asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions he has made referrals to the Director General of Fair Trading in accordance with section 13 of the Competition Act.

Section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 has not yet been used.

Is the Minister aware that since his party assumed Government the price of petrol has been increased by £1 a gallon and that each year consumers are now paying £500 million in standing charges alone to the gas and electricity industries? Is he further aware that those matters are of great public concern? Why does he not act on behalf of the public and use the powers at his disposal by referring those massive price increases to the Director General of Fair Trading for investigation?

I do not think that there are any grounds for referral of the matters which the hon. Lady suggested, certainly not under section 13, which is held in reserve for specific cases of abuse.

While my hon. Friend is considering matters that have been referred to the Office of Fair Trading, will he consider the outstanding action against the Stock Exchange? Can he confirm that any settlement of that action will deal at least with the points raised by the Director General of Fair Trading over minimum commissions, broker-jobber relationships and membership restrictions? Can he confirm his Department's understanding that any settlement not dealing with those matters, while it might be popular with the stockbrokers, will not be popular with anyone else, including the great body of City opinion?

I understand my hon. Friend's interest in those matters, but I hope he will forgive me if I suggest that he waits until later, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a statement.

Nevertheless, is it not right that there are two ways to kill off an organisation? One is by destroying its credibility by over-ruling its wishes, and the other, as in the Minister's answer to the question, is by not referring anything to it at all. Is it his intention to destroy the Office of Fair Trading? Is he proposing to close it down?

There is, no justification for the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to improve the level of management skills and training, particularly in small businesses.

My Department operates schemes providing management advice of various types, particularly for small firms, which also benefit from schemes directed at extending the knowledge and use of new technologies. We shall continue to keep our arrangements under review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that training in small business management can be carried out in two areas —first, formally, within colleges—I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to me today—and, secondly, through the creation of on-the-job training by local enterprise agencies and others? Small business managers need great support during this period, and training on the job. Will my hon. Friend make certain that that happens when he carries out his duties as the Minister responsible for small businesses?

As I have already said, much assistance is already being given and we are prepared to consider extensions. We are considering whether to introduce a scheme to help in marketing. I think that my hon. Friend is right. Local enterprise agencies can play an important role in management training. I recently had the opportunity to visit the London Enterprise Agency and was very impressed by the excellent work that it is doing. We should encourage more local education authorities to become involved.

Is the Minister aware that the most important development in Britain today is the worker co-operative, the number of which has increased in six years from 20 to 700 registered under the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976? When we refer to small firms, why is no attention given to that important development? There is a dreadful shortage of funds. A little expenditure on the industrial co-operative movement would further the new developments very much. Will the Minister give more attention to that matter?

I am conducting a review of the Co-operative Development Agency. It is too early to speculate on the outcome of that review.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is preparing any new proposals to help small businesses.

I am considering the need for measures to help small businesses. I believe that the priorities now are to ensure that those who run or wish to start small businesses are fully aware of the many schemes which have been introduced already and to reduce the administrative and legislative burdens on them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the debt that the House owes to the former Member for Upminster, Mr. John Loveridge, for all that he did to help formulate the Government's policy on small businesses? Has my right hon. Friend read the 40-point agenda for action which represents the unfinished business of the small businesses committee? Can he comment on the proposal to bring the development commission and COSIRA within his responsibility rather than that of the Department of the Environment?

I join my hon. Friend in his remarks about John Loveridge, who did a tremendous amount of work on this subject. The merger of COSIRA and the small businesses division has been considered. They have slightly different objectives. COSIRA is in the business of stimulating industry in rural areas. There is an overlap, but not a total identity. There has been a pilot scheme and we are considering its results. I think that there is some promise of better co-operation in this area.

Can the Minister say how many of today's small businesses were large or medium-sized businesses five years ago?

I cannot answer that question, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I know, however, that if many large businesses had not become smaller they would not have survived. Now that they are smaller and better they have the prospect of growth, where before there was the prospect of death.

