those discriminatory practices, such as maximum pricing, have not, in the view of the Director General of Fair Trading, warranted a re-reference because the last reference was in 1979. The other discriminatory practices to which I believe he is referring were revealed in the 1965 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Those agreements had to end five years after that report. Therefore, the large majority of retailers are no longer bound by those five-year contracts to which I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the current proposals of the European Commission concerning the outward processing trade of textile products.

The Commission proposals currently under consideration by member States would harmonise arrangements for the administration of special quotas for outward processed goods, where such quotas exist. The United Kingdom has no special quotas for outward processed goods, counting them against normal quotas, and therefore would not be directly affected by the regulations.

Are the Government aware of the serious concern in the textile industry generally about the failure of the EEC to adopt a regulation to control outward processing? What discussion took place on that issue at last week's Council of Ministers?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is "Yes, Sir". To the best of my recollection, the answer to the second point is "None". As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the answer that I have given, the United Kingdom industry would not be affected by the regulations which are under consideration.

Presumably it follows from the Government's position of counting outward processing against existing quotas that the Government take the view that they will treat outward processing as an integral part of the MFA renegotiations and not as a separate issue. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that?

That is so. I can do no better than to refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.

In a recent debate, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade confirmed that outward processing and renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement are intimately connected. In the light of the lack of progress at the last Council of Ministers meeting, will the Secretary of State tell us whether there will be any progress at the next meeting? Does he not think that it would be a good idea to report to the House of Commons after the Council of Ministers meeting, and before negotiations start?

I believe that at the next meeting, which will be in July, sufficient progress will be made to proceed with the appropriate negotiating mandate for the Commission to take matters forward to the autumn. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about reporting to the House of Commons.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the average annual deficit or surplus in trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community; and what was the average annual deficit or surplus in the comparable period before membership.

In the years 1973 to 1980 the United Kingdom had an average annual deficit of £1·3 billion on trade in manufactures with the European Community. In the previous eight years there was an average surplus of about £0·3 billion.

Why does the Secretary of State think that we have had such a deplorable trading record with the Common Market since we became members while our trade with the rest of the world has improved so sharply? Could part of the reason be the non-tariff discrimination exercised by some of our colleagues in the European Common Market, of which the latest example is the shameful imposition of import deposits by the Italian Government?

Many factors account for the alteration embodied in the statistics which I have quoted. They conceal the fact that the pattern has reversed more recently. A number of those factors involve the quality of our industrial performance relative to our neighbours and the movement of the exchange rates.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that traditionally this country has always had a surplus only with the less developed parts of the world and a deficit with all advanced areas of the worldif they are taken in isolation? Following my right hon. Friend's answer, is it not important to register the point that the total volume of trade is being built up with other European countries, that we are gradually becomingmore of a European Power in terms of that trade and that that is important in the build-up of exports?

Those patterns move in many ways and will convulse those who take a partisan concept of a relatively modest issue such as the trade consequences of British membership of the EEC. For example, we cannot have an enormous increase in energy resources without it having an impact on our imports of energy resources and consequences for other parts of the trade. I believe that the longer one debates that area the more elusive becomes the answer.

Did my right hon. Friend see an answer from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week in which she pointed out that in the last full year before the recession the trade deficit in manufacturers was nearly £3,000 million, which is equivalent virtually to 400,000 jobs? Considering that the European summit is taking place at the moment, should not the loss of jobs from this country to Europe be urgently debated?

I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to that point. However we should move a little discreetly before identifying trade restraint and employment. Otherwise, my hon. Friend may end up in the new Cambridge school marching shoulder to shoulder with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn).

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what consultations with United Kingdom hairdressing interests have taken place since receipt of the European Community Council directive to promote the mobility of hairdressers and the mutual recognition of qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

My officials have kept trade representatives fully informed about these developments.

Is not the original initiative that prompted the directive running out of steam? Is it not totally against the spirit of the Community for countries such as France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands to bar the establishment of British hairdressers there while their hairdressers can operate here at will? Is it not time that that one-sided arrangement was ended? Does not the practice emphasise the need to deal with the directive urgently, and will my right. hon. Friend give it a push?

Almost anything that I say in reply will be taken as a double entendre, but I believe that the scheme has merits and is not running out of steam. Since its inception in March, the Council working group of officials has met three times to discuss the draft directive, and a further meeting is provisionally arranged for 18 September.

With great respect to the European Community Council, which I support, is it an earth-shattering priority to discuss whether hairdressers are mobile or static?

It is not an earth-shattering priority, but our hairdressers who are highly qualified, have been through lengthy apprenticeships and have been trained to a high standard, would be genuinely concerned at infiltration of virtually untrained hairdressers from another member State, so the proposal has merit.

In the interest of hon. Members, will the right hon. Lady assure us that the good old British short back and sides will not be legislated out?

As far as I am aware, it will not be.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he plans any ministerial initative on European air fares while the United Kingdom has the Presidency of the Commission from 1 July.

In June 1980, at our initiative, the Council invited the Commission to examine scheduled air fares in the Community. The Commission expects to present its report to the Council at around the end of this month, and we have also encouraged the Commission to put forward a draft directive to liberalise the regulation of air fares. We are determined to make as much progress as possible in this important area during our Presidency.

