asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will assist in the establishment of a local enterprise agency in King's Lynn.

Yes, Sir, but the main support for the establishment of an LEA must come from private sector businesses.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. I shall work hard with my local authority and my local chambers of trade and commerce to ensure that the project gets off the ground. It should play an important part in reducing unemployment in north-west Norfolk. Does my hon. Friend believe that local enterprise agencies have a role to play in setting up management funds under the business expansion scheme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about local enterprise agencies and what he intends to do in King's Lynn. We launched the first community-based investment fund last Monday and, as I said in the debate on small firms on Friday 4 November, I am anxious that local enterprise agencies should not confine their activities purely to counselling small firms, important though that is. I should like them to act as marriage bureaux, drawing together investors within the community and attracting them to local firms under the business expansion scheme, as well as forging close links with local education colleges, to improve industry education.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest figures for manufacturing trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the United Kingdom's current balance of trade in manufactured goods; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he now makes of the likely deficit in the United Kingdom trade in manufactures for 1983.

In the three months ended in October, exports of manufactures were valued at £10·2 billion and imports at £10·8 billion and the balance therefore was in deficit by £0·6 billion. Large surpluses on trade in oil and invisibles offset this, however, so that the current account as a whole was in surplus by £0·4 billion.

Is there room for complacency on the part of the Government, bearing in mind that since 1979 there has been a reduction of 20 per cent. in the number of employees in manufacturing industry, a reduction of 14 per cent. in industrial output, and that manufacturing industry is probably in a worse state, relatively speaking, than at any time since the industrial revolution?

I agree that complacency is not what we need. However, the hon. Gentleman might have made the point that the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port, for example, close to his constituency, is becoming extremely successful. It is putting on a second night shift, and the chairman of the company said:

"By the end of 1984, 65 per cent. of all Vauxhalls sold in Britain would be British built, compared with 50 per cent. at present."

Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that, according lo figures from his Department, he is heading for a record deficit of over £2,000 million in trade in manufactured goods by the end of the year, compared with surpluses of over £5,000 million in 1977 and 1978 when the Labour party was in power? The latest figures out today show a further drop in industrial production. Does industry have any future at all now that the former Secretary of State for unemployment has reappeared as the Secretary of State for de-industrialisation?

The hon. Gentleman misses some of the points. We have a substantial surplus on invisibles and oils, and unless we are to have an extremely large trade surplus, which would bring its own problems, we must have deficits on some classes of goods. The hon. Gentleman does not read his Scottish newspapers. If he had read the Glasgow Herald on Monday — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked the question, and if he would shut up for a moment he might hear the answer. The paper said:

"Scottish firms making good progress in exports field. Scotland's exporters are in buoyant mood, recording the highest degree of optimism for export orders since 1979. The optimism is borne out by the Scottish Council whose first quarter trade mission next year is already almost full."

I read the Welsh newspapers and sometimes the Scottish and English ones. I also obtain facts and figures from the Library. The Library has given the information that there is a £1,220 million deficit this year. In addition, it says that 109,000 people who were in Welsh manufacturing industry have been unemployed since 1979. What will the Government do about that?

The hon. Gentleman should understand that we could not conceivably remain in surplus on each category of our trade without substantial capital outflows to balance our surplus or a steadily appreciating currency. As I understand it, his party's policy is to control capital outflows and devalue the pound.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 11 per cent. of manufacturing output goes into the motor car industry? Will he therefore take steps to improve the competitiveness of the motor car industry by reducing the car tax?

I am not sure that that would be the best thing for the motor industry while still over half the buoyant demand for motor cars is satisfied by imports. When we obtain a much higher share of the home market, my hon. Friend will have a better case for saying that the tax should be cut.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that manufacturing industry has gone through a difficult time, largely due to over-weak management and over-militant unions, but now that unions and management are more realistic, industry, though from a lower base, is growing on a proper tack and will continue to do so while that co-operation exists?

I am sure that is so. I heard an Opposition Member ask "Where?" I have just told the House about the success of Vauxhalls. That could be put alongside the greater success of Jaguar, BL and many other companies. The trouble is that the Opposition are professionals at dragging up all the bad news and ignoring the good.