When my right hon. Friend considers new measures, will he examine how Government procurement affects small businesses and see that measures are taken to ensure that they get a bigger proportion of the orders from central Government and local government? Will he start by ensuring that every Department keeps statistics of orders that go to small firms? That would at least be a beginning.

We are trying to ensure that small businesses have a chance to tender for and obtain a share of the vast public procurement programmes of the Government, despite allegations to the contrary from the Opposition.

I recognise the contribution which the loan guarantee scheme makes to help small businesses, but is the Secretary of State aware that the ceiling limit gives rise to problems for some small businesses? Will he consider that? Will he also consider the way in which the banks administer the scheme, as there seems to be considerable variations between them? Will he consult clubs and institutions which represent small businesses, such as the Teesside small business club, to see whether the situation can be improved?

If the hon. Gentleman will forward to me any views that he has, or ask the Teesside business club to let me have its views, I shall be happy to consider them. Raising the limit is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me, but I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best thing that the Government can do for small firms is to do absolutely nothing and to leave them alone? We must get the Government off their backs. If he could make the whole of Britain an enterprise zone, the better it would be for smaller firms and everybody else.

I admire my hon. Friend's confidence, but he, too, must have spoken at many political meetings at which the first question from the small business man is, "I do not want the Government to do anything, but what are the Government going to do for small busineses?"

Is not the confidence of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) backed up by the fact that in 1982 there were 12,000 company liquidations in England and Wales, which is more than two and a half times the 1979 figure and the highest level ever recorded? When will the Government do something for small businesses, instead of putting forward cosmetic solutions as they are at present?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that accounts have two sides. On the debit side there were many liquidations, but on the credit side there were a great many more company formations. I wish that he would sometimes talk about that instead of constantly harping on the bad features of our economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of British exports for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

In the 12 months ended June 1983, exports amounted to £58,000 million.

What proportion of exports is attributable to the more realistic exchange rate that we have had since September 1982?

I am not in a position to quantify the effect of the exchange rate, but I think it is common ground in all parts of the House that the export figures represent a notable achievement by British exporters of which the House should be proud.

Is the Minister aware that for the first time in our industrial history we are importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting and that that is one of the achievements of the Government and of our membership of the Common Market? How do the Government propose to close the trade gap when North sea oil runs out?

The hon. Lady is not quite accurate. The stucture of the United Kingdom economy is naturally changing. We enjoy surpluses on our trade in oil and deficits on other commodities. It is important to recognise that demand for manufactures is growing in the United Kingdom this year. The output of manufacturing industry increased by 1 per cent. in the first quarter of 1983 and the May figure is the highest since October 1981.

How many undertakings are in force by third countries on voluntary export restraints? Will my right hon. Friend place a summary of those undertakings in the Library?

If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I shall be happy to answer it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the pre-election optimism of the director general of the CBI has changed to a scream for panic measures? Does he agree with the director general that when North sea oil begins to run out the country will definitely be in decline? If he does not agree, will he repudiate the director general's call for the alleged remedy, which is said to be the cutting of a further 360,000 jobs in the public sector?

Fortunately, my responsibilities do not extend to the provision of jobs in the public sector. It is important for the House to realize—I am sure that it does—that in the 12 months ending June this year the United Kingdom exported £38 billion worth of manufactured goods. The hon. Gentleman's ridiculous talk of collapse is therefore very premature.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his conclusions of the review of tourism's statutory bodies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make his announcement on the review of tourism policy.

I am still studying the issues arising from the review. I hope to make decisions shortly and to make an announcement to the House after the recess.

My hon. Friend knows that I have an interest in the industry — [Interruption.] Knowing something about a subject is not necessarily a bar to asking a question. Is my hon. Friend aware that, as most people will agree, he is wise to study the matter for a little longer and to get it right rather than rush into a decision soon after assuming office? Does he accept that many people believe that the amendments tabled in Committee on what is now the Development of Tourism Act 1969 have largely been responsible for the conflict and duplication which have plagued the industry ever since? Will he give an assurance that he recognises the value of the British Tourist Authority and will do nothing to emasculate it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his understanding about the delay to the announcement on the review. I shall examine the issues that he has suggested concerning the 1969 Act. I shall also look into his latter point. I confirm that the tourist industry is a major growth industry and, above all, a major opportunity for more employment. The Government will do everything possible to encourage it.