Will the Minister not be backward in leaning on other EEC Governments, not least Germany, to liberalise their approach to European air fares, which many of us feel has been in contravention of the Treaty of Rome? However, with rising fuel and other charges, does my hon. Friend agree that the public should not be led to expect great fare reductions, the most likely event being a substantial reduction for flying at off-peak periods?

I note my hon. Friend's points carefully. As he knows, we have to proceed through agreement, which is not a quick or easy process, but I hope that during our Presidency we shall establish a consensus on sensible measures.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Industry and Trade has just published a definitive study on European air fares, which is possibly history-making? Before launching himself on troubled waters, will he consult that document?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My noble Friend, who is responsible for such matters, will no doubt study the document carefully.

Are not European air fares so high partly because, in effect, they are used to subsidise transatlantic fares, which are now very cheap relative to the distance involved and on which the airlines are making enormous losses? Is that practice not a gross injustice to air travellers within Europe? Will the Government initiate action to deal with the matter, and, furthermore, resist the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that there should be cheaper off-peak flights if that means more night flights?

I note the points my hon. Friend makes, although, frankly, I understand that the structure of air fares in Europe resulted in their being excessively high. However, I shall pay attention to the point: about transatlantic fares.

If the Minister fails to get a consensus, will he consider an independent declaration of freedom to charge low fares for daytime flights from the United Kingdom to Europe?

Progress has been made on reduced fares with the Euro-budget scheme and the British Caledonian mini-prix agreement. However, I emphasise that every international route has two ends, which is why agreement between the Governments concerned is necessary.

I welcome any reduction in European air fares, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is no help, particularly to the business traveller, if it means a reduction in scheduled services, or airlines going broke or having to he subsidised by the taxpayer? Will he also bear in mind the all-important question of safety?

Where economic circumstances justify, we believe that passengers are entitled to lower fares, although I appreciate the importance of the practical points that my hon. Friend emphasises.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the eve 1 of imports of Japanese cars.

Prudent marketing, voluntarily adopted by the Japanese manufacturers, kept their annual share of the United Kingdom car market between 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. for the five years from 1975 to 1979. Their share of a smaller market in 1980 was 11·9 per cent. and up to the end of May this year it was 11·4 per cent. It was stressed again to Japanese Ministers in London on 17–18 June that we expect a significant reduction in their overall share this year compared with 1980.

Having regard to the non-tariff barriers that British exporters face in the Japanese market and our serious unemployment problems, will the Government consider following the example of the French, who, by methods so far indisclosed, have restricted the import of Japanese cars to 3 per cent. of their total market?

It is essential for the Japanese to take action or protectionist pressures in the European Community will continue to grow. The Community's view is that the Ottawa summit should fully consider ways to alleviate the strains on the international trading system resulting from Japan's economic and trading practices.

What share of our automotive parts production is taken by Japan? Why could the Department of Trade not tell us, in answer to recent questions from me, the degree of import penetration with automative part from European and other countries?

Coming from the West Midlands, I expecially appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about automotive parts, which, in fact, came into the discussions that I referred to. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman specifically.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the real alternative to protection against Japanese trade is, first, to encourage a positive attitude towards trading with Japan? Will he therefore work in that direction, to open up Japanese markets to our exports? Secondly, just as the United States found a method of altering the trade balance between the United States and Europe after the war, does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage the Japanese to set up manufacturing units in this country? In that context, can he tell us how far Nissan has progressed with establishing its plant in this country?

I much appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's point about positive trading. I assure him that considerable efforts are being made to open up markets in Japan. On his second point, he is right to emphasise the importance of effective investment in this country, which contributes to our manufacturing strength. I can say only that the negotiations with regard to Nissan are still proceeding.

Does the Minister agree that his answer to the original question illustrated the futility of voluntary arrangements with Japan under which the figures agreed are continually overshot and then put down to an accident? Is he aware that these accidents keep happening and that they always happen to Britain, never to Japan?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on voluntary agreements. If he looks back, he will see that from year to year they have certainly restrained undue imports from Japan. There are variations within a period of a year which sometimes cause the figures to look worse than they are. Nevertheless, the importance of these voluntary agreements was certainly brought home to Japanese Ministers during their visit.

Is there any difference in principle between the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to Japanese motor car manufacturers which wish to invest in manufacturing plants in the United Kingdom, and thus in the EEC, and their attitude towards American companies such as Ford and General Motors which are already here?

American motor car manufacturers form part of an established international framework of manufacture, investment and export. That system is well established. On the other hand, with the prospect of the Japanese coming here, my hon. Friend will know that a large number of important questions have been raised by our component manufacturers as to whether the Japanese investment would beneficially provide jobs for them. Those are important practical questions.

Does the Minister agree that, following restrictions on Japanese imports imposed by the United States in recent months, there will be a tendency for the Japanese to seek other markets in Western Europe? Will he make it crystal clear to the Japanese Government that the proportion of cars should be reduced in the next few years and that if this cannot be done by voluntary means, other means are available to the United Kingdom Government?

