asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much the premium income of the Export Credits Guarantee Department from business with Nigeria in each of the last three years has exceeded claims made in the same period; and whether he will make a statement.

ECGD premium income on Nigeria exceeded gross claims by £7·8 million in 1981 and by £27·1 million in 1982. In 1983, by contrast, gross claims exceeded premium income by £4·4 million. I have no further statement to make.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the restrictions on cover for Nigerian business are causing great anxiety to exporters principally concerned with such business? What is the Government's policy? Do they favour British exporters increasing export activity to Nigeria, or do they advise them to cut back in the present financial circumstances?

We are aware of the difficulties faced by British exporters, but they must be considered in relation to the situation in Nigeria. The Nigerian authorities are seeking debt relief for arrears of short-term credits accumulated in the past two years totalling about US$6 billion. ECGD-insured arrears are estimated at about US$1 billion. We must take that into account as well as the refinancing negotiations that are taking place before we can say anything more specific to British exporters.

Does the Minister recall that I have been in touch with his and other Departments over a considerable period about the state of the contract for W. H. Davis and Sons at Langwith junction in my constituency? Is he aware that the compay cannot get its money out of Nigeria and that scores of workers have been laid off due to that contract not being honoured? Does he agree that not only are the Government wrecking thousands of small businesses in this country, but that the ECGD insurance which they set up cannot do the job abroad when companies are in difficulties?

The ECGD insurance does the job in specific cases. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's complaint is justified.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in trying to help exporters in my constituency I find that they are at a disadvantage because European competitors can obtain medium-term finance whereas the ECGD is unable, or unwilling, to help?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. We are as competitive as our main European rivals in providing this kind of finance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the management of the London Docklands Transportation Consortium; and what was discussed.

I have not met the LDTC and have no plans to do so.

I note that reply. Is the Secretary of State aware of the importance to London of the London Docklands railway development? Will he assure the House that any company wishing to tender for that project will be allowed to do so and that he will try to ensure that British steels and other British materials are used in the project?

The hon. Gentleman addresses to me questions which should be addressed to those responsible for the tendering procedures for the contract.

The Secretary of State has displayed an almost overwhelming interest in this very important project. Some of us have perhaps had a closer connection with it. We remember the six years delay since Sir Horace Cutler was blathering on about Olympic ways and fully-fledged tube lines running through east London. We are keen to see progress with the project and we should very much like the Secretary of State to take some interest in it. Specifically, when is the contract likely to be awarded, and when is the project likely to be completed?

Of course I am interested in this matter because, like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a London Member. However, if he cannot arrange for the question to be addressed to those who are responsible for the decisions, he cannot complain when I tell him that my Department is not responsible for these matters.

rose—

No.

With respect—

Order. I think not again.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No. I will take the point of order afterwards.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aid his Department and the former Department of Industry has given to United Kingdom battery manufacturers in the last three years.

For the three years ending 31 January 1984, aid totalling £10·66 million has been offered to British battery manufacturers.

Can the Minister say how much of that has been accepted, and how much has gone to Oldham Batteries in my constituency? That company is extremely concerned about Japanese competition in the sale of batteries. It is particularly alarmed at the Government's apparent enthusiasm to encourage Japanese car manufacturers to come to this country, as a result of which battery orders are placed in Japan, instead of ensuring that Britain, which can produce batteries extremely well, gets the orders for the work.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot release details of grants to any specific company. However, I can assure him that Oldham Batteries has had assistance under the various schemes. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about car batteries in general and the type of batteries that Oldham Batteries makes, I can tell him that about £7 million of the £10 million went to support companies manufacturing car batteries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the real fears of British battery manufacturers is over the dumping by Japan of batteries in Britain? As evidence has been submitted to his Department showing that Japanese car batteries are grossly underpriced in Britain, can he say what he is doing about that and whether the relevant anti-dumping legislation will be implemented?

I am aware of the problem. The British Battery Makers Society and Electric Battery Manufacturers Association have sought the advice of my Department about possible dumping and are now considering the possibility of launching a case on anti-dumping in conjunction with European battery manufacturers.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the problem of surplus capacity—arising in part, of course, from the Government-induced recession, and in part from technological change—this industry is taking a hammering not only from Japanese high-volume exporters but even from the French and the Germans? Does he realise that this high degree of import penetration, at a time of surplus capacity, is exacerbated by the Government's policy of insisting on maintaining an artificially high pound in relation to non-dollar currencies—a phenomenon that is complained about in industry generally? When will the Government take action on interest rates to bring down the nonsensically high rate of sterling?

