asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the number of bankruptcies which occurred in 1983; and how this compares with the figure for 1982.

The number of bankruptcies in England and Wales is provisionally put at 7,000 compared with 5,700 in 1982. The figures cover all individuals and partnerships and include deeds of arrangement.

Does the Minister agree that, with such a high death rate for firms, there is no point in seeking to give aid to new small businesses, and that without a change of economic strategy we shall not achieve economic growth or an end to unemployment, but will have continuing bankruptcy and failure?

I disagree with the hon. Lady. The number of new businesses has increased. The number of new companies registered last year was about 9,000 more than in the previous year. That has occurred as a direct result of Government policy, and outside objective support for that came yesterday from the CBI's quarterly survey, which showed that profits and productivity are rising fast.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when considering bankruptcies it is, as he said, important to note how many new businesses are being created, for that is the other side of the equation? Are not the figures which he gave of new businesses greatly encouraging for the future of employment and for business generally?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware of the time that has elapsed since the publication of the Cork report on insolvency? Does he recognise that there is urgent need for action in this area? Will he give the timetable for legislation and make a statement on his proposals following Cork so that we may have an idea of when action will be taken?

I hope to deal with that w hen we come to question 21.

Is it not a fact that in some ways the figures are even better than my hon. Friend suggested, because over the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 there were 363,000 new businesses, with only about 343,000 going out of business, so that over a three-year period there was an increase of about 20,000?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. One of the main reasons was that the average rate of inflation in 1983 was 4·6 per cent., the lowest for 16 years.

Is the Minister aware that there can be no excuse for the shattering and disgraceful increase in the number of individuals going bankrupt? In view of the agonising way in which people are suffering as a result — and at which the Minister is apparently laughing—may I ask for a firm date when the House will have the promised White Paper arising out of the Cork report? May we have a date now, please?

I hope that the White Paper will be produced in the next few weeks.

Does my hon. Friend agree that firms usually go bankrupt when their expenses exceed their revenue and that that is often the result of bad management and the high rates levels imposed by local authorities?

There are many factors which cause it, and when my right hon. Friend publishes the White Paper it will be seen what steps the Government are proposing to try to make directors and managers of businesses more responsible in their financial affairs.

I am sure the Minister is aware that the question refers to companies, and the normal measure of the failure of companies is liquidations rather than bankruptcies. Will he confirm that last year over 13,000 British companies went into liquidation, the highest figure for any year this century? Is he aware that that makes a total of about 44,000 British companies which have gone into liquidation since the Conservatives assumed office in May 1979? Does the hon. Gentleman expect the record number for 1983 to be smaller, or larger, in 1984? If he thinks that it will be smaller, will that be due to the fact that the British economy has had the stimulus of an unexpected increase in public expenditure here at home, or will it be because the United States Government, through their record increase in spending, are stimulating the economies of the West, including our own?

The question refers to bankruptcies. About 9,000 more companies were registered in 1983 than in 1982.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans for reorganisation of his Department.

I am pursuing a number of initiatives designed to fuse the work of the two former Departments. In particular, I am bringing much closer together the work on support of industry and commerce and work concerned with trade promotion, competition policy and regulation.

What aims and objectives has my right hon. Friend set for his Department during the rest of this Parliament, and what further action does he think will be necessary on the organisational side to achieve these aims?

As my hon. Friend may know, my Department recently published a small brochure on the Department's aims, and the central aim is:

"To encourage, assist, and ensure the proper regulation of, British trade, industry and commerce; to increase the growth of world trade and the national production of wealth."

Following the reorganisation of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, what section will be dealing with the automobile industry and what plans will be laid with it to ask of Nissan that genuine British parts are involved and not merely British content, which can be meaningless and not provide jobs in Britain for the components industry?

There is a division of the Department which is responsible for the development of policies towards the motor industry. Since the merger I have consolidated the work which was put in train by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), which is designed to bring into the sponsorship divisions an extra awareness of trading aspects, consumer protection and regulatory matters. As for the part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on the Nissan project, it may be that he will be able to catch the eye of the Chair at a later stage this afternoon.