I wish that the Secretary of State would address his mind to what is, after all, one of the most serious matters that falls within his responsibility. Does he deny that last year we had a surplus of about £2·5 billion, while this year, on current trends, it looks as though there will be a deficit of £2 billion. Can he recall any year in which a more massive adverse movement in our balance of trade has taken place? It is the first year in our history that we have had a deficit on manufactured goods. How is that adverse trend reconciled with all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about improving the competitiveness of British industry? If that is clear evidence that British industry is ceasing to be competitive in a major way, what on earth does he intend to do about it?

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman does not listen to what is said and does not apply his mind to the basic arithmetic. Is he seriously suggesting that we could run a huge surplus on manufacturing goods—

The Japanese do.

The right hon. Gentleman must sit down and listen — on oil and invisibles and preserve our currency? The right hon. Gentleman says that the Japanese do. Is he suggesting that we adopt Japanese trading practices and wreck the world's trade structure?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his policy of encouraging exports is limited by any non-commercial criteria.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that there is a firm in the midlands which manufactures and exports gang chains, leg shackles, and other such items, which are sold to countries where there are known violations of human rights and where they can be used only for the purposes of coercion, degradation and torture? Will the Minister look into this matter and see whether he can take the necessary powers to stop the export of such items?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I understand that the truth of the matter is not entirely established. Of course, we have to understand that while there are no international understandings on the export of such items, if this country did not export them someone else would. [Interruption.] Oh yes, indeed. If that happened, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) would grumble further about our trade position.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a little while ago hon. Members on both sides supported my request that there should be a restraint on exporting instruments designed to confer electric shocks on people in penal institutions? Would it not therefore be consistent for the Secretary of State to take action similar to that taken by others of his colleagues in the Government?

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I have not excluded the possibility of taking action. I am explaining some of the problems that would arise in trying to make any action effective. We have a general block on the export of items which could be used, for example, for repression. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we take action in some cases, but sometimes it is not easy to conclude the purpose for which some items are designed.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many types of telephones submitted for approval under the procedure laid down in the 1981 Act were made in the United Kingdom.

One hundred and twelve types of telephone have been submitted for approval under the British Telecommunications Act. These include 18 telephones supplied exclusively by British Telecom before the Act came into force. Of these 112, 56 were wholly made in the United Kingdom and 31 have more than 50 per cent. United Kingdom added value.

Will the Minister accept that the bulk of simple telephone extensions installed since liberalisation are imported models? Has he had a look—it would be particularly appropriate in the Minister's case—at the possible impact that that is having on companies such as GEC in Coventry?

I, too, have constituents who work for GEC in Coventry, and I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman to see that the fortunes of that company continue to improve. There is a new dynanism in the overall market for telephones. New models are coming forward and the liberalisation programme will help our manufacturers to address international markets as well. It is a matter of congratulation to GEC that it has produced the world's first single chip telephone, the IXT, which is already selling in large numbers to British Telecom.

Will my hon. Friend see what arrangements can be made to install some of these new telephones in the House? I am sure that they would be an improvement on the existing ones.

That is probably a matter for the Services Committee and the appropriate Select Committee. However, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the matter and I shall, indeed, look into it.

In spite of the Under-Secretary's interesting answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), can he confirm that at an early stage of the pre-liberalisation process the Government invited applications for potential suppliers of simple telephone extensions and that, of the 96 eligible applications, no fewer than 94 of the products orginated from abroad, with only two being manufactured in Britain? Is it not true that, as a consequence of liberalisation and of the privatisation that is provided for in the Bill that we shall consider later this evening the British information technology industry will suffer? The importation of telecommunications equipment is going on apace and British manufacturing industry is bound to suffer.

No, Sir. I cannot agree with that assertion. It is worth reporting, for example, that of the 300 liberalised items there is an average United Kingdom content of about 70 per cent. Indeed, the telephone market itself is expanding, and we take into account the United Kingdom content of those items submitted for approval to our approvals procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take measures to improve links between industry and education.

My Department already promotes such links, through, for example, the Schools Council industry project, the service and technology regional organisations, the British schools technology programme and other initiatives.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the shift in emphasis from traditional manufacturing industries to service industries has fallen particularly hard on areas such as mine, which have been centres of excellence for traditional manufacturing industry. Will he assure the House that he will bear the problems of such areas in mind when he is considering the links between industry and education? Will he pay particular attention to those important initiatives of local authorities and to the partnerships between local authorities and the Government in promoting such schemes to assist those links for industry as it is now and for the new industries of the future?