A few days ago the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks for economic matters on behalf of the Labour party, advocated an economic policy which claimed higher Government expenditure and lower interest rates. I do not see how the two can be reconciled. He cannot chide the Government for maintaining a high level of sterling during the past 18 months, when sterling has fallen considerably against the dollar and even marginally against the European basket.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he received from the United States Government to his representations concerning the obstacles posed to United Kingdom textile manufacturers by high import tariffs.

I raised the question of the reclassification by the United States Customs of certain types of garment in a way which would substantially increase the duties payable on them. The Administration's response was that they believed there was a solution to our problem, and our embassy in Washington is following this up in more detail.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not feel that the problem is somewhat wider? Is he aware that, under the Tokyo round, American tariffs against United Kingdom textile products are due to come down by 1987 to 33 per cent., whereas our comparable tariff is only 13 per cent. against similar products? How can my right hon. Friend possibly justify such a divergence, bearing in mind that the United States is not a developing, but a highly developed, country? If the United States is not prepared to reduce its tariffs against us, should we not consider taking action to protect jobs in our industry?

It is not for me to justify the United States' policy on tariffs. There are large disparities between some Community and United States textile tariffs. They will be eased, but they will not be eliminated when the Tokyo round of tariff cuts is completed in 1987. We are concerned about those imbalances in market access, and we continue to press the United States to reduce its tariffs where that would help United Kingdom exporters, but our ability to achieve the reductions will often depend on the extent to which we are prepared to offer some concessions in other areas of interest to the United States.

Did the Secretary of State also raise the other side of the question with the Americans, namely, that if they raise tariffs against not only Britain but countries such as China, textiles which were intended for the United States will flood into Britain and markets which would have been open to us will also be flooded?

Yes, I made those very points when I was in America. The Americans told me that the measures they had proposed recently were directed not against European and British exporters, but against other countries. However, I also made the point that that would merely make the world position worse and possibly deflect those third party commodities back towards Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that United Kingdom textile manufacturers are hardly in a position to complain about high tariff barriers in the United States when they are protected within the European Community and under the multi-fibre arrangement? Is it not time that the textile manufacturers of the world got together and reduced tariffs all round?

My hon. Friend directs our attention towards the danger of stone throwing by people who are perhaps living in houses with a certain amount of glazing. We are committed to a firm and effective implementation of the third term of the multi-fibre arrangement, which offers great protection to the United Kingdom industry, but which other people sometimes criticise strongly.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will review the help given to industry by his Department to secure large overseas contracts; and whether he will make a statement.

I am examining the advantages and disadvantages in terms of the national interest of assistance of this kind.

Is my right hon. Friend certain that the help that his Department provides for our exporters at least matches that provided by our overseas competitors? In particular, does the projects and export policy division within his Department, which was set up in 1980, with great success, to co-ordinate our efforts to win orders, still have the resources and scope that it needs? Does he agree that many jobs depend on our success in that area?

Yes, indeed. The projects and export policy division in my Department, which was set up at the instigation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), is in charge of co-ordinating Government help in the pursuit of major projects — diplomatic help, ministerial visits, ECGD cover, the use of overseas aid, and the bringing together of commercial finance. It does a good job and has had many spectacular successes.

Does the Secretary of State realise that while many small and medium-sized British firms make substantial efforts to improve their export performance, they face problems? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that in Ipswich, where I have talked to the management of such firms, one of the principal problems they face is the expense of keeping salesmen in the field for extended periods? They have to meet travelling expenses and the cost of staying abroad. Is there anything that his Department can do to assist such firms, especially as in many parts of the world, such as Germany, Japan and France, they come up against determined sales competition?

To start to go into that area of subsidy would, indeed, be to open a new round in international warfare in subsidising trade, but through the BOTB, through the fairs division, for example, great assistance is given to British business men who want to take part in overseas fairs and exhibitions.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in this context the importance of a competitive export credit policy, because his hon. Friend's answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) was not wholly convincing? Many industries which have to work on this task find that the French, in particular, and many other countries, are able to muddle up trade and aid much more skilfully, apparently, than we are. Will he please look at this matter again, as it is very important?

I am not sure whether this will comfort my hon. Friend, but when Mrs. Cresson, the French Trade Minister, came to see me recently she had some criticisms to make of the extent to which we do the things of which we so often accuse the French. I think that her criticisms were entirely without justice, of course, but I have to say that we offer very competitive terms, and that is one of the reasons why we do better than the French at exporting.