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point in this respect. This was discussed at the recent meeting. The importance of the non-diversion to this country of surplus Japanese motor car production was emphasised. I am glad to tell him that the importance of this matter was recognised and satisfactory reassurance was given to British Ministers in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the current proposals of the European Commission concerning the outward processing trade of textile products.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis).

Will the Minister take into account that that trade, which is all outwardly processed goods, and is to be included in textile quotas and bilateral agreements, should be enshrined in the multi-fibre arrangement?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will bring forward proposals during his Presidency of the European Economic Community Council of Trade Ministers in order to strengthen the bargaining position of the European Economic Community and its member States in negotiations with Japan.

The Government have taken a prominent role in forming the European Community's recent policy initiative on trade relations with Japan. During the United Kingdom presidency, we intend to work, in close co-operation with the Commission, in all areas of Community policy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the ignominious failure of the last round of trade negotiations with Japan was due almost entirely to the fact that the Japanese knew perfectly well that they could get a much better bargain from each EEC member State separately? Would not it therefore be much better to revert to the original purposes of the Community and allow the Commission to conduct foreign trade negotiations on behalf of each member State, with the consequence that each member State would then get a much better bargain than it could possibly obtain for itself?

No, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The Community is united in its policy towards Japan. Her Majesty's Government will continue firmly to support the development of a strong Community policy during our Presidency. The Commission's report to the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June of the Community-wide surveillance of Japanese exports of cars, colour televisions and tubes and certain machine tools has shown no sign of effective moderation by exporters yet. Recent discussions between Mr. Tanaka and the Minister and the Commission, however, are a step in the right direction. I assure my hon. Friend that the Community will continue to press the Japanese Government to take appropriate action.

What action are the Government taking to limit undue imports of cars from the Continent?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, particular positive action has been taken by the Japanese Government in this area. Although it is clearly important for Japan to continue to remove its specific barriers, it is equally important that it should honour agreements with this country. As a major exporting nation, however, it is in our national interest to maintain open trading where it is fair and where competition is fair and unfetterred. A far greater proportion—about one-third—of our GDP is generated by exports than applies to most other major exporters. It therefore ill behoves us to put up tariff barriers or to impose import quotas.

As the voluntary restraint agreement on cars between Britain and Japan by and large has worked extremely well, as confirmed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will she resist at all costs any suggestion of a Euro-quota of imports, bearing in mind that on past form probably all the cars would end up in Britain?

That is an assumption which my hon. Friend makes. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will clearly wish to watch the development of any such situation very closely.

On the assumption that it is Government policy to have world-wide competition in matters of trade, is it true that the Japanese tariffs against us are much higher in respect of similar commodities than EEC and British tariffs against Japan?

If so, will the Minister tell us on what items the Japanese ought to lower their tariffs and what success she would expect Britain to have if that were to happen?

The answers to those questions are "Yes" and "No". Yes, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to have open and fair competition. No, the Japanese do not impose higher tariff barriers except in the one case, which I think the hon. Gentleman has mentioned before—whisky—on which negotiations are now taking place.

Is not the truth about Japanese exports of cars and other goods that Japanese workers and salesmen simply work harder than their British and Continental equivalents? If an example is required, can one imagine 21 Japanese Members of Parliament failing to turn up to ask questions that they had tabled?

I am not sure exactly who works harder, but somebody does, whether it be management or labour, because labour unit costs are lower in Japan and productivity is much higher than in this country. That, of course, is the answer to all our international competitive problems—getting competitive pricing of unit labour costs, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in a speech at the weekend.

Does not the Minister agree that people might work harder if they were offered the same job security as Japanese companies extend to their employees?

Many people in Japan have earned their job security by the levels of productivity achieved in the past few years and by the pay settlements that they have been satisfied with. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. There is great motivation for the Japanese worker in terms of identity with the interests of his company. I should like to see higher motivation in Britain on that basis.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet the High Commissioner of Uganda to discuss aid to Uganda.

I have no plans to do so at present

Nevertheless, will the Minister do all he can to help President Obote to stabilise Uganda's economy and commercial set-up despite the unfair and unhappy picture that is generally given by the British press? Will he also do what he can to provide such help as is possible to former Ugandan Asians who are now residents and citizens of the United Kingdom and who seek compensation for losses that they suffered as a result of Idi Amin's regime?

The object of the exercise is to encourage stability in Uganda. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have recently offered the Ugandan Government an additional £1·5 million of capital aid, mainly for rehabilitation of the transport sector. That will bring the total since the Amin days to £7·5 million, which is a considerable sum. As regards the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, we recognise the concern of the claimants, many of whom live in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. We have raised the question of compensation with the new Government in Uganda. President Obote has given an assurance that all those who had their property confiscated under Amin's regime are free to return to Uganda to resume ownership. He has also confirmed that the compensation committee, set up in April 1980, should continue its work. Her Majesty's Government will act as a channel of communication for the lodging of claims with the compensation committee. Of course, we cannot negotiate on behalf of claimants.

Is there enough stability for aid to be usefully employed in Uganda?