While my hon. Friend is reaching his conclusions, would he care to comment on the widely circulated suggestion that there might be a case for a closer association between the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, perhaps with the former concentrating rather more than hitherto on outward tourism? Has he held any discussions with representatives of City institutions about the possibility of introducing private capital into tourist development?

The answer to my hon Friend's second question is yes. Most tourist facilities ere financed with private capital. I cannot comment at this stage on my hon. Friend's first point, because it is the central issue in the review. However, it is widely agreed that there is an incredible amount of overlap in the present organisations and that we must think again about it.

Before my hon. Friend makes up his mind, will he consider the disproportionate allocation of public funds to Wales as opposed to the south-west, where unemployment is extremely high? Moreover, the south-west does not have the basic industries to provide employment on the same scale as Wales. Will my hon. Friend examine whether that distortion results from there being a separate Welsh Tourist Board, which receives far more than its fair share of resources as compared with different parts of England, all of which are covered by the English Tourist Board?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider that. There are grounds for anxiety about the lack of co-ordination between the different organisations. It is obvious that Scotland and Wales must co-ordinate their activities with the British effort as a whole. I believe that we should boost the regional tourist boards.

When my hon. Friend conducts his review, will he bear in mind that there has recently been a substantial reorganisation of tourism and the tourist-related agencies in Scotland and that another change might not be beneficial to the industry?

I shall bear that in mind. My hon. Friend is aware that there was a commitment in the Scottish Conservative manifesto about the organisation of tourism in Scotland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tourist industry is labour rather than capital-intensive? Will he have urgent talks with the Treasury to see whether more fiscal incentives can be given in the form of capital allowances for the tourist industry?

I shall bear that point in mind. It is a long-standing issue and I well understand the industry's desire to have capital allowances to help with tourist projects.

As we are considering tourism in general, can we prevail or the Minister to consider the problem of transport and the location of airports? Will the Minister use his good endeavours to get the appropriate Ministers to encourage the expansion and full utilisation of Manchester airport?

I shall be talking to Ministers in the Department of Transport about the impact of their policies on tourism.

Does the Minister agree that, bearing in mind tourism's potential for earning foreign exchange and creating employment, expenditure to support tourism is well worth while? Will he reverse some of the more asinine decisions of his predecessor, such as that forcing the closure of the British Tourist Authority's public office at St. James's Street—an act which would be unthinkable in any other tourist country?

That decision has been made. It was my hon. Friend's view that there was unnecessary overlap between that centre and statutory tourist boards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. Tourism is a big growth industry and we must do everything possible to encourage it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department has participated in discussions between Rolls-Royce and Pratt and Whitney on a new engine to power the Airbus A320; and whether Government funding has been requested by Rolls-Royce to go ahead with this project.

The Department has kept in close touch with the general progress of these commercial discussions between Rolls-Royce, Pratt and Whitney and their Japanese, German and Italian partners. Rolls-Royce has, however, not yet submitted an application for Government funding towards its share of the project.

May I make it absolutely clear that, if the Government want to maintain a substantial civil aircraft construction industry in Britain, they must provide launch aid for the A320? With regard to the power plant for that aircraft, is my hon. Friend aware that we are much more likely to get a Rolls-Pratt-Japanese power plant on the A320 if the British also participate in the construction of the airframe?

I agree that the A320 is vital for the future of the civil aircraft industry in Britain. We have always made it clear that we are prepared to give launch aid for viable commercial projects. With regard to the engine, my hon. Friend knows that the proposed entry date for the A320 is 1988. It is unlikely that a Rolls-Royce engine will be available by then. We want there to be a Rolls-Royce engine on the A320 if that can be achieved.

Is the Minister aware that the wings of the current airbus are made by aeroplane makers in my constituency and that that company is deeply worried by the lack of progress on the new airbus? Can he assure us that, notwithstanding the imminence of the large-scale expenditure cuts that are to be made this autumn, the required £400 million will remain safe and be available to British Aerospace? Are the Government giving more priority to the privatisation of British Airways than to the successful launch of the new airbus?