When the Secretary of State is reviewing the help given to industry for overseas contracts, will he take into account the document which has been published in the north-east entitled, "A response for a strong north", which has the support of the CBI and the northern region TUC, and is gathering support from other bodies in the region? When this document reaches his desk, will the Secretary of State give favourable consideration to it, given that it will help us to secure overseas contracts and to increase and enhance the prospects of investment in the north-east generally?

I should be unwise to say that I shall give favourable consideration to a document which I have not yet read, but I shall certainly give very careful and serious consideration to it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, regrettably, there is a tendency for trade with Third-world countries generally to be conducted on a basis of barter? Recent figures show something like 25 per cent., which could increase. Where British firms are faced with this problem, in what way can my right hon. Friend's Department help?

So far as we can, we discourage other countries from going into barter trade, and therefore, where we are giving assistance, particularly through trade and aid, or through straight overseas aid, we do our best to persuade the countries concerned not to make barter trade a condition of contracts. I think that that is probably the most helpful thing that we can do.

What help was given to Cementation International in securing a contract to build a university in Oman, and, in the brief which the Secretary of State provided to the Prime Minister on this contract, was reference made to Cernentation's interest in that contract?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no, Sir.

Question No. 7, Mr. Neil Hamilton. Question No. 8, Mr. Robert Adley.

Question No. 8, Sir.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were you calling question No. 7?

I did not see the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) rise when I called question No. 7, and I therefore moved to question No. 8. I now call the hon. Member to ask question No. 7.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans for the privatisation of Jaguar.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a date has yet been set for the flotation of shares in Jaguar Cars as an independent company.

We are currently considering the board's 1984 corporate plan, which includes the board's proposals for the first steps towards the return of the business to ownership by the public. We shall announce our decisions as soon as possible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent performance of this company makes it a very attractive candidate for privatisation? The taxpayer's interest in this matter, as the finder of the company, is to get his money out on the best terms possible, and the experience of nationalised industries so far for the taxpayer is that he should take the money when it is available and run.

I am anxious to see this company returned to true ownership by the public, as I said, and I shall be bound to bear in mind, when I am arranging that matter, the best interests not only of the taxpayer but of Jaguar and of BL.

To explain my concern about my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), may I ask my right hon. Friend to make clear his absolute commitment to handing over this great company to the private sector? Will he bear in mind the great lesson to be learnt from the National Freight Corporation of allowing those who work in the company to participate in the shareholding?

As with all our measures of privatisation, we shall do our best to ensure that there are attractive terms for the workers in the company. However, it would probably be too big an operation for a management and work force buy-out, which would probably have adverse effects on the company's balance sheet in relation to the borrowings that would be required.

When considering his privatisation plans for Jaguar, will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that although Jaguar has an established identity, there is still a degree of interdependence with the rest of British Leyland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that if Jaguar were sold to a company with its own means of producing components so that orders were taken away from British Leyland, the repercussions might have an effect on the future of British Leyland?

I shall bear all those considerations in mind when reaching my conclusions.

Is my right hon. Friend entirely happy with the profit projections in the corporate plan?

I am never entirely happy about anybody's profit forecasts. Such forecasts are never high enough, and they are always too likely to be affected by various adverse circumstances. That is the way of the world. However, I am confident that Jaguar can successfully return to the private sector in due course.

We are only somewhat reassured that the right hon. Gentleman understands that the need for long-term capital for Jaguar puts it way beyond a management buy-out provision, but will he bear in mind that Jaguar will also need long-term access to research and development, which could be provided by BL? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he has not ruled out—as has been reported in the press—the idea of BL retaining a strong minority stake in Jaguar?

Of course I understand the need for a company the size of Jaguar to have some access to ouside research and development facilities. Many companies have such access and buy in expertise of one sort or another. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about BL retaining a shareholding, and in due course our decisions will be announced to the House.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the sale of Jaguar could have a serious impact on BL's ability to remain in the high-volume, low-margin car manufacturing business, and that that could have a detrimental effect on jobs in Britain?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that that would be a bar to the sale of Jaguar, and nor does the board, which probably knows at least as much about the business as the hon. Gentleman does.

Does it occur to the Secretary of State that we are glad that he has so far given rather cautious answers? Does he agree that it would be manifest nonsense and would lead to a weakening of British Leyland as a whole, and Jaguar if separated from it — [Hon. Members: 'Why?".]—if Jaguar were privatised in the way suggested by some Conservative Members? Before the Secretary of State reaches any decision, will he look not only into the prospects for capital expenditure and from where that money may come, but into the history of Jaguar, which, when it was under private ownership, voluntarily merged with BMC, which was also under private ownership, to give it sufficient strength to survive?