To what extent will my right hon. Friend's plans for the reorganisation of his Department assist or coincide with a change in the balance of expenditure within it which is more in favour of industries with prospects for the future and less in favour of propping up those which really have no future?

My Department is anxious not to prop up companies which have no future. However, many industries which are referred to as old fashioned can make a sharp comeback, as a number of firms in the textile industry have shown.

Quite right.

That can happen through the adoption of new technologies. It is our task to ensure that that happens, so far as we can. I intend that the Department will have a rather more active role in the sponsorship of some of the service industries, not least the financial services.

Will the reorganisation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers strengthen the parts of the Department dealing with competition policy? If so, will he tell us how his Department proposes to deal with what we hear the Government have decided are the natural monopolies in the public sector?

I am sure that my policies will reach parts of government and Departments which others cannot reach, as is said sometimes in advertisements. We place great stress on competition policy. The hon. Gentleman might care to have a copy of the speech which I made yesterday at the 10th anniversary celebration of the Office of Fair Trading.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the great weakness of and danger to the British economy, certainly in the past, has been the balance of payments in both manufactured goods and invisibles. I should like to be assured that, in the merger of the two former Departments, ample resources of intelligence and expertise will be available for the promotion of British trade interests in respect of policy and actual promotion of visible and invisible earnings. Equally, I hope that resources will be devoted to import replacement. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great danger, as evinced in the previous period of merger of the two former Departments, when the interests of industry, which are often very much geared to the home market, are allowed to dominate the broader interests of trade?

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. The prime cause of success or failure in these matters is not so much the work of the Department as that of those in industry and commerce. I intend that we shall have a vigorous programme of trade promotion. Everyone in the Department, from Ministers to officers, is aware of that. I hope that there will be a proper balance between all those interests in the Department. I do not believe that Government resources should ever be described as "ample", but they could be described as "sufficient", and they are sufficient.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made following the measures taken in retaliation against the United States Government's decision to limit imports on special steels.

In accordance with the earlier decision of the EC Council of Ministers, the Community has now notified the general agreement on tariffs and trade of its intention to retaliate from 1 March against the restrictions imposed by the United States Government on imports of special steels from the Community. Retaliation will take the form of increased tariffs on some imports from the United States and quotas on others.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the measures he has just announced are likely to have the desired effect, especially having regard to the interests of all Conservative Members at any rate of extending international competition?

These measures will have the right effect. I believe that it would be difficult to press upon the United States the importance of maintaining an open trading system while its gross budgetary deficit brings about certain changes in its economy which make it less competitive in the world and thus gives rise to the balance of trade problems to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred a short time ago.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer to the question on special steels. Is he aware that there is pressure on the United States Government to take action against exports of footwear from Europe? May I have an assurance that he will take this matter seriously and do what he can to persuade the American Government to take—

Order. This question is about steel, not footwear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give figures for output of British foundries for each of the last 10 years.

Output in United Kingdom foundries has fallen by almost 50 per cent. since 1975. With permission, I shall arrange for a detailed table to be published in the Official Report.

Is the Under-Secretary as worried as I am by the continuing decline of British manufacturing industry which that answer shows? Will he comment on the announced intention of the Ford Motor Company Ltd. to cease foundry production at Dagenham, thus causing thousands of workers to he unemployed, and to import parts from the continent? Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that countries as diverse as Mexico and Spain have laid down terms to the multinationals and said, "If you want our market, you must manufacture here or have a certain percentage of domestic components," and they should also produce a positive balance of payments? Will the hon. Gentleman consider a similar industrial policy in this country to rescue and safeguard British industry?

I regret the proposed closure of the Dagenham foundry, which is due mainly to the

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet reached a conclusion about the launch aid for the A320 Airbus; and if he will make a statement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the foundry industry is as important to the motor industry as it is to the steel industry? Will he outline his plans for talking to the foundry industry and helping with the rationalisation programme, which must go on if the industry is to survive?

