asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the surplus in 1979 of the value of agricultural machinery exports over imports; and what is the position at the latest available date.

The surplus in 1979 was £524 million and in 1982 was £298 million. Those figures include agricultural tractors as well as agricultural machinery.

As there have been many imports of machinery since 1970, when formerly that machinery was exported from Britain, and as the import trend is increasing, which is disturbing, will ray hon. Friend consider whether the progress of the state-backed research associations can be redirected and whether additional finance is needed?

Our weapon is support for the innovation head of account. Thus far, about £2·3 million under support for innovation has gone into the agricultural machinery industry. It is a demand-led scheme. We should be pleased to entertain further projects in that context, provided that they are viable and meaningful. I take my hon. Friend's point and look forward to further applications from the companies that are under such pressure at the moment.

I support what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that whenever I go to an agricultural show and look at the machinery section all I can find are machines that are made outside this country? I am beginning to wonder how much ability we have left to manufacture agricultural machinery. It is extraordinary that, though we have the best agriculture industry in the world, we are buying so much machinery from overseas.

We are still the largest exporter of tractors in the world. However, I think that my hon. Friend is concerned about agricultural machinery in general. He will know that our industry looks enviously at the product certification schemes in Europe, particularly in Denmark, Holland and Germany. We are examining those schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that the industry's case is not going by default and that we are concerned to see that our companies fight back, preferably using the innovation route.

Does the Minister not recognise that the figures he has given represent an appalling decline over the past few years? Are not the already poor prospects for the section of the industry, like those for all industry, worse this week than they were last week? The Confederation of British Industry made that forecast as a result of the Government's announcement unnecessarily to increase gas and electricity prices. Is it not about time that the Government stopped vindictively beating industry about the head with their doctrinal deflationary clubs?

I cannot accept the central assertion in the right hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are concerned to see that our existing and established manufacturers fight back in international markets. We believe that the best way to do so is by giving them a lower rate of inflation and allowing our recovery to emerge, as it is, gradually. We believe that the industry has a good future. We are still exporting £298 million worth more equipment than we import.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the future of the Girobank.

The Post Office board is responsible for the development of the Girobank. But it is for the Girobank management and work force to ensure the bank's success by continuing to improve productivity and competitiveness against other financial institutions.

Will the Minister congratulate both the management and work force of the Girobank on having continued to develop successfully and profitably? Will he give an assurance that he will resist any pressures from banking or commercial interests to curtail the activities of the Girobank or to privatise it?

I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The management and work force of the Girobank have done a good job. There are no immediate plans to privatise the Girobank. However, as the House will know, an important part of the Government's policy is to reduce the size and scope of the public sector, and options for privatising each nationalised industry, as a whole or in part, are kept under review. The Girobank is not excluded from that review.

Why should an organisation such as the Girobank be considered for privatisation when it is fully in competition with other sectors of the banking industry? What is the justification for even considering privatisation?

The reverse of that question is why should the Girobank be in the public sector? Its privatisation would be a complicated matter, because we cannot consider it separately from the counter network, a large proportion of which is already in private hands through the sub-post offices.

Is the Minister aware that his statement that the Girobank is under continuing review for possible privatisation will cause widespread uncertainty among those who bank with it and work for it? Will he seriously reconsider what he has said and accept that under no circumstances should the Government privatise the Girobank?

I have said what I have said. I wholly refute the suggestion that there is any uncertainty. It is fallacious for Opposition Members to believe that through privatisation jobs are at risk. That is not necessarily the case, as we are discussing during the Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has completed his review of regional policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet completed his review of the arrangements for regional aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his review of regional industrial aid will be completed.

No, but I intend to publish shortly a White Paper which will invite views from interested parties on some of the issues in a process of consultation that will be part of our review.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the White Paper will tackle such structural problems of the north-east as centralised wage bargaining, lopsided public investment and a shortage of entrepreneurs at all levels?

I hope my hon. Friend does not think that it is quite that bad in the north-east. Certainly there are a number of problems, and some of them will be dealt with in the White Paper. That is one reason why we shall be seeking views on some aspects, as well as stating our policy on others.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that, as its major priority, the White Paper deals with the creation of new and lasting jobs in the regions generally, but especially in north Staffordshire and my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, Central? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of the jobs in the pottery industry have disappeared during the past four years? Does he agree that unless there is new regional aid, as a matter of urgency, the industrial base of north Staffordshire will disappear?