That is very much a question of judgment. I take my hon Friend's point. However, we have decided that we shall try to do our best, with aid, to help Uganda achieve the stability that it needs. We have given quite a bit of aid to the police force in Uganda, which should count as an additional factor towards stability.

During the last financial year was British aid to Uganda underspent? If so, why? Given the situation to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) drew attention, has the right hon. Gentleman investigated the possibility of ensuring that aid is fully spent in future?

I think that British aid to Uganda was underspent, but I should like to check before making a firm statement. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Are there still many former Ugandan Asians with frozen bank accounts—particularly small ones—in Uganda? If so, has my right hon. Friend discussed the matter with the Treasury, with a view to making further representations to the Bank of Uganda in order to get both the principal and accumulated interest payments released as soon as possible?

Such questions have been put to the Government. Our High Commissioner in Uganda takes them up with the Ugandan Government.

Although the sum of £7·5 million may appear substantial, will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is insufficient given the need in Uganda? Will he not also accept that as the former colonial Power, Britain has some responsibility for the emergence of Idi Amin and the consequences that befell Uganda?

The sum of £7·5 million is a considerable amount. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) implied, there must be more stability in Uganda before aid can be usefully employed. So far, we have done well. We are not the only aid-giving agency.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the current United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

The current current contribution is the sterling equivalent of about $8·7 million for each of the calendar years 1981, 1982 and 1983. This represents 4·41 per cent. of UNESCO's regular budget.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is UNESCO's expenditure cost effective? Will he support the American Government's opposition to the payments—some would describe them as bribes—that are made to certain newspapers so that they print biased articles on aid to the Third world? If the United States of America decides to withdraw from UNESCO in protest will the Government support it?

My hon. Friend's remarks reflect a growing feeling in Britain. Of UNESCO's budget, 70 per cent. is spent on science and education, which is regarded as effective and useful. If the Americans were to withdraw from UNESCO, we should not want to, because we should stay in UNESCO to protect the freedom of the media. We must fight any attempt in UNESCO to deny the freedom of the media.

As regards protecting the freedom of the media, does the Minister agree that most world news media tend to be oriented towards the needs of the North, while paying insufficient attention to the legitimate needs of the South? Should not that factor be taken into account when considering the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend)?

It is a matter to be taken into account. However, the Brandt report has been well discussed and the South has gained a lot of publicity for its problems.

asked the Lord Privy Seal on how many occasions the Development Council of the European Economic Community has considered the Brandt report since its publication.

Issues raised in the report have been discussed at all three meetings of the development council since the report was published.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of the practical contribution that the EEC must make to world development if it is to make a significant contribution to the Mexico summit meeting? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the criticisms made of EEC aid by a Select Committee of the other places? Is he aware of the serious situation affecting developing countries as a result of falling world commodity prices and the strain that that is putting on STABEX? Has the right hon. Gentleman put any pressure on his EEC partners to see whether something could be done about that specific problem, which is becoming most serious?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In our forthcoming Presidency we shall keep abreast of development aspects and shall ensure that further work on food aid, agriculture and so on is carried on. During our Presidency we shall seek an evaluation of EEC aid to agriculture and food production.

Will my right hon. Friend take care—as I am sure that he will—not to get into a tizzy over the Brandt report, which has been somewhat over-praised?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what policies Her Majesty's Government will be putting forward at the forthcoming Mexico summit meeting.

It is too early to say. We shall naturally review matters with care before the summit, to identify opportunities for progress. The agenda will not be decided before the preparatory meeting of Foreign Ministers on 1–2 August, but is expected to cover four main matters, namely, food and agriculture, trade and industrialisation, finance and monetary questions and energy matters.

Is the Minister aware that the London borough of Newham has a rapidly growing, several hundred strong branch of the World Development Movement? Is he further aware that the movement is putting increasing pressure on public representatives to the effect that they should urge the Government to take a positive line at the Mexico summit? With its international links, the movement thinks that Britain is ideally placed to do so. In addition, it thinks that to increase the purchasing power of our potential customers is to adopt a course of self-enlightenment.

The format of the summit conference has not yet been decided. We hope that it will be a fairly informal and free-ranging summit. As I said, the discussions are expected to cover those four topics. It is only a two-day meeting. We should not raise expectations too high because there are limits to what can be discussed in that space of time.

Is my right hon. Friend as nauseated as I am by the attitude expressed by the innumerable splinter parties among the Opposition? Hon. Members constantly demand that we should do more to help the under-developed world but are the first to demand that imports from the Third world should be shut out by a process of protection in order to defend our industries.

I agree with my hon. Friend. What is obvious is the conflict of opinion between the industrial voices and the aid lobby.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice, but this matter has arisen as a result of today's Question Time. I should be grateful for your guidance. Almost seriatim, about 12 hon. Members were not present to put their questions. Can you guide the House on this matter, as you read out each name? Will you confirm that normally the conventional courtesy is to let either you or your office know if an hon. Member cannot be present?

Most hon. Members who were absent were from the Opposition—

Not true.

Will you also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is perfectly possible to withdraw a question at short notice?