If the foundry industry is to prosper and have a long-term future, it probably needs rationalisation. We in the Department of Trade and Industry are only too pleased to listen to any pleas which the industry brings to the Department. The decline in foundry production to which reference is made in the substantive question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and in my initial reply occurred over a period of 10 years, during part of which time the Labour party was in office.

Does the Minister not realise that the situation in the foundry industry shows clearly the absurdity of adding British deflation to world recession? Is he aware that since the Government came to office 18,000 jobs have been lost in this industry in the midlands alone and that a further 15,000 will be lost in the next four years unless there is a change of policy? Indeed, what policy do the Government have? It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that he is willing to listen to pleas from the industry. What positive strategy do the Government have for the development of the industry?

The right hon. Gentleman is on very weak ground. At the risk of hammering the nails out of sight, I remind him that the decline in the industry began in 1978 when the Labour Government were in power.

The Government have not yet reached their decision about launch aid for the A320 Airbus but expect to do so shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no comparable alternative project which could sustain British capability in civil airframe manufacture and that it is therefore crucial to our remaining in the industry at all that an early and positive decision be taken on launch aid for the A320?

My hon. Friend is right. The project is clearly of crucial importance to our civil aerospace industry. That point is well taken. I cannot say very much more. I note what my hon. Friend has said, but we are very close to reaching a decision.

May I warn the Minister that if launch aid is not forthcoming many hundreds of my constituents at the Broughton works may lose their jobs? Is he aware that unemployment in Clwyd is now more than 24,000 or 20 per cent.? Is he also aware that the Broughton factory is one of the finest reservoirs of industrial skills in Wales?

I am well aware of that, and I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman's comments, as he has made many representations to us. The employment considerations are, of course, extremely important. He will recognise, however, that huge sums of public money are involved. The application for launch aid for the aircraft itself involves more than £400 million, and the related V2500 engine project involves a further £113 million. The decision must therefore be weighed very carefully, but the points that the hon. Gentleman makes are well taken.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said on 19 December that it was hoped to deliver a decision by the end of January and we have now gone beyond that date. Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State aware that further delay is not helpful on a decision which was then described as significant for both British and European airbus industries?

It is indeed significant, but it involves huge sums of money. It is therefore right that it should be properly researched and evaluated. The Germans have still to make their decision and our timing has been closely related to theirs. I assure my hon. Friend that a decision will not be long delayed.

Is the Minister aware that Boeing has a virtual monopoly? In the interests of good British-American relationships, will he encourage the A320 Airbus by injecting a little competition into the field? Is he aware that there will be great joy on both sides of the House and among all the workmen if he provides the necessary aid to sustain both engine and airframe capacity in this vital area of technology?

As Airbus Industrie has said, Boeing faces strong competition from it, especially with the wide-bodied aircraft. If Boeing is not to have a monopoly, a European aerospace industry must be developed. All the points that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken into consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one market in which Airbus Industrie already has Boeing knocked for six is in the far east, where the rate of growth in civil aviation is about twice that of the rest of the world? Will he comment on the viability of the project and confirm that it is in no way another Concorde, but is a project of great commercial promise?

I do not want to comment on the viability issue, as my hon. Friend will understand, because that is precisely what we have to research and make up our minds about. We have to decide whether this is a good commercial proposition which will earn money for this country; whether it will serve in sufficient numbers to make moderately impressive sales and yield returns in dividends. We must not forget that many aerospace projects have failed to do that. We do not need to refer only to Concorde. I have to tell my hon. Friend that no aircraft project in this country since the Viscount has repaid its launch aid to the Government. That is not what we like to see. If we are to have an aerospace industry—and we want one—it must earn money for the country.

The Minister must be aware that the A320 is not Concorde—it is nothing like Concorde. He will no doubt be aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Haywood) sponsored an Adjournment debate on 19 December last year, during which there was a remarkable degree of unanimity between his hon. Friends and mine. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is a clear consensus of support for the A320. It is vital that support from the Government is forthcoming in order to sustain our airframe manufacturing industry. Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and I will shortly be departing for Toulouse? Perhaps the Secretary of State would nod sagaciously in my direction if a favourable conclusion to this matter is to be forthcoming immediately.