I am pleased to know that there is a proposal for an ITEC in my hon. Friend's constituency. He will be aware of the new technical and vocational education initiative to re-establish high standards of technical education for youngsters between 14 and 18 and of other initiatives taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, and for Employment and, indeed, by the MSC. We are aware of the problems of reorientating education in our schools to ensure that youngsters receive an education suitable for the different job opportunities in the future.

In his endeavours to improve the links between industry and education, will the Secretary of State put pressure on his colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science to restore the UGC cuts to Salford university, which is closely linked with and allied to industry, so that it can continue its excellent work?

I am aware of the good work that has been carried out at Salford, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the distribution of funds is primarily a matter for the UGC and not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If the UGC has picked Salford to take an unfair share of the burden, that is a bone that the hon. Gentleman should pick with the UGC. I have no doubt that many right hon. and hon. Members might differ at times from the UGC about the direction in which it allocates funds. I hope that the UGC will be conscious of the need to support the universities which have had outstanding successes in the new technologies and in technical and vocational education.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the principal difficulties in developing the links between education—particularly institutes of higher education—and industry is a lack of awareness in industry and in small businesses of precisely what is available in the universities and the institutes of higher education? Will he consider, perhaps through the medium of the British technology group, making available to the universities a small promotional budget to advertise what they can offer to industry?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I agree that there is a need to educate business men in these matters. I should have thought that the universities would see that it is strongly in their interests to accomplish that education and would go out and get working on it themselves as part of the activities for which they are normally paid, rather than expect extra money to do what really is part of the job of every member of the staff of a university.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the excellent research programmes undertaken by the Science and Engineering Research Council? Will he have a word with the chairman of the SERC to see whether the programmes can be more closely monitored with a view to seeing how many of them—for example, those on second generation robotics — lead to industrial applications in manufacturing in the United Kingdom?

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We try to monitor how effective research and development programmes are in getting new products on to the shelves, which is what matters. We shall not let up on that. The one point that should be made above all is that links are a two-way process. I hope that those in business, in commerce and industry, will make sure that they devote some of their time to developing these things as well as expecting that schools, universities and other institutes of education and learning will do their part.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make any additions to the list of goods which must bear a country of origin marking when displayed by a retailer.

I have no plans to extend the origin marking order to new products, pending a ruling from the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of the order as it stands with Community law.

I appreciate the Government's efforts to defend our origin marking regulations against the European Community, but does my hon. Friend agree that even these regulations are inadequate and exclude many household items such as crockery and almost all items of electronic business equipment, including telecommunications equipment and computers? Should not provision be made for the inclusion of these items in the regulations? Should not additional action be taken over goods assembled in this country from predominantly imported components, which are often misleadingly labelled "Made in Britain"?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's early remarks. We believe that the origin marking order is compatible with our Community obligations and we shall put forward a vigorous defence in Europe. We shall have to study in some detail the case that my hon. Friend put on the other goods and products.

In a previous answer the Secretary of State said that he wished to see the share of the British home market increase. Is the Minister aware that the latest figures show that the average British family spends £100 a week on consumer items and that the foreign share of that has risen under his Government to £25 a week and continues to rise? It has been calculated that if the average British family were to spend £3 a week more on British manufactured goods that would create 350,000 jobs and improve the balance of payments by £900 million. In the light of those figures, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity specifically to endorse the "Think British" campaign?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not take the time to congratulate the Government on introducing origin marking in the first place, and also that as he is the spokesman for the Liberal party he did not support the vigorous defence that we are putting up in Europe. It is because of our introduction of the origin marking order that we are encouraging people to buy British, and we shall continue to do so.

Order. I ask hon. Members for much shorter supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the question of unfair price discounting to large multiple retailers.

It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to decide whether to initiate an investigation. Since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report was published in 1981 he has looked closely at all cases of discounting brought to his attention but so far has found no evidence to justify either a formal investigation by his office or a reference to the commission. The Director General of Fair Trading continues to keep market conditions under review.

Will the Minister accept that the position has deteriorated since the 1981 report, and will he consider the implications not merely for the retention of adequate retail arrangements but for the maintenance of adequate consumer choice and the long-term viability of the food processing and producing industries? Will he therefore consider whether the voluntary code of practice should be reconsidered?

Existing discretionary legislation offers an effective means of investigating individual cases, taking action where appropriate. The MMC's investigation took four years and was published only three years ago and I am at this stage satisfied with the present arrangements.