It is fortunate that there are good signs of better times in the pottery industry. A number of companies have been making a strong come-back, and some have taken on additional labour. Regional policy is about the creation of jobs, but quite often the expenditure that has been incurred has not necessarily resulted in the creation of many new jobs.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the north west and other regions there is the gravest suspicion that the review is nothing more than a smokescreen for further cuts in total aid to the hard-pressed regions? If that is not true, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to assure us that the White Paper and the review will not be used as an excuse for further cuts in regional aid, which has already been cut savagely by the Government?

When looking at these issues, the first step must be to decide what instruments should be used, how expensive they may be and how they can be tailored to give the best possible results for the least possible expenditure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to incur public expenditure simply for the sake of it —perhaps I am not sure.

In the review of regional policy, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the need, not simply to create new jobs, but to preserve existing jobs in industries that need to be modernised and restructured, perhaps with the loss of some employment, to ensure their competitive future?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why, of late, we have been giving more help to schemes, especially in the engineering and manufacturing industries, for the introduction of new products, new techniques and new machinery. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been especially active in that respect in the west midlands. We must beware that regional policy does not simply shuffle problems, at great expense, from one part of the country to another.

Will my right hon. Friend always remember that regional aid takes money through taxation from firms in one area and gives it to those in another? Will he ensure that the basis of the White Paper is value for money for the taxpayer?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on the matter that he has raised. The justification for regional policy is primarily on social grounds — trying to do something to assist regions in the most difficulty, especially those with high unemployment.

What are the implications of the review for the west midlands? Will the Secretary of State do anything to stop the continuing contraction, especially in the machine tool industry?

The hon. Gentleman had better await the White Paper before he makes his judgment. Opinions are divided on whether the west midlands would be better off by being included in an assisted area, or better off without what is often considered to be unfair competition from a nearby assisted area.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the strong message from the Conservative Benches is that assisted areas blight their neighbouring areas?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. There is a case, especially on social grounds, for those in the more fortunate parts of the country to assist those in the less fortunate parts, but we should not pretend that that necessarily gives a great boost to the economy.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the needs of the rural parts when he draws up the White Paper? Will he consider establishing a new regional status—a rural development area?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of the help given to rural areas, not least through such organisations as COSIRA and through assisted area status for certain rural areas. I hope he does not forget the greatest of all aid to rural areas — the common agricultural policy. He may reflect upon its cost-effectiveness, but it amounts to a great deal of money.

I greet the Secretary of State on his first appearance at Question Time in his new and important role. If he is as positive and creative in his new Department as he was negative and destructive in his previous role, British industry and trade may have reason to greet him and look forward to his tenure of office.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically generous welcome, which I entirely reciprocate. I am sure that from time to time we shall have our differences, and I am sure also that they will be honestly debated. I look forward to hearing him put his side of the case—whether it is the one in which he believes, or the one that is his party's policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his preferred index of the competitivenes of British manufactured goods.

The competitiveness of British manufactured goods has many aspects, including both cost and price competitiveness and the important non-price factors in competitiveness such as design, reliability, delivery performance. No one measure is adequate.

Why does the Minister not give a precise answer to the question? Is it because he knows that any index that he cares to look at would show a substantial loss of competitiveness since 1979 and that the index that has most commonly been relied on shows a decline of no less than 33 per cent? Does not this dreadful figure show that those bits of British industry that have survived the past four years are not leaner and fitter, but smaller and much weaker?

There are many aspects of competitiveness, and the main one, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, is wage inflation. A large part of the competitiveness of British goods was lost through high inflation. If we have high wage inflation when there is low wage inflation among our competitors, that inevitably leads to British goods being relatively more costly, and thus to fewer sales overseas.

Will the Minister consider the effect of competitiveness where a monopoly is held by an aircraft supplier? Will he consider giving aid to the British airframe and aero-engine industry, particularly to allow the A320 to become competitively effective?

That is a different question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that all this discussion shows that it would be unwise for the Government to attempt to manipulate the sterling exchange rate to hold it up?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month in 1979.

In the third quarter of 1983 the index of production for the manufacturing industries was 94.9. This compares with 108.1 for the same quarter of 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend not find this reduction in the output of manufacturing industry alarming? What steps do the Government propose to take to raise demand for the output of manufacturing industry to the level of 1979?