Even before the hon. Gentleman told me, I can tell him that I was aware that he was going, I believe at 3.30 pm, hotfoot to Toulouse. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the hospitality of Mr. Beteille and Mr. Lathiére is extremely good. I am sure that he will take a very warm message to them, to judge from what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the operation of the law regarding companies' contributions to political parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the operation of the law covering the way companies make political contributions.

Yes, Sir.

Are we really to believe that it is pure coincidence that 60 per cent. of the knighthoods received since 1979 have gone to industrialists who have been associated with companies donating to the Tory party? Why does the Secretary of State not recognise that the manner in which there is no consultation with shareholders, or any involvement by them—they cannot contract out—in making contributions to the Tory party has become quit scandalous?

I suspect that about 100 per cent. of the knighthoods given to trade unionists by the last Labour Government were given to people associated with support for the Labour party. I think that knighthoods for people in commercial life are given to those who have shown outstanding success in commerce and industry. That frequently means that they happen to believe in the capitalist free market economy, which often means that they are members, or supporters, of the Conservative party as well.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, as I do not think there are any hon. Members on the Front Bench whose names are associated with the list of Nazis and Fascists, we expect a fair answer in the House this afternoon? Does he not think that shareholders have the same right to contract out as trade unionists? Why is he so concerned about trade unionists' donations to the Labour party when he does not apply the same criterion to shareholders?

It is clear that shareholders have the right to decide whether to contribute to political funds. They have the medium of the annual general meeting to impose a restriction on a company if they so wish. If not, they do not. There is no great demand for reform from shareholders, although there have been very strong demands for reform from trade unionists. Indeed, many trade unionists are conscripted into the unions to which they belong.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been associated with several companies which have made political donations from time to time? Many shareholders have commended the donations made. The only complaint that I received was when one company, against my advice, donated to the Labour party.

I am not really surprised.

The Government are apparently not going to change the law on company political contributions. Are they also coming to the conclusion that they should not change the law on trade union political levies, just at they sold out on the question of personal ballots in the Trade Union Bill?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) knows that if he wants to ask questions about that Bill and allied legislation, he can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment at the appropriate time.

The Secretary of State is rather easily satisfied about the law relating to companies and contributions to political parties. The right hon. Gentleman seems not to have understood or given his mind to the question. When he speaks about individuals in companies being shareholders who have the right to contract out or in, one would imagine that we were still living in the period before the first world war when the great mass of shareholders consisted of individuals. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the fact that about half of all the shares owned in Britain are held by institutions, superannuation and insurance companies, over which individual subscribers have no control whatever? Let us not pretend that the two situations are the same.

I have looked into this matter from a personal point of view, as I am a member of the British Airways pension scheme. At present that fund is valued at about £1·5 billion. I have analysed the scheme's holdings, and the total cost of the political contributions made by the British companies in which it has its 10 largest investments amounted to £100·60. That amount will not cause much loss of sleep to the scheme's 53,000 members and beneficiaries.

rose—

Order. I call Front Bench Members frequently, but it reduces the amount of time available to Back Benchers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to educate professional advisers about the help available to their small business clients.

Yes, Sir. On behalf of my Department the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Association of Certified Accountants are organising seminars for professional advisers in April and May. The seminars will deal with financing small businesses and Government grants and advisory services. I plan to announce further details later this month.

That is a welcome statement. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some solicitors and bank managers are very much in the front line in advising not only those who contemplate starting businesses, but those who run small businesses and want to extend them? Can they also be included?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The seminars are targeted at intermediaries and professional advisers. To complement the seminars, we shall be sending a booklet, which is sophisticated when compared with "How to Make Your Business Grow", to every chartered and certified accountant, every bank manager and the senior partner in every firm of solicitors.

In view of the current controversy, does the Minister think it would be helpful if companies were required to disclose the names of and the fees paid to professional advisers who secure contracts for them overseas?

I do not think it would.

Does my hon. Friend agree that often the best way to provide professional advice to small businesses, which are particularly vulnerable in their early years, is through the establishment of business technology and other centres which provide nursery-type accommodation for small businesses?