Will my hon. Friend think again and recognise that it is dangerous to shrug off the rather undesirable concentration of economic power held by the very large retailers? Will he look at this matter again, because it is difficult for the smaller retailers to compete if they pay much higher prices? How can they compete?

It is clear that independent retailers are at a price disadvantage when providing many goods, but they have a marked competitive advantage in a number of ways, including personal service, direct contact with customers and flexibility.

Is it not time that the Government took some action on this important issue? Are we to assume that the Government's so-called competition policy is nothing more than an ad hoc series of decisions whose main purpose is to allow the Government's friends to pursue and exploit a market advantage to the maximum degree, irrespective of public or any other interest?

The Director General has considered the possibility of a code of practice for industry, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), but he has doubts about its effectiveness and is concerned that such a code might lead to collective price-fixing arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will establish closer links with educational bodies to formulate clear policy guidelines on all aspects of design training.

Yes, Sir. In the course of our campaign to stress the importance of design in national economic performance we have had many constructive discussions and suggestions about design education and training. We are considering these with DES, MSC and SERC.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that British designers' talents are being properly utilised? Does he believe that our designers are of the highest calibre?

I am not satisfied that British design talent is being properly utilised. Britain has a massive design talent. Unfortunately, British designers are being used by foreign manufacturers. They subsequently produce excellent products, which British consumers buy. I am determined to redress that problem. I have had many representations through our "Design for Profit Campaign" and will shortly be discussing the educational aspects of that campaign with the DES.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that one way to formulate clear policy would be to encourage industry to make up its mind about measurements? There is great confusion about using metric or imperial measurements. This is causing much confusion to education authorities in deciding what measurement industry leaders want provided to children. Should not industrialists say clearly to what type of measurements they will work?

This can be a cause for confusion, not least in our schools, but also among our employers. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the dual nature of our measurement system. This is not a question addressed specifically to designers. To a certain extent they can lead opinion about the type of measurements that they require. We have spent much time talking to industrialists and major employers of designers, not so much about this problem but about giving designers a much better role in society and about their being able to lead opinion in this matter.

Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the way in which a major British electronics company has had to go abroad to recruit qualified scientists and engineers because it cannot obtain them in this country? Does not this show the need for educational authorities in this country to be much more aware of the role that designers can play in promoting the construction and export of manufactured goods?

On a previous occasion I said that, to a certain extent, we operate a mismatched economy with large sections of our domestic demand satisfied by imports and not enough of our domestic manufacturing capability committed to goods for which demand is high and growing. Engineering designers, product designers and designers generally are a major weapon that can be used to address the problem of a mismatched economy.

Is it a major blow to the Minister's objectives that United States car manufacturers operating in this country have transferred their design capability to the continent? What representations have the Government made to them to ensure that this design capability is returned to Britain?

Our representations on the design front are wide ranging. It is true that a number of foreign cars, including German cars, which have a high import penetration into our market, are designed by British people. We must create the opportunities for those people to come home and to get back to work again. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In 1984, we are determined to enhance the status and the role of designers in the economic fight back.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the United Kingdom's imports of manufactures from the European Economic Community is now covered by its exports to European Economic Community.

In the third quarter of this year the coverage was 66 per cent. measured on a balance of payments basis.

As the figures confirm our continuing deficit, does the Minister believe that we have benefited at all from a free, unprotected market for our manufacturing industry?

Yes, I believe that we have benefited from membership of the European Economic Community. Other EEC countries are an increasingly important market for our exporters and now take 38 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing exports compared with 29 per cent. in 1970.

As the EEC is the largest single market in the world for manufactures, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to concentrate, not on cutting ourselves off from that market, but on making ourselves competitive so that we can win orders within it in open competition with the best in the world?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In addition, we are attracting foreign investment, especially by American and Japanese companies. They are gaining access to the European market by building factories here, bringing jobs to industry which would go elsewhere if we were not in the EEC.

Does the Minister agree that his figures, and the replies of the Secretary of State, show that the Government have changed Britain from the workshop of the world into the warehouse of the world? Instead of blaming the workers and low productivity, will he consider the fact that Germany, for example, invests £2·31 in manufacturing industry for every £1 that Britain invests? Does he appreciate that investment is the motive force for the production of jobs and goods?