I think that a few hon. Members were caught out today because fewer hon. Members than usual were present and greater progress was made. There must be a good reason for their absence, but I do not know what it is. However, I know that I shall receive letters of apology, as I always do when an hon. Member is. not in his place to put his question.

We are debating today the problems and prospects of a region of 5 million people, widely scattered, with its beginnings in West England, within sight of the Irish Sea, a region which wanders through the Yorkshire dales, embraces 80 per cent. of the wool textile industry, forges and machines some of Britain's best steel, has huge stocks of coal, maintains overseas trade links through the Humber ports, and ends at the North Sea, with fish from Hull.

The region is the base line for a new European trading axis which is fast developing between the British industrial heartland north of the Wash and the Continental industrial heartland served by Rotterdam and the Rhine. This is good for Yorkshire and Humberside, which bestrides this new trading axis. Yorkshire's manufacturing and service industries must therefore be fortified by it—but only if the Government generate a proper economic climate for their development.

It is not just their location which makes Yorkshire and Humberside a good vantage point for testing Britain's industrial prospects. The region shares many of the structural economic problems affecting major United Kingdom centres, but it also has a number of important assets which suggest that it is one of the areas in Britain where a pick-up in the economy would soon manifest itself—again with the requisite Government policies.

Let us look at the problems first. Yorkshire remains substantially dependent for manufacturing employment on three sectors—textiles, mining and steel—the prospects for which are uncertain at best. The bulk of Britain's textile industry is concentrated in the county to the west of Yorkshire, in the Bradford and Huddersfield districts. Although the industry has moved up market and currently exports about 40 per cent. of its output, it remains prey to foreign competition.

The future of the mining industry in the region is also difficult to assess. Although coal's importance seems likely to continue, the future of the region's pits will undoubtedly be affected by the development of the great new Selby coalfield. The National Coal Board will be looking to the rest of the coalfield to man Selby, and this could tempt the board to transfer men away from some of the more marginal mines in the area. The pit closure proposals in early February and the subsequent strike threat revealed the tensions within the industry.

As for steel, local survey work in Sheffield and Rotherham shows a likely 50 per cent. job reduction in the private sector and a 22 per cent. reduction in British Steel in the two years from December 1979 to some time in 1981. That means over 7,000 jobs lost for certain in 1980–81 in the private sector, including the major redundancies announced by Hadfields and Firth Brown, with over 2,000 likely in the near future. Also, over 2,000 jobs were lost in the public sector in 1980, before the reduction of 3,000 as a result of the corporate plan. That means that over 15,000 jobs have been lost in 1980 and 1981 alone—a truly frightening figure.

The engineering sector as a whole remains depressed, with cutbacks continuing, and a generally low level of business.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as the engineering and textile industries in West Yorkshire have declined so rapidly under this Government's policies, some financial investment is necessary and desirable for them in the same way that the Government have poured money into the steel and car firms?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She has touched on perhaps the one aspect of regional policy as it affects Yorkshire that has, more than any other, concerned all my hon. Friends over the last year or two—the lack of public investment in our region.

Our region comes off worst in any comparison with regions such as the North, the North-West and Scotland—whether we look at regional development grants and industrial assistance expenditure, other public expenditure, or simply general aid to the regions. It is not only the lack of public moneys for the purpose that my hon. Friend has in mind that causes our concern. We are concerned because when we look elsewhere—at gross average earnings, average weekly expenditure and even the average working week—we see that our region is worse off than those that I have mentioned, which still continue to receive more identifiable expenditure than our own.

Does my hon. Friend, who has accurately outlined the circumstances, accept that the Government are also cutting back on regional aid in Yorkshire? In an area such as my own, for example, although unemployment has increased by over 150 per cent. since the advent of the present Tory Government, the Government propose to end regional aid by 1982. Keighley is not alone. This is one of the causes of great anxiety for the whole of West Yorkshire.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that our worry relates not merely to a low—in our judgment, unjustifiably low—level of public expenditure in our region but to a level of public expenditure that is under constant pressure from the Government and is constantly being cut. My hon. Friend has reminded me of the removal of assisted area status from much of our region by next year. Because of that, the figure of public expenditure will continue to be cut.

Fishing is an aspect of regional work that has suffered perhaps more than any other. Indeed, it has had a traumatic experience in recent years. The deep sea fleet has declined from nearly 500 trawlers at the beginning of 1975 to 120 to 130 registered trawlers, of which no more than half are active at present. Even the inshore ports of Scarborough and Bridlington are not doing as well as in recent years.

Like all other parts of Britain, the region has also had to accept a number of large closures as a result of the recession. Some have come in relatively new industries, such as the Lucas and Thorn electical groups, which were brought in to reduce the region's dependence on wool textiles on its west side, while British Leyland has had to abandon plans to redevelop, at a cost of £25 million, its aluminium foundries in Leeds.

According to many local business men, the worst is yet to come. As recent CBI and other reports show, destocking has not yet finished. In other words, the bottom of the recession has not yet been reached. Manufacturing industry is still making cuts. Arthur Lee and Sons, the Sheffield-based private sector steel maker, a firm that I know the Minister is acquainted with, has continued to cut jobs, even in recent weeks, despite a pick-up in its wire and wire-rope making. Mr. Peter Lee, of that company, believes that those other smaller companies in the steel industry that have hung on taking little or no profit out of the company, not cutting back and trying to sit cut the recession, have their worst problems yet to come.