I do indeed. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the large companies which help in the small firms sector by providing various units, particularly sheltered workshop accommodation, for small businesses, especially for those in ITEC.

Will the Minister bear in mind that it is not only professional advisers who need educating on the Government's policy on small firms? Will he explain to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, while he is boasting about the measures that he has introduced to help small businesses, his Department, through its policy of reclassification of the self-employed as employed, is sabotaging the same small firms that he claims he is trying to help?

I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider that in his forthcoming Budget. Obviously I am not in a position to divulge anything that may be considered by him.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the current operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Yes, Sir. I believe that the Export Credits Guarantee Department provides a good service to British exporters. To ensure that the Department will continue to do so, a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Matthews is presently considering its most suitable structure for the future.

Will the Minister confirm that there is an export credit guarantee in respect of the Cementation contract to build a university in Oman? What amount is the guarantee for? Was there any lobbying by the Prime Minister or her office in respect of the guarantee? Was the commission to be paid to Mark Thatcher and his associates also covered by the guarantee?

The hon. Member's question is typical of his conduct in the House.

Just answer it.

I certainly shall answer it.

Just get on and answer the question.

Order. It is no good the hon. Member shouting from a sedentary position. He has asked his question.

If the hon. Member had taken the trouble to note, a press notice on this deal was issued on 12 August 1982, so all the facts have been known for a very long time.

Will the Minister ensure that in any future contracts which the ECGD guarantees, commissions paid are shown as separate items in the contract?

No, Sir. Under successive Administrations the ECGD has assessed applications for cover on a commercial basis. It does not give details beyond those which are occasionally released in press notices of the kind to which I have referred. It would be wrong, and not in the national interest, to make any change in that procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the response to the small firms technical engineering scheme.

Small manufacturing firms with up to 200 employees can receive free help and advice from the small firms technical inquiry service, which is funded by my Department. I am very satisfied with the growing demand for this service, which has assisted over 4,000 firms since it started in July 1982.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House of the benefits of the technical inquiry service? Has he any further plans to assist smaller businesses which would in due course enhance future employment prospects?

The service provides up to five days' free consultancy advice in areas covered by materials, manufacturing methods, the use of computers, factory layout and production control. In the debate on small firms on 4 November I announced the measures that the Government intend to carry out.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his forecast for British exports in 1984.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement projected a 4 per cent. increase in the volume of exports of goods and services between 1983 and 1984.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware of the threat to the British footwear manufacturing industry's export drive of the reported decision of the American Government to restrict shoe imports into that country? Does he agree that that would have a damaging effect on our footwear industry?

I understand that the American Government have taken no decision on that matter. However, I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that that would be an extremely regrettable step. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in the United States next week, and I am sure that that could be one of the topics that he would want to raise.

Does the Minister agree that Britain's export position would be much healthier if industry were able to take advantage of what happened late last summer when aluminium prices escalated on the American market? Would not a strong domestic base in that industry be able to take advantage of such an escalation? Does not the fact that the Government stood by and allowed the Invergordon smelter, which is in my constituency, to close mean that we have lost the advantage of such a base? Does not that closure highlight the Government's shortsightedness with regard to export policy?

The Invergordon smelter is not one of my responsibilities, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the evidence is that businesses are much more confident that exports will improve. There is much more domestic confidence on all fronts and evidence that exports will do extremely well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the textile and clothing industry, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly paid tribute a moment ago, could make a greater contribution to Britain's exports if the Department responded promptly to the report "Plan for Action"—which was sent to the Department by the British Textile Confederation in March last year—which includes a request that a scheme similar to the small engineering firms investment scheme be applied to the textile industry?

Yes. An answer to that report will be given shortly. I share my hon. Friend's views of the textile industry's achievements. He will be aware of the great help that the Government have given to the textile industry under the multi-fibre arrangement.