We want a strong British civil aerospace industry. As the hon. Gentleman has just suggested, by mentioning the £400 million, huge sums of public money are involved in supporting the A320 and the engine for it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that anxiety is not confined to the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), but affects the whole country? Is he further aware that the potential British share in the A320 could rise from 20 to 27 per cent.? Does he agree that that could mean that the anxiety would be removed and that there would be an opportunity for more jobs in many constituencies?

I agree with my hon. Friend about our potential share rising from 20 to 27 per cent. In no way do I underestimate the importance of the project to British Aerospace and to jobs. As I have a large British Aerospace factory in my constituency the issue is strongly in my mind.

Does the Minister agree that there is growing anxiety about the need to develop the A320, from the point of view of workers at British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce? Will he confirm, or deny, that the Government are not going ahead because of the proposed privatisation of British Airways?

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It does not come into the decision. The only reason why this is taking so long is that we want to be satisfied that the project makes sense. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the airline business is in considerable difficulties. Airbus Industrie has quite a few unsold A300s. That poses problems for British Aerospace. This decision must be taken cautiously and it must be the right one.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest available 1983 figures for the United Kingdom's imports and exports of manufactures; and if he will make a statement.

In the first half of 1983 exports of manufactured goods were valued at £19·5 billion and imports at £20·9 billion. The growth of imports is evidence of increased industrial activity and of rising consumer demand at home, both of which offer increased opportunities for British industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that those figures are depressing, as it is the first time in 100 years that Britain exported fewer manufactures than it imported? Does he agree that we should not be cheerful about that? Is he aware that the Government's policies have depressed vast areas of the country and made areas such as the west midlands into industrial deserts? Is it not time that we had a change of Government policy? Although we all subscribe to international trade, should it not be fair trade and should we not have some control over imports to prevent the further depression of British industry?

During the first six months of this year, as my original answer showed, £19·5 billion worth of British manufactures went to markets all over the world. One reason why they can enter other markets is that we have a relatively open market. No one stands to gain from a trade war or from interfering with free trade. The idea that we should embark on an import control regime is completely mad, and we would be the big losers.

Given the rebirth of British industry over the last four years — [Interruption.]— with massive improvements in productivity, can my right hon. Friend explain to me and to the House why there is such a yawning gap in our trade in manufactures with the European Community, which is now running at £6,000 million? What is the problem and what will he do about it?

The problem arises because more British people prefer to buy foreign goods than foreign people prefer to buy British goods. We shall solve that problem by producing better British goods at more competitive prices and by meeting the market's demands.

Will the Secretary of State undertake that no deal between the British Steel Corporation and US Steel for the export of slabs from Ravenscraig, at the cost of closing the strip mills at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh, will be approved by the Government until the House has had a chance to debate the matter?

I said yesterday that negotiations were continuing, but I do not know when or whether they will reach a satisfactory conclusion. It is unlikely that they will be concluded during the recess, but I cannot be sure about that. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope he understands that I cannot give him an open-ended commitment such as he seeks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the major problem for British manufacturing industry is that we have been importing manufactured goods from too many countries which put up barriers to stop the export of our goods to them?

Absolutely. Now answer that one.

That is a matter of opinion, but if my hon. Friend examines the textile industry—

Where is it?

—he will find a substantial measure of controls there. If he cares to examine our motor and footwear industries, and a range of other industries, he will find that it is possible to travel abroad and meet people who believe that we have many controls on their goods.

Will the Minister come into the real world and leave the cloisters of Tory Central Office? Does he not know that the Japanese and the French put up barriers? Every country protects its manufacturing industry, except this one, and is it not time that he did something for British industry?

To repeat the figure with which I started this round of questions, £19·5 billion worth of British manufactures went into other markets. They went there, according to the hon. Gentleman, over many barriers. Sadly, no country is a free trade purist any more, and Britain is no better or worse than the rest.