Michael Mallett, chairman of the Neill Tool Group., a major offshoot of James Neill Holdings, also of Sheffield, agrees with this view, pointing out that those companies that have not substantially reduced their borrowings recently could find themselves short of cash and unable to cope with a resurgence of business. In other words, precisely those companies that have taken Government policy seriously may in consequence soon find themselves in the deepest difficulties, and some of them may not be able to survive.

The Government have well-defined financial policies, but they have no strategy to help British industry sustain itself against the shattering effects of those policies. We have now seen the full financial horror of Duport's enforced withdrawal from the steel business. I look at the Minister, because I know that he is closely acquainted with Duport's recent problems. Indeed, he had ministerial involvement. He will have read the report laid before shareholders last week, when a net loss of more than £58 million for the past financial year was reported. The chairman, Mr. Eric Sayers, launched a withering attack on Government policies, saying that they had nearly driven the group as a whole to the wall. He had the hon. Gentleman more than any other Minister in mind. The report to the shareholders said:

"The treatment of the private sector of the United Kingdom steel industry has been nothing short of scandalous."

That was an indictment of the Minister as well as of Government policy. Yet in a letter to me dated 29 May, following major redundancies at Hadfields and Firth Brown, the Minister of State, Department of Employment, Lord Gowrie, said:

"the new permanent jobs needed so desperately in Sheffield can only be created, not by the Government, but by industry itself."

How can anyone seriously take that view?

In recent weeks the Government's economic policies have been in a maelstrom, as independent authority after independent authority has reported adversely on them. The Government have received some relief in recent days from the only source from which they could receive such relief. In view of that, how could a Minister seriously address himself in those terms to a Member of this House? How can he expect any hon. Members to believe that when an industry has been treated as Duport has been treated? I dare say that not one Opposition Member could not draw on his own constituency experience and quote from a firm in his constituency to back up what I have said. We can indict the Government's economic policies on the basis of the experience of firms in our constituencies—no doubt including many whose managers voted for the Conservatives; those policies are indicted out of the mouths of former Government supporters.

The current regional unemployment rate, at 11·3 per cent., hides the severity of the problem in the main industrial centres of our region. The region includes North Yorkshire, which customarily has a lower level of unemployment, not comparable with levels in the western or southern part of our region. The regional rate also hides the high level of unemployment among men. In all the great cities—Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and Hull—the male-only figure must now be well over 17 per cent.

Furthermore, the numbers unemployed have grown more rapidly in our region than in any other in recent months—in South Yorkshire even more rapidly than in, say, West Yorkshire. The June unemployment figures show an increase in South Yorkshire that is almost twice the national rate. They include 4,370 youngsters who have joined the dole queue since May, making a total of more than 11,500 in South Yorkshire, with many more to come as those due to leave school this month become eliigible to register. I am informed that perhaps as many as half of the young people who are eligible to register now have not done so because they are confused into thinking that they should not register until September.

To meet that demand there are only 1,280 vacancies for adults in South Yorkshire and only 70 for young people. There are only two notified vacancies in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Mexborough has an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent., now the third highest in England. More than 6,000 jobless in Mexborough are competing for only 80 vacancies. These figures plainly justify an upgrading of Mexborough's development area status to that of special development area status. Doncaster and Maltby have unemployment rates of 14·5 and 15·3 per cent., which easily justify their upgrading. Thousands of jobs throughout the region—nearly 16,000, or the equivalent of 5½ per cent. on the unemployment rate in Sheffield alone—are plainly at risk because they are covered by short-time working subsidy. I draw on the latest figures.

I would not wish to correct the hon. Gentleman falsely. I doubt that he is right in saying that the adult male unemployment rate in Leeds, Bradford and elsewhere is over 17 per cent. The overall figure for Bradford is 17 per cent. and for Leeds 10½ per cent. As the youth figure in Leeds is 28 per cent. of the total, I doubt that the hon. Gentleman can be right.

I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I can support that figure and that I shall perhaps do so for the benefit for the hon. Gentleman after the debate. It is such a serious contention that I would not have made it casually. I am glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman chose to intervene. It shows that he is alarmed. The figure is, indeed, staggering.

The potential threat posed by short-time working may not be fully recognised. Anyone now benefiting from short-time working subsidy may, regrettably, be unemployed in a few weeks' time. As the current arrangements of many firms expire, a stringent new attitude towards claims, since the guidelines were changed in April, and the restriction on employee cover in re-applications, are almost certain to lead to further redundancies.

Unemployment among the under-25s is particularly high in parts of the region. The estimated unemployment rate among under-25s in United Kingdom regions designated as youth unemployment priority regions by the EEC is nowhere higher than in South Yorkshire. In April this year, the estimate for Scotland was 20·4 per cent., for Wales 21·5 per cent., for the North 20·9 per cent., and for the North-West 21·2 per cent. The estimate for South Yorkshire was 21·1 per cent. There is a clear need to move to a county basis for defining priority areas for the fund.