As the Minister ought to know, last year, for the first time in our history, we had a major deficit in trade in manufactured goods. The Minister said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State forecasts an increase in British exports next year. Does that forecast specify an increase in British manufactured goods? If the right hon. Gentleman can give us that answer, can he also tell us what the forecast is for next year's imports?

The pattern of the British economy has been changing for several years. It is changing and it will continue to change. There is nothing wrong with that. We have large surpluses on oil and on services. We cannot conceivably hope to have a surplus on every item. I am sure the House will be glad to learn that, in the last quarter, manufactured exports increased by 7 per cent. over the previous quarter. That is an extremely encouraging sign.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what views he has received on the White Paper on regional industrial development.

I have received a number of submissions on issues on which views were invited, including the assisted area map and activities which should qualify for regional development grant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that millions of workers in areas which do not receive any assistance or regional aid deeply resent the assistance that is given to some areas because it creates unfair competition for jobs? Is he further aware that such workers look forward to the legislation that is proposed for the autumn?

We are aware of that feeling. That is why the Government have reduced the area of the country that is covered by regional policy. It is also one of the reasons for reviewing regional policy. We want to reduce discrimination and distortion against non-assisted areas. My hon. Friend will recall, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement, that the new system will produce some public expenditure savings. We believe that it will do less damage to non-assisted areas.

Does the Minister agree that the White Paper on regional policy seems to be a White Paper of despair? Is he prepared to take notice of the fact that, since 1 January, 1,500 redundancies have been notified in the Tyne and Wear area and that since 1980 41,500 redundancies have occurred in that area? Where is the action from the Government, never mind the words?

I do not accept that it is a White Paper of despair. It was designed to produce a more cost-effective regional policy that would give better value for money and do less damage to the non-assisted areas. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's constituency has suffered from persistently high unemployment, despite tens of millions of pounds of regional aid being poured into it, begs the question whether that regional aid is being effective. That is why we chose to re-examine it. We want better value for money.

Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that, in addition to any moneys that might be withdrawn from areas of greatest need, such as parts of Wales and Scotland, the White Paper will have repercussions on the amount of aid that may be available from the EEC? The reduction in aid from that source would have a harsh effect on areas such as Wales and Scotland.

We are well aware of the point made by my hon. Friend. One of the important considerations in framing regional policy is that we should be able to maximise receipts from the European regional development fund. I assure my hon. Friend that, during the period of consultation, we shall take into account what he said.

Will the Minister stop engaging in this bout of hypocrisy? Is not the truth of the matter, in respect of Amber Valley and other parts of Derbyshire that, as a result of lobbying by Labour authorities in the area, we managed to convince a Labour Government to give assisted area status to Erewash Valley? The Conservative Government, as one of their first acts in 1979, took away assisted area status from Amber Valley. That resulted in no grants being received after 1982. The Minister is now engaging in hypocrisy. He is trying to kid the nation into believing that the Government will be giving regional benefits to all those areas from which they removed them in 1979.

The hon. Gentleman lives in his own small world of delusion, into which I do not wish to go. The decisions about regional policy were taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), then Secretary of State for Industry, based on objective criteria. I reject the suggestion that political considerations came into the decision taken about the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Will my hon. Friend take evidence from all those who have been affected by the great experiment in regional development at Linwood and make it available to all those who support the Nissan project?

Attempts to steer large projects in the motor industry to particular areas have had an unfortunate history. We do not propose to repeat that.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's unique achievement has been to turn the whole of the United Kingdom into a depressed region? Does he further agree that manufacturing industry in particular will not benefit from the provisions outlined in the White Paper? Will the Minister take note of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and direct his attention to whole sectors of manufacturing industry, especially machine tools in Coventry, which are falling into a state of teminal decline?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The only point with which I agree is that it is an illusion to think that regional policy can bring about a revival of the economy. That revival will be brought about only through our becoming more competitive. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the signs of that revival are good, with inflation and interest rates down. Yesterday the CBI published its best survey for years, showing a strong expectation of growth in industry and the economy. That is what the regions need, not a bigger regional policy.

Taking into account the all-too-modest changes proposed in the White Paper, can my hon. Friend be certain that taxpayers will get real value for money as a result of those changes?