I am sure that, apart from anything else, my hon. Friend will be pleased to notice that the index figure that I have given is 3 per cent. higher than that given for the last quarter of 1982, when he last raised this question. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is a lack of demand in the economy, he must be failing to do his own shopping.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that one of the major reasons for the big difference in the percentages is the number of companies in the hands of receivers? This is happening every day of every week. Is he aware of the letter that I have sent to him about one of the major companies in my constituency, IBH (Holdings) Terex (Scotland), which is in the hands of the receiver, Why is that so, and why are the Government not assisting it?

The hon. Gentleman would probably take the view that the Government should not assist every company that falls into the hands of the receiver. A large number of companies do so because they are badly managed, have a bad work force, or are engaged in making a product for which there is no longer a demand. As to the detail of the question and the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers——

The right hon. Gentleman ought to know.

The hon. Gentleman says that I ought to know. There are a number of things that the hon. Gentleman should know, but he shows few signs of knowing any of them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing industry in the midlands is at long last beginning to improve? Does he accept that as long as any review of regional policy does something to help the west midlands, for a change, and does not dissipate its industry to other regions, recovery will continue?

I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend.

Manufacturing output, as the Secretary of State says, is three points up on the trough of recession two and a half years ago, but it is also 17 points below the level that it was when he and colleagues took office, which is the largest fall ever sustained by either British industry or the industry of any other country. The House would like to know to what factors the Secretary of State attributes this massive and unprecedented decline in the performance of British industry. What is the main reason, and how can the Government assist in reversing the trend?

There is little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman understands the causes as well as most of us, even if he is not willing to admit it.

High interest rates.

The hon. Gentleman will recollect that interest rates are lower now than they have been for five and a half years. He also knows that inflation is lower, and that a lower exchange rate not only puts up prices of exports but reduces the prices of imported raw materials and food required to sustain our economy.

It is more so now.

The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has many assistants. I wish that he would keep them in order.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the level of trade with Iraq.

In 1982 United Kingdom exports to Iraq totalled £875 million and imports from Iraq £80 million. In the first nine months of this year trade has been at about half those levels due to the influence of the Gulf war on Iraq's economy, but there are now welcome signs of more opportunities for British firms in Iraq.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the significance of short-term events, the record in recent years demonstrates that Iraq represents one of the best markets for our exporters? What results has he achieved through the representations that he made on behalf of British manufacturers when he visited Iraq?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. When the Iran-Iraq war ends, as we hope it soon will, the prospects for Iraq are extremely good, as are the prospects for British firms there. There were some difficulties over payments, but I am glad to tell the House that these are being worked out and in the future there are good prospects for exports to that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the current balance of trade in manufactures for the past 12 months with the rest of the European Community.

Since the second quarter of 1979 there has been a total deficit on trade in manufactures with the other countries of the European Community of £15·1 billion and a surplus with the rest of the world of £28·7 billion. In the year ending September 1983 there was a deficit on manufacturing trade with the Community of £6·4 billion.

In view of the first speech of the new director of the National Development Council, in which he said that every £35,000 worth of manufactured imports represented one lost job in this country, can the Minister estimate how much unemployment has been caused in Britain by the appalling deficit that he has just announced?

It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to concentrate on one section of the current account. We must take into account exports of services and oil as well, and we have a considerable surplus there. Furthermore, we have had a large current account surplus—one of the largest in the world—in the last two years. The hon. Gentleman must not look at one sector alone.

Is it not traditional and in no way alarming for the United Kingdom to run a balance of payments deficit with manufacturing countries? Is it not also the case that in our trade with the EC our exports are better covered by imports than they are with other large manufacturing blocs, the United States and Japan?

It is true that in terms of visible trade in about only six of the last 37 years have we been in surplus. The trend that the hon. Member for Newham, North East (Mr. Leighton) has identified applies not just to EC countries but to our trade with many advanced industrialised countries. Deficits in one area are the counterpart of surpluses elsewhere, and we have been a strong surplus area. Labour Members should remember that they have changed their policy; they used to be against the EC, but now we are told that their policy is different. We should like to know what it is. Is it a fundamental renegotiation or just a fundamental fudge?

Does the Minister appreciate that areas such as Leicestershire, which, alas, have no oil, have depended on the manufacturing sector to provide jobs for their people, and that the collapse of industry and employment in such areas as my city have resulted directly from Government policy? What, if anything, is he prepared to do about it?