I do not recall blaming the workers in any of my answers. A major plank of the hon. Gentleman's party at the general election was that Britain should withdraw from the EEC, which turned out to be Labour's biggest own goal in June. Moreover, a recent House of Lords Select Committee report shows that the vast majority of industrialists favour staying in the EEC.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom traditionally has an adverse balance of trade with other advanced industrialised countries and that the coverage of imports by exports is far worse in the United States and Japan, which are the other two principal outlets?

That is indeed so. Imports of manufactures have been growing faster than exports for some years, not only in the EEC but throughout the world. The way to reverse that trend is to improve British industrial competitiveness both at home and overseas.

Perhaps the Minister will stop emoting for a moment and think instead. Is he aware that his figure of 66 per cent. for the coverage by exports of British imports of manufactures from the EEC compares with 89 per cent. four years ago and 130 per cent. before Britain joined the EEC? In view of those two very different and far more favourable figures, how does he reconcile the claim that Britain's industry has become ever more competitive under the Conservatives with the fact that our export-import ratio in manufacturing trade with Europe has declined so seriously and has indeed halved since we joined the Community?

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it is wrong to concentrate on one section of the current account. Oil and services must also be included. Increased exports of oil and services are inevitably accompanied by higher imports of manufactures. Despite that, however, there was a current account surplus of £1·2 billion in the first nine months of 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the White Paper on regional policy.

As my hon. Friend will know, the White Paper on regional industrial development was published yesterday.

In as much as the taxpayer is going to be asked to provide money for industrial support, and in as much as my right hon. Friend's White Paper said that there could well be some savings under the new system, will it be possible to support industries as well as just moving jobs from region to region?

As my hon. Friend knows, part of the impact of the changes that I announced yesterday will be to reduce what I call mere job shuffling. The whole strategy was designed to support industries in the past, and is now designed to support some aspects of service occupations in the future. That will make the impact more effective, especially as it is more job-related and less capital-intensive than before.

Paragraph 9 of the White Paper published yesterday on regional policy is headed "The Government's Approach", and makes great play of the adjustment of employment opportunities by limiting wage and unit costs and labour mobility. Paragraph 12 says that labour mobility and wage costs do not interfere greatly with employment opportunities in those areas. Will the Minister accept that the free market philosophy pursued by the Government is failing? We informed the right hon. Gentleman about that and he told himself that in yesterday's White Paper. When will he do something about the criminal unemployment levels in Britain?

Of course I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman has difficulty in understanding even what is written in simple language. Perhaps I could repeat it to the hon. Gentleman and try to make the position clearer. If he will be so kind as to listen for a moment, he might just begin to understand. I said in the White Paper that, of course, labour rates and the greater mobility of labour had a part to play, but we could not expect that those two factors by themselves would answer all the problems.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to say a word about those areas, many of which are industrial and north of Watford, which are ineligible for regional aid because they have diversified, modernised and enjoy good labour relations, as did my constituency, until the National Graphical Association arrived? When areas such as Stockport look a little way down the Mersey and examine the activities of other local authorities, it seems as though the prodigal son is being rewarded with a fatted calf.

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings. The costs of regional policy fall not least upon those who are not in the assisted areas, and in many cases that means those who, by their own efforts, have improved the condition of their local economies. Equally, in some cases, substantial funds are made available in areas where some of the people concerned have done their best to wreck the local economies. It is regrettable that that should happen in those areas. None the less, we have a responsibility towards the vast mass of decent people in those areas who are trying to improve the economy, are pulling their weight, and are not part of Militant Tendency operations or other such operations.

Will the Minister refrain from acting as a benevolent nanny to British industry and address his thinking, if thinking he does, to the real hardship being caused in the north-east of England as a result of his asinine announcement of 13 December? The substantial cutback in regional aid will inevitably lead to a foreseeable and huge increase in local unemployment. Is the Secretary of State not interested in the future of the shipbuilding and coal mining industries?

Of course I am interested in the future of those industries. For example, we have put more than £140 million into subsidising the losses made at Scott Lithgow recently, and we still seem to find great difficulty in persuading the work force to get an oil rig out on time. That is the fault not of regional policy, but of both the management and men at Scott Lithgow. I do not know about benevolent nannies, but when I listen to the hon. Gentleman I sometimes think that we have a problem with malevolent ninnies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has presented to the House a typically balanced and sensitive regional policy? He recognises regional policy for what it is—a social service. Does he also agree that reorganisation of depressed areas very much depends on the co-ordination of industrial and social policy in those areas, and is the responsibility of those who live there?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am the first to own up to being a very balanced and sensitive chap, who has a very balanced and sensitive policy.