Yes, I am certain that taxpayers will get better value for money. There will be a smaller regional policy, which we believe will create as many jobs as the previous policies. Above all, this regional policy will be more job-related and will not throw away money on large, capital-intensive projects. That approach has damaged the economy of many of our regions.

I recognise the need for a more discriminating regional policy, but does the Minister accept that the circumstances in Scotland, particularly west central Scotland, have changed since the Government's proposals were published, and that the prospect of collapse at Scott Lithgow must lead to a reconsideration of the underlying premise of the White Paper? Does he further accept that the £400 million that it is now widely stated will be lopped off Scotland's regional aid must be replaced?

It would be difficult to lop £400 million off Scotland's regional aid, because it does not receive that amount. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the premise being altered. What may have altered are the areas that should qualify for assistance. However, we are not yet taking decisions on the map. We cannot do so until we have the return from the Department of Employment on the travel-to-work areas, and that will be in several months' time. Obviously, I cannot anticipate decisions on particular areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the supply of gases by the British Oxygen Company to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Director General of Fair Trading has received representations about the supply of medical gases by the British Oxygen Company. He has asked for evidence to enable him to consider, in accordance with his statutory responsibilities, whether to take action. My officials are in close touch with the Office of Fair Trading.

Is it not a fact that the Government are very slow to attack private monopolies and very quick to accuse the nationalised industries of being monopolies? Does not the arrogance of power that is vested in the wages of the chief executive and other executives in the organisation show that it is so dominant in the market that it is clearly a monopoly, and that the Government are aiding that monopoly instead of doing something about it?

No. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that he wishes to submit to the Director General, who is considering the case, I should be pleased if he would do so.

Is not this case the acid test of the Government's competition policy? Does the Minister not recognise that to imply, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did yesterday in a speech at the Office of Fair Trading conference, that competition alone is all that is required to promote efficiency and protect the consumer is far too simple-minded? Does not that case show that unregulated competition means that a dominant firm can exploit and abuse its market position to the detriment of efficiency, the consumer and, in this case, the taxpayer? In this case, will he be as robust as his Conservative predecessors in 1954?

The matter is already being considered by the Director General. If he decides to make recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we shall take speedy action.

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

I welcome recent reports of improved company results and higher figures for both output and employment, which suggest that the textile industry is pulling out of the recession. If firms are able to meet the demands of their customers in terms of quality, design, price and delivery, I think that the prospects for the industry are brighter than they have been for some considerable time.

I welcome the positive aspects of my hon. Friend's statement, but note that the industry has been badly hit by the recession. Much needs to be done. Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to those in the knitwear industry and those in exports, who have radically improved their position in the past 12 months? I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for an early response from the Government to the British Textile Confederation's "Plan for Action". Does my hon. Friend believe that the statement that he issued echoes the fact that the industry is doing its best to pull out of the recession? I ask the Government to support that effort.

I note what my hon. Friend said. One of the reasons why we were delayed in responding to the British Textile Confederation's "Plan for Action" was that we wanted to consider it with the representations from the knitwear, footwear and clothing industries, which are related to each other. A number of companies in the knitwear industry have had good results. There are some first-class companies in that industry. They can do well, and they need encouragement.

Is the Minister aware that the industry does not believe that it gets much protection from the multi-fibre arrangement and that it is very concerned because it appears that China intends to expand its exports of textiles by an amount equal to the present total production of the Common Market?

I know that people complain about the MFA, but it is one of the most complex and elaborate arrangements of protection that we have. No fewer than 600 quotas are imposed on different products. We do not hesitate to impose quotas on other products that show any surge above agreed levels.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the export performance of the British wool textile industry has been remarkable in recent times, especially in prevailing world conditions? However, does he accept that the continuation of that performance depends on a satisfactory home market? Will he bear that fact in mind during the forthcoming negotiations with countries which may erect substantial barriers against our exports?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the industry has been a successful exporter, especially to the United States, despite some rather unwelcome measures taken by the United States. We do not welcome what the United States has done. I note what my hon. Friend said.