I cannot see, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is implying withdrawal from the EC, how that would be the answer to his problems. The EC has been the fastest growing area for our exports—37 per cent. of our manufacturing exports go to the EC. Unemployment in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency is well below the average for the EC as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend accept that were Britain to withdraw from the Common Market that would result in the most catastrophic loss of jobs in manufacturing industries, particularly in my region of Yorkshire and Humberside?

I agree with my hon. Friend. An extremely important aspect is inward investment. Much of the inward investment that is made by multinational and American companies in this country is important for jobs, but it would not take place unless those investors had access to a guaranteed market of 270 million people.

Is the Minister aware how seriously our trade balance with the EC in manufactured goods has deteriorated? We are told that the overall total since we joined is minus £15 billion and that last year the minus total was over £6 billion. Is not the deficit this year running at an annual rate of getting on for £8 billion? To what does the Minister attribute this massive decline in Britain's manufacturing exports and balance of trade with the EC countries?

It is inevitable, as we have growth in our exports both of oil and services, that one of two things will happen: either there will be increased growth in imports of manufactures or there will be an increase in the export of capital. That follows as a simple matter of arithmetic. As for the trend in visible trade—and we should not concentrate on one aspect of the matter—in the second quarter of this year we had a surplus of £650 million and in the third quarter we had a surplus of £400 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with his fellow Ministers in the European Community about joint action to curb dumping and other trading malpractices by various Oriental countries.

There are procedures in the Community for protecting its industries from injury by dumped or subsidised imports, whether from the Orient or elsewhere. If my hon. Friend has a specific point, I should be glad to investigate it. The anti-dumping unit in my Department is pleased to help in any case that arises.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that South Korea takes part in what I would call dumping practices in respect of steel and shipbuilding when it undercuts even the Japanese below cost? Is he further aware that it would be much better if protective and defensive action against the predatory habits of the Koreans were taken on a European basis rather than on a United Kingdom basis alone?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The GAIT provisions have not so far been invoked in relation to shipbuilding, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me details of exactly what he has in mind in relation to shipbuilding and it jury to United Kingdom shipbuilders, and I shall be ready to look into the matter in relation to the GATT provisions.

Surely after all this time there is no need for the Minister to keep asking for individual examples. Is he aware that when I visit firms in my constituency—be they in clothing or woollen textiles—they are all full of the story of dumping from the Orient, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, and from eastern Europe?

There are, of course, cases of dumping, as the right hon. Gentleman says. They are investigated and the anti-dumping unit in the Department is only too anxious to assist people, and has frequently done so, to prepare their cases for the Community. Where there is a good case, remedies can be taken. If the right hon. Gentleman has a specific case we shall look into it straight away. [Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Members laughing about it. Every case must be carefully prepared, and we are only too anxious to help.

Are not the numbers of those employed in the anti-dumping unit of the Commission pathetically inadequate to deal with this business? Does not the anti-dumping unit at my right hon. Friend's Department, which has no powers in the matter, employ more people than the Commission, which is supposed to serve 10 countries?

My hon. Friend is right to say that it would be helpful if there were more people in the antidumping unit in the Community, but that is not within my power; it is a decision for the Community. It is important that British industry should get the best help it can from my Department in dealing with cases of dumping, where they arise. That I am determined to achieve, and that is what is happening now.

Is the Minister aware that the current tariff on computers and computer components operates in favour of dumping in that completed computers imported into this country are charged at 15 per cent. whereas components for United Kingdom assembly are charged at only 5 per cent.? Is he further aware that an NEDC draft report recently recommended that the position be amended? Will he take the matter up with his colleagues in Brussels so as to reconstruct the tariff system to operate in favour of United Kingdom manufacturers?

I know the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He has a question on that very point later, and perhaps he will await the answer to that.

Will the Minister stop hiding behind a request for specific cases when there have been countless cases on which the Community took no action? If the Community refuses to protect our steel and shipbuilding industries, as indicated by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will have the courage to act on their behalf and protect them from these practices?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the steel industry is not protected already. While I do not think that I have received a specific case from him, I assure him that I am continually receiving cases. We pursue them, frequently with satisfactory results. There is no point in having generalised accusations. We need specific action on specific cases, and those we are only too anxious to take up.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to say when he will publish the Government White Paper on regional development grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to state when he hopes to announce his proposals following his review of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