Do not the figures emphasise the great and continuing importance to Britain of its international trading relationships, and is it not remarkable that the Labour party seems to be determined to damage those trading relationships by engineering a breakdown of what remains of the free trading system?

My hon. Friend is right. We export a higher proportion of what we produce than any other major country. No other country is as dependent on access to other markets as we are, and part of the price that we pay for that is keeping our market as open as possible.

Is not the inescapable conclusion to be derived from the figures given by the Secretary of State that Britain faces a £1 billion def cit in trade in manufactured goods this year? How do the Government expect Britain to pay its way if that trend continues? What will they do to stop the persistent undermining of British jobs and British manufacturing?

The hon. Gentleman makes the simplistic assertion that we trade only in manufactured goods, but we do not. Britain is a huge exporter of services, and exports half as much again in services as it does in manufactures. Many highly paid jobs in Britain depend on that. In our overall balance of payments last year we had a surplus of more than £3 billion, made up of a variety of components.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he now plans in order to implement the policy set out by him on 24 June, Official Report, c. 266, to continue to encourage employee ownership schemes in private industry.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already taken important steps to encourage employee share ownership. Measures taken include significant improvements to the profit-sharing scheme arrangements, relief for savings-related share option schemes and relief for interest on money borrowed for investment in an employee-controlled company. In addition, a major benefit of privatisation is that employees are given a chance to own a stake in the business in which they work.

While giving a cautious welcome to that answer, especially as it builds on a Liberal party initiative in the Finance Act 1978, may I make it clear to the Minister that the Liberal party believes that he could go much further on this matter? Does he agree that share ownership schemes have a value that extends well beyond being used as a carrot for the privatisation of nationalised industries? Does he also agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—that, given the success of the share ownership scheme, it is possible to 'provide greater incentives for firms that wish to take advantage of the scheme?

I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's rather long question. During our previous period in Government the number of employee share schemes increased from 30 to 600. In each of the past two years more than 250,000 additional people bought or acquired shares in the companies in which they worked. We have not gone as far as he and I wish, but we are moving firmly in the right direction.

Despite the Government's achievement during the previous Parliament, does my right hon. Friend accept that tax relief for profit-sharing schemes is available in practice only for the employees of large companies? Will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider methods that have been advanced of extending tax relief to the employees of small companies engaged in share schemes?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall mention this matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the outcome of the recent small firms publicity campaign.

Yes. The recent small firms publicity campaign has generated more than 130,000 responses. I intend to analyse those responses further to show the extent to which the campaign has raised awareness of the assistance available, but I am satisfied with the level of interest generated.

Although the Government's attitude to small businesses, entrepreneurs and privately owned business generally is superior to the abuse and unconcern demonstrated over the years by the Labour party, does not my hon. Friend's answer show how necessary the publicity campaign was? What further publicity is planned?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, in view of the importance of small firms to the economy, it was essential for them to use the resources available from the Government. There was clear evidence that comparatively few small business men or their professional advisers, such as accountants and solicitors, were aware of the many schemes available to help them, including loans and advisory services. I shall be considering my hon. Friend's latter point after analysing the response to the campaign, but I assure him that the booklet "How to Make Your Business Grow", which was one of the most successful publications to come out of a Government Department, will continue to be available.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Co-operative Development Agency, which successfully helped to set up 700 small cooperatives, mutually owned and controlled, while at the same time extending its influence across the country to the provision of services and productive enterprises? Will he assure the House that he will accept permanent responsibility for the continuation of the Co-operative Development Agency?

The hon. Gentleman may perhaps have missed the point of the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards), in reply to which I said that I was currently reviewing the CDA. It is too early at this stage to speculate on the outcome of that review.

Does my hon. Friend consider that the banking system has aided the Government in their campaign to help smaller businesses? Does he not share my concern that many banks have withdrawn support prematurely from many small firms, resulting in their liquidation and many redundancies? Does he not feel that, far from providing risk capital, banks are now concerned only about making more and more money by transferring money from one country to another, rather than investing in manufacturing industry which, in spite of what my right hon. Friend said, is the real creator of wealth?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with him at all. Were it not for the clearing banks, we would not have received such assistance as has been given with the loan guarantee scheme, which so far has proved an enormous success.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has plans to extend the small business service.