According to the right hon. Gentleman, there are only two reasons for the major industrial decline that has taken place in the past four years. The first is that we apparently produce oil and export it — and on the right hon. Gentleman's logic that inevitably leads to the decline of British industry—and the second reason is the irresponsibility of British workers. Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman for one moment that the appalling decline in British industry coincided with the arrival of the Conservative party in power, and with the implementation of its absurd monetarist policies?

Earlier I was a little puzzled when the right hon. Gentleman produced a new verb, to emote. Having listened to him, I understand what it means. I have told him what he knows to be true, but dare not admit in front of his right hon. and hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the level of Government financial support to the computer industry over each of the past five years.

Over the past five years £83 million of selective assistance has been provided to the information technology industry rising from £5 million in 1979–80 to £26 million in 1982–83. I have arranged for detailed figures for each of these years to be placed in the Official Report.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of the Department's computer programme in schools? One computer provided by his Department has led to 20 or 30 computers in many primary, secondary and special schools that I have visited, and to excellent programmes for pupils. However, what is the Department doing to ensure that there are job opportunities for school leavers in the industry, thus making use of the excellent added resources going into the industry, including the help given to ICL?

The schools programme at secondary and primary level has been a great success and I am delighted to report that the three items of equipment in the "micros in schools" programme are of British manufacture. It is also interesting to note that there has been an increase in jobs in the information technology industries. The United Kingdom is now the largest consumer of the industrial and commercial applications of integrated circuits. Those two factors together point the way to a new and burgeoning industry that is aimed at wealth creation for the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Minister in answer to his hon. Friend mentioned the loan guarantee to ICL. I wonder whether the Minister saw The Sunday Times Business News of 4 December this year, in which Mr. Richard Brooks indicates that secret documents have been revealed about the fears of ICL. He goes on to say that they also warn that IBM, the world's largest computer firm, is intent on strangling ICL. Given the fact that his Government, rightly, have put a great deal of public money into ICL, it is very important that Britain continues to maintain the capacity to he able to build computers in the United Kingdom. Is his Department, therefore, monitoring the situation in ICL and will he be prepared to come to the House and make a statement if further developments take place?

In answer to the hon. Gentlman's first question, I should point out that ICL's future is much better than it was some two or three years ago. ICL's borrowing was 1000 per cent. of funds employed in 1981. It is now 27 per cent., and its recovery in that regard is continuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responses he has received to his proposals for reorganising tourism infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.

The response so far to the conclusions of the tourism review has been favourable. The chairmen of the BTA and the ETB have already taken steps towards the implementation of those proposals that affect the two boards.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and share the general welcome that has been given to the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Is it not a fact, however, that the full objectives that my hon. Friend and the Government presumably seek to achieve cannot really be achieved without legislation? In view of the unease felt, in Scotland particularly, about the Minister's proposals, will my hon. Friend confirm that it is not the intention, by appointing a single chairman from the BTA and ETB, in any way to reduce the role or the effectiveness of the Wales or Scottish tourist boards?

The House is often reluctant to bring in legislation too frequently. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that, as far as Scotland is concerned, the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 29 November. This is intended to fulfil the Scottish manifesto commitment to extend the powers of the STB to enable it to carry out promotion overseas. The new powers are intended to supplement rather than replace the promotion of Scotland overseas by the BTA and there will be no cut in BT A's budget on that account.

When considering proposals for the revamping of our tourist industry, will the Minister consult the Home Secretary regarding ways in which we may achieve the courteous and decent reception of visitors at ports of entry, particularly those from the Indian subcontinent? Does he accept that the present humiliation and harassment of so many visitors by so many immigration officers is bringing us into disrepute?

I hope that those who run our airports will ensure that there is not a shoddy reception for visitors, from whatever part of the world they come.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the privatisation of the British Steel Corporation under the Phoenix 2 plans is arranged so as to prevent any private monopolies in the British steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

It is for the companies concerned to propose a structure for Phoenix 2. If and when definite plans are drawn up, the competition implications will be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will give advice to my right hon. Friend under the Fair Trading Act. Approval by the European Commission will also be required. The effects of such a merger would need to be considered in relation to the international market, where major competitors are comparable in size to the combined engineering steels operations of BSC and GKN. Subject to these considerations, the Government would welcome a proposal of this type as a means of bringing about rationalisation of capacity and privatising an area of BSC's activity which overlaps with the private sector.