On 2 November, in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), I announced my intention shortly to publish a White Paper on future regional industrial policy. This will set out the Government's proposals for the framework of a new structure for regional industrial incentives.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sorry that he is not able to give a more precise date for this keenly awaited White Paper, as there is a great deal of concern about the implications of it. Will he confirm that such a review will be used as an opportunity not to cut regional aid but to redeploy it more effectively to create jobs? Is he aware that under the present system many large capital projects that produce relatively few jobs receive disproportionately large capital grants, while projects that would create many jobs are often denied assistance?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the balance between the subsidisation of capital projects and of those that are more job-intensive. He makes the point well, and it is one that we have taken into account. As for the total of aid, we should look at the problems with which we must deal and the instruments that we devise and then decide how much money the economy can afford to devote to those instruments and policies against all the other demands on the public purse.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the level of economic activity in certain peripheral and less well endowed areas of the United Kingdom is to be maintained, with the possibility of a reduction in the level of unemployment, regional policies must continue? In that context, is it not a fact that regional aids serve a function of job maintenance as well as of job creation?

If I did not think that regional policy had a role to play in maintaining levels of employment in the country's more disadvantaged parts, I would not even be talking about publishing a White Paper dealing with the way in which regional policy will be conducted. There is a whole raft of policies to help to maintain jobs. Among the most important of those policies are the battle against inflation and the battle to keep down interest rates. That implies that we must be very careful to maintain a tight hold on public expenditure.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the shipyards that specialise in building small fishing craft and ferries have declined to such an extent in Scotland that only two are left? One of them is in Campbelltown and the other is McCrindles in Ardrossan. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those shipyards complain that Norwegian companies are receiving excellent subsidies, which mean that the Scottish companies are unable to win contracts despite their competitive tenders? Some local authorities are even giving contracts to Norwegian companies in preference to British-based companies.

In this wicked world it is not uncommon for a number of countries to subsidise their shipbuilding industries. We do that as well.

Will more emphasis be placed in the review on the importance of the role which service industry can play in creating jobs? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when assistance is given from public funds, more attention is paid to the quality of the proposed scheme and the number of jobs created, rather than merely to the geographical location of the firm?

My hon. Friend has raised two important points. I hope he will find that they are dealt with in an interesting way in the White Paper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that north Staffordshire badly needs regional assistance, as it has one of the fastest rates of increase in unemployment in the country? It would be wiser to give assistance now, when recovery is possible, than to wait until the area has been completely devastated.

The right hon. Gentleman will have gathered that the White Paper is to be published shortly. It will deal both with the measures that we shall use and with their coverage over the United Kingdom. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will make his observations on both of those points when the White Paper is published.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members believe that regional aid under all Governments has distorted management decisions, has led to investment where it was not needed, and has thereby slowed down efficiency? If he wants to help British industry, should he not abolish all regional aid and persuade our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the equivalent amount to cut tax on industry?

My hon. Friend is correct to point out that regional policy involves an economic cost as well as benefits. We must ask ourselves whether, in the short run at any rate, my hon. Friend's recipe would not impose on those who live in the less advantaged areas additional burdens which could become intolerable.

I am glad that the Secretary of State resisted that siren voice from his Back Benches. Do the scope and terms of reference of the review of assisted area policy extend to the specific Department of the Environment schemes for aiding the inner cities?

The right hon. Gentleman will find that the White Paper makes some reference to urban policy and, above all, to the need for it to move in harmony with other regional policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Minister of Trade's recent visit to Colombia and Venezuela.

I visited Colombia and Venzuela to further our bilateral trade relations, to support British companies in those markets, and to open a conference of commercial officers from our embassies in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the purpose of increasing United Kingdom trade in the area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade with the South American continent is of the utmost importance to Britain? Is he aware that trade with that continent is inadequate? What is his policy for improving it?

I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. Our trade with South America has fallen far too much, and is now less than 2 per cent. We need to take energetic action to increase it. We shall now concentrate on selective exports and on trying to make a real effort to increase our share of the Latin-American market. In the past decade or so Britain has neglected it far too much.

If the Minister was sincere about that answer, as I am sure he was, will he have a word with our ever so recent ambassador in Washington, Sir Nicholas Henderson, and ask him not to write in The Economist about the Organisation of American States in particular, and Latin Americans in general, in terms that are quite so insulting and offensive?