We are just about to complete the strengthening of the small firms service in anticipation of the introduction of the enterprise allowance scheme nationwide on 1 August.

Is my hon. Friend aware of just how popular this service is among small businesses? Is he satisfied with the number of small business counsellors employed in the service, not only throughout the country but in the south-west of England especially?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I, too, congratulate the small firms service on its high standard of professionalism and excellent performance. Currently, the Department has 258 business counsellors under contract in England—32 in the southwest.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance to small businesses of a high input of technical information? Will he therefore confirm the Government's intention to encourage the continuing development of links between the universities and small businesses? When does he expect to be able to respond to the report of the advisory committee on applied research and development?

On my hon. Friend's last point, I understand that a reply is expected within the next three months. I fully support all that he said in his supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about progress towards metrication and its effect on trade abroad and within the United Kingdom.

It is the Government's firm belief that individual sectors of industry or organisations are best placed to decide on the benefits and the timing of the changeover. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the policy of voluntary metrication, which the Government have pursued over the past four years, has had any adverse effect on trade.

Does not the Minister agree that it makes trading, industrial and educational sense to move gradually but certainly towards one system of weights and measures? For example, the system of selling petrol in one garage by the litre and in another by the gallon makes no long-term industrial or commercial sense. Surely it is the duty of a commercial Department to give a commercial lead.

I disagree with the hon: Gentleman, specifically on petrol and on the Government's duty to give a lead. The Government have facilitated the changeover to the metric system, but we believe that it should remain on a voluntary basis and that individual sectors of industry and consumers should have a strong say as to which system they operate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the companies that make the machines that measure petrol or other products feel that they are handicapped by the Department being too slow in its certification of new machines and too expensive in the fees that it charges? In view of the severe competition that the weighing and scale machine industry is facing, will he consider the possibility of self-certification and privatisation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising both those points. I plan to visit one of our largest manufacturers of weighing equipment in the next few months, and I shall then learn more about the problems of the industry. I shall also take into account the points that my hon. Friend has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in his review of the proposals in the Cork committee report; and whether he will make a statement.

Insolvency law generally has been under detailed scrutiny following publication of the report of the Insolvency Law Review Committee. Sir Kenneth Cork's committee has produced a thorough and weighty report. It deserves the most careful consideration. I am giving it high priority, but it is inevitably a lengthy process.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reform of insolvency law is urgently required, particularly by small creditors, to redress the balance against the preferential creditors such as the state, that is the Inland Revenue and the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—the banks, with their floating charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—

Put it down.

Order. These interruptions are unfair on a new Member.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a reform of insolvency law is urgently required, not only according to the ministerial statements prior to the general election, but according to insolvency practitioners and Sir Kenneth Cork?

That was a maiden speech.

My hon. Friend is right. When I arrived back at the Department of Trade after two years away in another guise, I found a number of old friends waiting for me, including insolvency law reform. I accept that this matter is urgent. The present arrangements are quite unsatisfactory. There is scope for the unscrupulous to exploit them, and I assure my hon. Friend that we wish to see reform carried out urgently.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply will be viewed with great disappointment by many small firms that are hit by the inadequacies of current insolvency law? It is now more than a year since this report was published and three months since one of his predecessors promised the House urgent action. Will he therefore get his finger out?

Order. I do not think that last remark is on the proscribed list, but it is in rather bad taste.

I did not think that in the party of the Simon Pure expressions such as that were allowed. The hon. Gentleman had better watch himself or he may get expelled.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us fear that civil servants in his Department have been dragging their feet on this issue? His answer will therefore give us considerable comfort. Will he also bear in mind that one of the advantages of changes in the insolvency law will be that companies which would otherwise go to court and out of business will be more likely to survive, thereby saving jobs?