The Minister may express optimism about the future of the industry, but is he aware that profitability is still so low that most firms cannot afford to install the latest machinery, incorporating microtechnology, which is essential to their long-term survival?

The right hon. Gentleman must not underestimate what is happening in the textile industry. It is true that profitability does not compare well with industry in general, but there have been some striking company results — for example, Vantona-Viyella and Illingworth Morris. Courtaulds profits have risen by no less than 100 per cent. Textile output in the third quarter of 1983 was 3·6 per cent. up on the previous quarter, and 3·2 per cent. up on the previous year. — [HON. MEMBERS: "What about jobs?"] In September 1983, textile employment was 2,000 up on June 1983, so we are beginning to see a recovery.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in answering questions on trade, he will make it clear whether he is using overseas trade statistics or balance of payments figures.

Yes, Sir. It is our practice to use balance of payments figures where possible. When figures on the overseas trade statistics basis are used, they are labelled accordingly.

I am rather surprised at that reply. Does the Minister recall that the last time his Department appeared at Question Time a similar question was tabled? Was not the reply given on that occasion based on an internal departmental estimate covering three months, which was not checkable and was therefore likely to mislead? I am sure that the Minister does not wish to mislead the House, but I hope that in future he will abide by the rules that he has laid down.

The basis on which figures have been given has been precisely the same under successive Governments. It has not changed in any way. Wherever possible, figures relating to exports, imports and the balance of trade are given on a balance of payments basis. When that is not available, they are given on an overseas trade statistics basis.

Will the Minister confirm that total payments always necessarily and inevitably balance?

I think that must be self-evident.

Will the Minister confirm that, whatever statistical basis is used, the figures show the unmistakable trend of a decline in the balance of trade in manufactures, which has fallen by no less than £10 billion since the end of 1978? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that reflects not only the definitive judgment of the market on the Government's economic policies, but a substantial loss of price and non-price competitiveness as shown by the survey published by the European management forum last month? Will Ministers now stop claiming that competitiveness has improved?

I have already dealt with manufacturing and services. It is a curious point for the hon. Gentleman to make at this time. During the last quarter, manufacturing exports, in value terms, were probably higher than they have ever been in this country. They were 7·5 per cent. up on the preceding quarter. Rather than endlessly complaining about everything under the sun, the Opposition would do better to recognise that things are improving. We do not hear hon. Members from the midlands say that exports of cars in the last quarter had increased by 39 per cent. over the quarter before.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that at the beginning of Question Time the Minister refused to answer a question that I put to him, on the ground that it was in some way similar to a later question on the Order Paper. However, the substance of my question was totally different from that of No. 21. Is it in order for the Minister to use such a device to avoid answering an important question, particularly when he knows perfectly well that the question to which he referred will not be reached?

Order. I noted what happened. I must say again—I hope that the House will consider that this is fair — that in dealing with Question Time I look carefully through the later questions of those who have taken part in the ballot, and I do my best, although I cannot always achieve this, to ensure that hon. Members whose questions appear later on the Order Paper have an opportunity to ask their supplementary questions. I am not, of course, responsible for the replies.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, I raised with you a point of order on the difference between the status of a question—

Order. Does this arise out of Question Time?

No, Sir.

Then I think that we will take the two statements first.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Does the hon. Member's point of order arise out of Question Time?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider the rights of Back Benchers. I feel somewhat disappointed today because my question, No. 20, was not reached. It seems odd to me that in the past, when Trade and Industry questions were separate, it was fairly common in both cases for between 20 and 30 questions to be answered. Now that the Government have chosen to put the two Departments together, it seems unfortunate that only about 15 questions are answered. Back Benchers should have more opportunity to ask questions on Trade and Industry that are of concern to their constituents.

I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Member has said, and I think that we should have done rather better today. However, I am bound to say—this is no criticism of the Front Bench—that I called the Opposition Front Bench 10 times at Question Time today. If that happens, further questions are effectively cut off. In a full hour, we should get through more than the 15 questions that were answered today. I shall endeavour to do better Back-Bench in future.