I have a suspicion that that is another question. However, when I have to pick between the hon. Gentleman and Sir Nicholas Henderson it is, indeed, a difficult task to know which to trust.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that Sir Nicholas Henderson was untrustworthy. He may have written an extraordinary article in The Economist referring to intelligence reports which cannot be questioned in the House of Commons, and he may have made ample use of unpublished Foreign Office telegrams. I suppose that Sir Nicholas Henderson is entitled to defend himself and certain sections of the Foreign Office. The Minister for Trade can put his point of view in the article, which, incidentally, is a veiled but devastating attack upon the Prime Minister.

Order. I am sure that the whole House will accept that the hon. Gentleman is certainly not untrustworthy. I am sure that had the Minister intended to say that he was, he would withdraw that remark.

Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the House reads Hansard it will find that I did not say that, but if that was the impression that I gave, it is not the one that I would wish to convey and I naturally withdraw any such implication.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of United Kingdom exports of electric traction units in each of the past three years.

Exports of direct current electric traction motors amounted to £4 million in 1980, £5·8 million in 1981 and £8·6 million in 1982. These figures do not include indirect exports or complete propulsion units, which are not separately recorded.

Is the Minister aware that the most important producer of traction units in Britain, and one of the most internationally famous, is the firm of GEC traction, Sheffield? Is he further aware that that firm is now in great difficulty, having completed its last international order, strangely enough, for the underground railway in Seoul? Will he make a serious attempt to talk to the Secretary of State for Transport and the British Railways Board, and encourage them to electrify the railway between St. Pancras and Sheffield, part of which has already been electrified? That would save that very important international firm.

I can fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, because he has mentioned one of the two companies that specialise in that type of product. However, as he rightly surmises, the major question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Indeed, I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already raised this issue with him. Of course, the prospects of any company depend on the balance between its efforts in the home and export markets. Therefore, any early effort in the home market will, in turn, help that company to continue to export.

Is it not a tribute to the skill of the management and the efficiency of the labour force at the Trafford Park division of GEC, in particular, that it has won so many contracts in the far east and South African markets and has been so successful? Will the Government continue to give every possible assistance to ensure that we can land those important foreign contracts?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will continue to give special help where required for those who wish to export to those markets. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) in congratulating GEC in that regard. In the generality, locomotive and self-propelled rolling-stock exports amounted to £17·1 million in 1981 and £32·2 million in 1982. That is, indeed, a first-class record.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the British film industry.

I intend to make a statement of the Government's intentions as soon as possible.

I assume that the Minister is referring to the review of the film industry. Indeed, I see him nodding in agreement. However, will he give an assurance that there will be full consultation on this issue, particularly with the unions involved? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great worry that has been expressed about the possible winding-up of the National Film Corporation? There are strong rumours that that is to happen. Will the Minister tell us whether he is considering the institution of the Eady-type levy on films that are being shown on television?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate my statement to the House. I assure him that I have consulted hundreds of people about the film industry. I included in those consultations the unions represented by Mr. Alan Sapper. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be dealing specifically with the points that he raised about the levy and the National Film Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the British film industry is enjoying a revival. Last year, British films and television programmes added about £163 million to our exports. It has been a success story for us around the world. I want to encourage the revival that is under way.

Will the Minister give an assurance that, when making projections about cable television and the importation of films on video cassette, some steps will be taken to protect the British film and feature industry from those cheap imports, which could harm a developing and profitable export industry?

We made it clear in the cable White Paper that the cable authority, in issuing the cable licences, and the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when allocating the first 12 licences—that will be done by the end of this month—will take into account the amount of British content that the various consortia are prepared to make available for cable television.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to amend the law relating to donations to political parties from public companies.

I have no plans to do so.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to acknowledge that if the Tory Cabinet in general—and especially the right hon. Gentleman—is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, the Government should withdraw part III of the Trade Union Bill and introduce legislation to ensure that donations to the Tory party from big business are subject to a ballot of shareholders.

The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The Bill that was recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the talks that my right hon. Friend is having with the Trades Union Congress deal not so much with how parties are financed or who should finance them, but with how the rights of individuals, which are set out in the 1913 Act, are implemented in honour. I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction among shareholders at the manner in which their rights are upheld by the Companies Acts and allied legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend advise Opposition Members that if they want to set the financial affairs of the Labour party in order they should stop bleating about the democratic right of shareholders to make political donations. They should instead take a leaf out of the Conservative party's book, whereby 90 per cent. of our funds are raised by the hard work and individual efforts of ordinary members.

It would be wrong for me to offer such good advice to the Opposition. It might be taken by them, and they would be a much stronger party in opposition to us.