I thank the Minister for that long and confusing answer. Will he undertake to visit what used to be the great industrial area of the east end of Sheffield and see what a desert he and his colleagues have created there, as they are doing throughout the whole of BSC? Will he note that the best parts of those industries—paid for by public money, sometimes known by Conservative Members as taxpayers' money — are being sold off at knock-down prices under Phoenix 2, so creating the ashes from which Phoenix 2 must arise? Will he look, for example, at Guest, Keen and Nettlefold and the plan in which it is engaging to become a major monopoly — [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—by taking over the best parts of our industry?

The Phoenix 2 proposal is not yet with us. We shall examine it to see that it complies with our usual policy requirements for competition within the EC. We are anxious to see the new company, if and when it is proposed to us, attack that part of the market that is at present taken up by imports—about 15 per cent. of the market for engineering steels. We believe that a new company, if formed along the lines proposed, would be in far better shape to meet international competition, particularly that coming from the EC. As for the impact of politics on Sheffield, politicians may propose but the consumer will always dispose.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve Government measures to assist small businesses.

We are committed to building on the progress aleady made, in particular by improving and simplifying existing schemes, promoting awareness and lifting burdens.

Is the Minister aware that we have reached the point when there are now more than 100 Government devices and 160 assistance agencies for small firms? Is it not time that we returned to the more sensible proposals in the Bolton committee report, instead of tinkering with this morass of remedial measures?

The hon. Gentleman should not be so scathing about Conservative achievements in the small firms sphere in the past four and a half years. We will be impressed to hear that I have taken the trouble to read the Liberal SDP manifesto published prior to the general election, and in it I found only five suggestions relating to small firms. Whereas some people greeted the various proposals in that manifesto with overwhelming and enthusiastic indifference, I thought that the five compared badly with the 108 measures, most of them tax measures, that have been introduced by the Conservatives in the past four and a half years. That is a record of which we are extremely proud.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to find out what other countries are doing to help their small businesses? If his Department is not already doing that, will it do so and publish the results? If it is doing so, will it equally publish the results so that we may see the comparison between ourselves and other countries, particularly those in the EC?

The conclusions made in the report to which my hon. Friend refers are nonsense. The research for the survey was conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is owned by the Economist magazine. Yet in an article in that magazine on 19 November the Economist made it clear that the data were collected by the EIU but that the conclusions were not its conclusions. It could hardly have made its views on those conclusions much clearer, as the article was headlined, "Pull the other one." I agreed with that view.

If small firms are to be exempt from the cost per job ceilings, as recommended in the statement yesterday, how do the Government intend to differentiate between small and large firms?

The definition is drawn from the Bolton committee's recommendations of 1971. It is a company that employs 200 people or fewer.

I congratulate the Government on the measures that they have taken to help small businesses, measures that have greatly exceeded any of the wind from the Opposition Benches. Will my hon. Friend take early steps to brief accountants, solicitors and bank managers on how to lead small business men safely to port?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that matter up. As I said in the debate on small firms on Friday 4 November, there is a requirement for us to improve the quality of advice that is provided to small firms by intermediaries, particularly chartered accountants and bank managers. To facilitate what my hon. Friend is suggesting, I intend to publish a sophisticated version of the Government publication "How to make your Business Grow". It will be provided for the intermediaries. We shall make it so thick that it cannot be thrown in the waste paper basket. It should be available for small firms seeking advice. [Interruption.] I do not see why the Labour party should be laughing about what the Government have done for small firms.

Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have joined many large firms in the bad practice of not making payments on time to small businesses, thus adding to their cash flow problem. Far from feeling proud of their record, are the Government aware that they are encouraging this abuse and exacerbating the harmful effects on the small business man by maintaining exorbitantly high interest rates, double the rate prevailing in West Germany, which has the same rate of inflation as ourselves?

Clearly I do not agree with the last statement. The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. In the debate on 4 November, already referred to, I made a special plea, directed at large companies, that they should pay the bills of small firms on time. It can make all the difference between survival and failure for those firms.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the objections raised last week to long replies by Ministers and your experience in the Chamber today, do you intend to intervene to protect the interests of Back Benchers?

I hope that the hon. Member noticed me intervening from a sedentary position.