My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for corporate affairs has a special hatred of people who drag their feet. He is committed to getting on with urgent work on this difficult matter, and my hon. Friend has given yet another example of just how unsatisfactory the present arrangements are.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attitude of the Minister responsible for corporate affairs is on the whole to do nothing and to leave this to voluntary action? On the protection of creditors, investors, depositors and so on, his Department has earned the reputation of being weak, sloppy, slow and self-indulgent. The Government have a duty to protect and advance the commercial law. We therefore want to see action on Cork and other such matters as rapidly as possible, so that we can end a long series of scandals and inequities in the commercial community.

I thought that this was an occasion to question the Government, not to reminisce about one's days in a sloppy, slothful, useless Department, which was how the hon. Gentleman spent his days in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection—

You pathetic creature.

My hon. Friend has been in office for just six weeks. He is getting on, as a matter of urgency, with some extremely important work. He has some interesting ideas on how we can make progress, but the hon. Gentleman should wait and see. He will get a very pleasant surprise.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make representations to the Spanish Government to reduce further their import duty on cars.

We must first see how sales of British cars in Spain respond to the new opportunities offered by the reduced duty quotas opened on 1 July. Meanwhile, we are proceeding with the negotiations on Spain's application to join the European Community, which will lead to the elimination of all import duties between us.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the so-called reduction in tariffs that we now have is merely a sop, in that, up to the 1600cc level, Spain can send over 50,000 cars into Britain, whereas my workers in Longbridge can send only 997 vehicles to Spain? If we wait until Spain joins the European Community, we shall wait a very long time.

My hon. Friend will know that the new Spanish quotas have been open for only four weeks. They allow for 5,000 cars between 1275cc and 1600cc, and 10,000 cars of a higher cubic capacity, of which British Leyland has a large quota. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the position is not satisfactory, but it is a considerable improvement and was widely welcomed by the House when announced earlier this year.

How many more excuses will the Government trot out before they deal with the Spanish problem? The Secretary of State was very scornful just now about my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Does he recall that when he was previously in the Department of Trade some years ago he told me that he would do something about the problem?

The new quotas were negotiated before either my right hon. Friend or I became part of the Department. They were welcomed in the House as a step forward. No one thinks that they go far enough. The long-term solution is to remove all duties between Spain and the United Kingdom. I hope that that will happen after a minimum transition period when Spain joins the European Community.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the welcome to which he referred was heavily conditioned by the assurance given to me by the previous Secretary of State that Britain would be given the lion's share of the reduced tariff quotas? That has not happened. Does my right hon. Friend also recall the assurance that the tariff discrepancies would be removed by the introduction in Spain of a VAT system to replace the luxury and other discriminatory taxes? Can my right hon. Friend give us any news on that front?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that Spain has committed herself to introducing VAT before the end of next year. I hope that that will be an improvement. British Leyland has been allocated nearly one fifth of the reduced duty quota for small cars, which will enjoy the biggest cuts in duties, and one tenth of the quota for larger cars. British Leyland has done as well as any company in that regard. I recall the warm welcome that my hon. Friend gave to the agreement on 15 March.

Will the Government stop pussyfooting and tell the Spanish Government that we shall impose a tax on Spanish holidays—and encourage our people to go to Italy and Greece—if the Spanish Government do not end the discrimination?

That is an interesting idea, but I think that the hon. Member and the House are a little unfair. The quotas have been open for only four weeks. We must see how they go. The quotas are renewable later and we shall have to see what progress is made. It is important that all the duties should be removed. That will not happen until Spain joins the European Community, and it is in the British interest to have the shortest possible transition period for that very reason.

Does the Minister appreciate that the Government appear to be bearing other people's misfortunes with great patience? Can he give the House any indication of how long it will be before Spain joins the Community? Do the Government feel no sense of urgency about it?

The British Government hope that Spain will join the European Community in 1986. I hope that the Opposition share that hope.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many offers of assistance have been made under the small engineering firms investment scheme.

By 20 July 1983 we had made 2,716 offers of assistance—1,438 under SEFIS 1 and 1,278 under SEFIS 2.

Do the Government intend to extend investment grants to manufacturing industry as a whole?