Much of Yorkshire and Humberside lost some of its attraction in August last year through the downgrading of assisted area status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has already remarked. In Sheffield the situation has changed so dramatically that there are already grounds for retention of intermediate status. Soon there will be grounds for applying for full development area status. That indicates the serious deterioration that has taken place.

My hon. Friend has referred to Sheffield losing its assisted area status. He will be aware that the Sheffield travel-to-work area includes the employment exchange of Dinnington, where the unemployment rate is well over 20 per cent. Yet arguments that the area should not have lost all aid have been treated with contempt by the Government on numerous occasions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the Sheffield travel-to-work area includes such a serious unemployment black spot. Furthermore, many of my hon. Friend's constituents travel to work in Sheffield. Their employment may currently be prejudiced. We fear that unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area is deteriorating so rapidly that by August or September the figure could be in excess of 40,000. That would mean an unemployment rate of more than 14 per cent.

However, one commodity not in short supply in Sheffield is spirit. Rather than sitting licking their wounds, Sheffield industrialists are searching actively for business and, in many cases, winning it. Sheffield city council, the four county councils, and the district councils in the region have all adopted an attacking rather than a defensive attitude in the search for new industry and more jobs. They have plainly decided that they cannot rely on the Government. The abolition of the Yorkshire and Humberside economic planning council, together with the other regional councils, has not helped the local authorities. A voice that was able to communicate with the Government on the needs of the area has been removed.

Local authorities are providing small industrial units. Over the last three years in Leeds and in Sheffield these small industrial units have been snapped up. Job losses in various traditional industries, especially those located in Hull, have meant substantial disinvestment in recent years. Until the worst onset of rececession in 1979, Hull was attracting as many jobs as it was losing. Although industrial investment still continues, it is mainly of the small factory unit and nursery workshop type, as is happening elsewhere in the region.

While grateful for the success of small industrial units, thanks to the initiative of the local authorities, the region recognises that reliance cannot be placed entirely on the jobs that these will generate. More is needed. The efforts of the local authorities need to be matched by efforts by the Government. Cuts in public spending at a time of severe recession and the gearing of grant aid towards targets that many local authorities cannot reasonably achieve have thrown severe burdens on both domestic and non-domestic ratepayers.

The Government have failed to recognise and may, I fear, still be refusing to recognise, through the stubbornness of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that any high spending that the local authorities undertook in the past had to take place in response to a high level of need for services and to meet the legacy of early industrialism. I do not wish to make unfair comparisons with other regions. I wish merely to emphasise that the need existed. All local authorities in the regions have faced this situation. All have had to meet a great demand for services. There was the historical need to satisfy. All have needed more help than was provided by the Government.

South Yorkshire and other parts of the region suffer from an ageing and deteriorating housing stock. Yet house building rates have been allowed to fall dramatically. Social problems have gone hand in hand with these economic and environmental problems. In the inner areas of the major conurbations within West and South Yorkshire there exist the familiar city centre problems of substandard living conditions and poor public amenities in addition to lack of jobs.

A comparison of average gross weekly earnings, spending on social security benefits, regionally relevant public spending per head and regional development spending per head for Scotland and the Northern and the North-West regions shows that our region does not merely come off worse; it fares very badly, indeed.

It is difficult to get quantitative data on the impact of unemployment on social problems. I must be careful in view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson). However, the conviction is growing in Sheffield that high unemployment is having an impact on the inner city areas and in wards such as Manor, Castle, Burngreave, Southey Green and Netherthorpe. Here there are indications of increasing problems. They include cases of family stress triggered by debts and financial difficulties. Social work referrals are generally often at a low ebb in June and July. That is not so this year. Violence, vandalism and robbery are assumed to have some relation to increasing unemployment.

In the Manor ward there are neighbourhood grudges and groups of young people causing trouble, leading to more police cover on the beat. The locality is a large division, claiming about 20 per cent. of the time and attention of the city's social services department, but now providing 50 per cent. of its work. Advice centre activity is increasing, as are debt problems.

While those problems are serious, the region also has a number of strengths, which will play an important part in helping it to weather the current recession more easily than most of Britain's other industrial regions. Apart from its staple industries, Yorkshire has a strong and diverse industrial base extending to most types of engineering, chemicals, plastics, carpets, electronics, food and drink.

Communications in Yorkshire and Humberside are among the best in the country. Rail services have been improving in recent years, though the service to Sheffield is a notable exception. I know that my hon. Friends from Sheffield will want to say something on that subject.

In Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster there is hope that completion of the South Yorkshire navigation improvement scheme will symbolise the renewal of our region. In the short space of a decade and a half the Yorkshire coalfield has been transformed from a top-heavy, underproductive organisation to a highly efficient one, using the latest mining technology to achieve levels of productivity which are the admiration and envy of nearly every other British coalfield.