Is the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment is intending to require trade unions to hold a ballot of their members on whether they should have a political fund? Why, therefore, does the Secretary of State not introduce legislation to require companies to hold a ballot of shareholders before they give the funds from which contributions are made to parties?

The hon. Gentleman persists in seeing companies as mirror images of trade unions. They are not. I warn him that if the law governing the conduct of trade unions were as tightly drawn and had penalties as severe as that governing the conduct of companies, a good many trade union leaders would be in gaol.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if shareholders feel aggrieved about a decision to make a political donation to the Conservative party, that decision can always be overturned at an annual general meeting? If there were a similar procedure in the trade union movement for people who want to opt out of supporting the Labour party, that movement would not be in its present scandalous position.

Although I understand the passion and conviction with which my hon. Friend puts that point, he falls into the trap of assuming that trade unions and companies are mirror images of each other. We do not legislate in the same way for them. The trade unions would be the first to protest if we imposed on them the legal sanctions that are imposed on companies.

If it is wrong for Ministers to make decisions about companies in which they are shareholders or from which they receive remuneration, in relation to references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, or, in the case of the Stock Exchange, a decision whether a case is considered under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, is it not equally wrong that companies that have made political donations to the Conservative party should be judged by those Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman asked a convoluted question. I thought for a moment that he was about to suggest that those who benefit, as the hon. Gentleman did in the past, from trade union funds should not make any judgment on trade unions.

The Secretary of State knows very well that the Conservative party receives well over £2 million a year from company donations. Therefore, there is clearly a relationship between, and a symmetry of arrangements made for, the trade unions when they contribute to the Labour party and for companies when they make contributions to the Conservative party. Is the Secretary of State not aware that it is 16 years since the first disclosure requirement was placed upon companies when making such donations? Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe, since his colleagues are now busily preparing amendments to the trade union legislation, that we ought to reconsider the matter, make it possible for individual shareholders to opt out of any arrangement and for companies to make a formal resolution to establish a political fund under supervision? If the right hon. Gentleman did that he might add to his reputation for evenhandedness and fairness.

I was unaware of any need to add to my reputation in that regard. The purpose of the Bill that is being put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is to ensure that those rights that were given to trade unionists under the 1913 Act are fully carried through. In recent years, they have not been. This is a response to the demands not of Conservative Central Office, but of trade unionists. I am unaware of any similar demand for protection by shareholders.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present structure and operation of the tourist boards; and if he will make a statement.

The present structure and operation of the tourist boards have been examined in detail in the Department's review of tourism policy. I hope to announce the conclusions of that review shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. In his announcement, will he pay attention to the administration of section 14? Will he seek to ensure that money is made available primarily for the purposes for which it was originally intended and that there is not a top-up for what ought to be taken care of by private finance?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will understand that I cannot anticipate an announcement that may be made, but I emphasise that I hope it will be made shortly.

Does the Minister recognise that, while support for tourism locally is welcome, it would be helpful also if there were central Government assistance in easing rating provisions for small hotels and guest:louses and also low interest loans to help many small hotels meet fire regulations and other such statutory provisions?

I note what the hon. Gentleman said. We discuss issues of that type all the time with the Department of the Environment. It is my function as a Minister within the Department of Trade and Industry to take up those questions with other Departments. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review.

When may we expect the outcome of this review, because without it there will be difficulties for tourist boards that wish to plan ahead?

I expect that it will be shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, amongst those dealing with the tourist industry, there is a widely held view that additional resources should be made available at the two sharp ends — attracting overseas visitors and providing amenities and services when those visitors are here — rather than the unnecessarily cumbersome and duplicating structure of boards that we have?

I note what my hon. Friend says. He gave evidence during the review and I assure him that his remarks have been carefully considered. Again, I cannot anticipate the announcement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy towards monopolies and mergers.

As my right hon. Friend explained yesterday in answer to my hon. Friend the member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), our policy towards monopolies and mergers is governed by a balance between reliance on the market as arbiter of company size and structure, the need for competition to promote the direct interest of the consumer, and any other matters which may affect the public interest.

If the Government believe in competition, why are they pursuing a privatisation policy which will simply convert public monopolies into private ones? Will the Minister pursue a policy, particularly in relation to BT and British Airways, of deregulation and further liberalisation which will give true competition?

We are pursuing a vigorous competition policy in the private and public sectors by privatisation and by references under section 11 of the Competition Act.