The funds at our disposal are limited. Even if it were appropriate, we could not offer investment grants right across the board to manufacturing industry. We have to be selective. That is why investment grants are targeted at specific areas such as high technology and high unemployment.

Will the Minister tell the House what monitoring exercise takes place when the grants are given? Will he note what has happened to the United Glass Company in Castleford? Grants were made to the Canning Town Glass Company to develop a new scheme, thus closing schemes in other areas. Does the Minister agree that that has an important bearing on unemployment in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)? Does he also agree that there should be a monitoring exercise to ensure that investment in one area does not cause unemployment in another?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little confused. His question is not related to the small engineering firms investment scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands business men are less concerned with the small schemes of industrial intervention than with the gross distortions caused by regional policy? Will the Government please accelerate their review of regional policy while there is still the political will to do something—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with the question under discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of United Kingdom exports went to other member states of the European Community in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

In the 12 months ending June 1983, 43 per cent. of the United Kingdom's visible exports went to the other countries of the European Community.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that the Common Market is by far our biggest trading partner and that millions of jobs depend on our trade with Europe? Therefore, is it not high time that the Labour party openly accepted that we are in the Common Market for good, thereby providing a little more of the certainty that industry needs if it is to invest?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Alas, I cannot speak for the Labour party, but we can say that we speak for the country. The country showed very clearly at the last general election what it thought of the Labour party's policy on the European Community.

Does the Minister agree that one of our greatest exports to the European Community over the past six years has been jobs and investment? Will the Government take any action to protect our industries, which are flying to the continent in order to take advantage of the unnatural subsidies that are being given by the other member states?

No, I cannot agree with the hon. Member. We send 43 per cent. of our exports to the Community. The figure was only 30 per cent. in 1970. Many jobs in the United Kingdom depend on that trade. The best estimate that we can make is that about 2·5 million jobs would be at risk if the Labour party's policy were to be carried out.

Is it not also a fact that the coverage of imports by exports is far greater in relation to our trade with the European Community than it is in relation to our trade with other advanced industrial areas —countries such as Japan and the United States?

What my hon. Friend says shows how important the market is to us and how important it is to stay in the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider establishing a new rural development area status as part of the development assistance scheme.

Assistance is already available to rural areas from the appropriate bodies in the different parts of Great Britain. The hon. Member's constituency, for example, can obtain assistance from the Scottish Development Agency.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there is a growing body of opinion in Scotland that believes that the machinery available to the Scottish Development Agency is not appropriate to rural areas, whose needs are quite different from, but just as great as those of, the urban areas? Will the Government look at the problem again?

?: That must be a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future prospects for the ceramic and pottery industry.

I believe the industry is well placed to take advantage of a pick-up in demand.

Is the Minister aware that the so-called "well placed" position has involved 25,000 jobs being lost and Britain becoming a dumping ground for cheap pottery goods from Malaysia and other far eastern countries? When will the Minister act to save a very lucrative and profitable industry from going down the drain?

The hon. Gentleman should not assume that he has a monopoly of concern for the industry. I share that concern. The problems which the hon. Gentleman has outlined reflect the industry's difficulties during the recession. I do not underrate them, nor should the hon. Gentleman underrate the strength of the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will reintroduce assisted area status for Greater Manchester.

Successive Governments have designated assisted areas by reference to the circumstances in individual travel-to-work areas and this continues to be the case. I am satisfied that on present evidence the current assisted area gradings of the eight travel-to-work areas in greater Manchester are appropriate to their circumstances.

Is the Minister aware of how badly Greater Manchester has suffered over the past two years because of Government policies? Is he further aware that the enterprise zone in Trafford park has been a cosmetic exercise that has failed and that the Greater Manchester area, unless given practical assistance by the Government, is doomed to further decline?

Perhaps I was a little kind to the hon. Gentleman in my reply to his substantive question. If he had done a little more research, he would have realised that there are some travel-to-work areas within the Greater Manchester county that are assisted. For example Bolton and Leigh are intermediate areas and Rochdale and Wigan are development areas. I have said before, in a previous Question Time, that regional policy is being reviewed and that it is too early to speculate on the outcome.