We must all expect that, apart from providing a more coherent community north and south of the river, the new Humber bridge will surely make Hull the hub of a sub-regional market of about 850,000 people whom the bridge will make it easier to serve. I am sure that when we heard the news that all roads to the bridge were jammed yesterday not one of us failed to share in the pride that all Humberside Members must feel. If the attractions of that new market grow, Hull ought to develop more as a regional centre, with all the extensions of professional, technical and distributive services that that implies.

The Hull marina project is under way and that fine amenity will undoubtedly be seen eventually as a tribute to the imagination and enterprise of local men. The first phase provides 400 berths in the city's two Victoria docks in the middle of the city. According to Ron Kershaw in The Times, within two years shoppers in Hull will be able to enjoy the sight of yachts bobbing at anchor within 400 yards of Marks and Spencer. That is yet another amenity in which the region will take pride, and it will be glad that it is located in Hull.

Nevertheless, Yorkshire and Humberside are taking a harder knock than those in Whitehall and Westminster may imagine. There is no sign of recovery and no prospect of growth. The situation is grim, but all is not gloom. With typical Yorkshire grit, men and management in industry are making a fight of it. If only they had a Government to match their doggedness and will to win! The region is maintaining its traditional spirit of independence and seeking to fashion its own fate. While county and district councils feel that the road to recovery could be made easier with more Government help and understanding, no one in Yorkshire is asking for summat for nowt. There is no begging-bowl mentality—simply an underlying determination to survive and a confidence that in Yorkshire there are too many great assets that it is not in the public interest to neglect. There is confidence that in the end Yorkshire grit will bring in the "brass", if only the Government will stop clobbering local industry and local authorities and start to pursue constructive interventionist policies.

All my hon. Friends are aware that our region must be expected to change as times change and must be expected to change dramatically in its attitudes and industrial and commercial mix during the 1980s. We are all aware that there are considerable differences among us, as there must be among representatives of a region which embraces the North Yorkshire moors, the Sheffield steel industry, the Bronte country, the deep pits around Doncaster, and the Humber ports.

But we all have in common, as, I suspect, do Conservative Members from the region, an unlimited belief in the quality of our region's products—its textiles and its coal and steel—and in our region's rich store of engineering technology, the unrivalled skills of management and men, its good industrial relations and ample industrial land and manpower and its excellent communications and model race relations.

Why do not the Government share those beliefs and back them with public investment? Ours is a dynamic region which is able to generate wealth—a priceless national asset—if only the Government would give it a chance to do so, if only they would realise that asset, if only they would spark the region back to life, if only they would give a lead, if only they would abandon their cold and calculating policy to reduce public spending and social provision, if only they would provide for growth, if only they would begin to get Yorkshire back to work.

I am grateful to the Opposition for choosing this subject for a Supply day debate. I suppose that, as a Southerner, the nearest that I shall ever get to the exclusive club comprising those who have opened for Yorkshire is to open in a debate on Yorkshire.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on the way in which he opened for Yorkshire and, indeed, on how he closed for Yorkshire.

And Humberside.

And Humberside, too. The hon. Member for Attercliffe must have given a lot more cheer to his colleagues and his words about Yorkshire will have given much greater cheer to everybody than did the words of the Leader of the Opposition in his big flop on Wednesday night. The hon. Member for Attercliffe had a lot to say that was constructive, which was in great contrast to Wednesday's performance. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and I welcome his constructive remarks.

The hon. Gentleman had a couple of new things to say. He suggested a new fear was gripping industrialists, that the end of the recession was coming and they would not be able to cope with it. I do not think that we should worry too much about that.

We know that the end of the recession will be here before long and we know too that firms will cope with it, just as they have coped with harder times. I am supremely unworried about the criticisms of Mr. Sayers of Duport, whose firm was rescued from receivership by the Government and British Steel's bid to take over the assets that the company could no longer afford to maintain.

If the hon. Member for Attercliffe wants to compile a list of criticisms or own goals, I suggest that he starts with what trade union leaders said about his Government during the winter of 1978–79. Indeed, he might go on to what many trade union leaders are saying about his party's efforts to find a policy on which they can agree among themselves.

Even a Southerner is well aware of the vast diversity in Yorkshire and Humberside—rural North Yorkshire, industrial Sheffield, the South Yorkshire coalfields, the traditional fishing ports and the Yorkshire Riviera. In some typed notes I was offered by my Department as a contribution to the debate the Riviera came out as Reviera, which gave it a dreamlike quality which reminded me of the agreements at Bridlington and Scarborough.

I mentioned diversity to emphasise that there is no simple, all-embracing Government goody that can be handed out to solve all ills. On the contrary, the problems of the regions must, in general, be solved in the regions. I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman realised that. Of course, the Government are willing to give help, and that means taking from other regions to give to this region, to help cushion the impact and ease the pain of sudden change. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) shakes his head, but surely he does not believe that lollipops can come from nowhere, as if by magic. He knows that if help is given to one region, it is paid for by taxpayers in the country as a whole.

I have never agreed that there is a fixed quantity of wealth in this country. We in Yorkshire can expand the country's wealth enormously if we are given the chance. There is no question of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Of course there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the economy in the long term. But where does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that additional public expenditure can come from right now? He has no idea and never has had any idea, except for an increase in taxation or in borrowing.

Increase the borrowing.