I certainly shall. As the right hon. Gentleman will recollect, it did not work out too well.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the implications for tourism in England of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

This legislation, which was debated in the House on 21 February, does not affect in any way the statutory function of the British Tourist Authority to promote England, and all other parts of Britain, abroad.

My hon. Friend knows of my interest in the industry and of my full support for the Bill. In the debate that he has just referred to great concern was expressed by Scottish Members about the appointment of one person to be chairman of the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Will my hon. Friend make urgent and serious representations to the Scottish Office and to our Scottish colleagues to assure them that the appointment is no threat to the tourist interests of Scotland? Does he agree that the long-term interests of Britain depend on strengthening the regional boards in England?

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to clarify the position. He is right when he says tht the joint chairmanships which Duncan Bluck will occupy are no threat to the current position and role of the Scottish tourist board. With regard to the English regional tourist boards, my hon. Friend may be encouraged to know that the ETB is being asked to devolve certain marketing functions to the regional tourist boards. In general, as he will know, the future movement of tourist policy will depend to a large extent on what Mr. Duncan Bluck can pursue. It is only because there was not legislative time available to sort out the position across the country as a whole that we were unable to formalise this earlier.

The Minister has said that there will be no confusion between the chairmanships of the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority. I am afraid that we in Scotland know too much about confusion between England and Britain to be convinced. Will the Minister acknowledge that in these circumstances a budget of £200,000 to enable the Scottish tourist board to promote itself is not likely to be adequate to make a significant difference to the strong position of London as the gateway to tourism in Britain?

The total spend of Scotland will be something like £3,200,000, because it has been allocated approximately £3 million through the British Tourist Authority. London remains the major magnet for the United Kingdom as a whole. Many tourists who eventually go to Scotland will have come to London as the first step in their international route to Scotland.

In view of the content of the statement on tourism made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State last November, and my hon. Friend's remarks about the future role of regional tourists boards within England in respect of marketing and promotion, will my hon. Friend assure the House that nothing contained in the Bill will prejudice those areas?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Do not these organisational changes take place against a backdrop of a declining trade balance in tourism? Is the Minister aware that in 1981, 1982 and 1983 we failed to earn our customary surplus and that we have fallen into a substantial deficit? Why has that happened? When will the position change, and what is the Minister doing to change it?

We still have a £8 billion turnover in tourism in the United Kingdom. It is a major industry, almost on a par with the car industry in terms of turnover. Our position internationally is affected by a number of factors, not least exchange rates, and tourist policy within the United Kingdom has to be tempered by those movements.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals for privatisation of the warship yards at present owned by British Shipbuilders.

I have received a report from a merchant bank. I am now preparing detailed proposals.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and hope that I can take from it that he will be presenting proposals fairly soon for the privatisation of these warship yards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Warships?"] Perhaps I am being presumptuous. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is important that the dead hand of State control should be removed as quickly as possible from the only remaining profitable yard within British Shipbuilders? In view of the circumstances that surrounded the acquisition of the companies when they were nationalised, does he agree that the former owners should be given first refusal on their disposal?

We are anxious to remove the dead hand of nationalisation from the warship building yards. We believe that it is in the best interests of those yards and, indeed, of the country and taxpayers as a whole that this should happen. I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for the position of Yarrow. I should like to congratulate the Yarrow yard on its full order book and its involvement in the designing of the new type 23 frigate. We would, of course, welcome a bid from Yarrow plc for this yard, but I am sure my hon. Friend would not expect me to say that it should have sole shooting rights.

Does not the Minister realise that the flogging off of the warship yards is wholly irrelevant to the problems faced by the British shipbuilding industry? In view of the European Commission's interpretation of the recent change in the fifth directive, will the Minister provide additional aid for the shipbuilding industry—as the French Government have done—to help it through the present world crisis?

The hon. Gentleman is right to link the volume of aid with performance. However, I am afraid that that connection has not been especially beneficial. Since nationalisation, British Shipbuilders has received £1·03 billion of taxpayers' money, and since the Government came to power it has received £935 million of public funds. Surely that record can be remedied in the interests of the taxpayer and the industry as a whole only by a vigorous programme of denationalisation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the warship yards were in private ownership they had a good export record, but that since they were nationalised the record has not been so good and some of our overseas competitors have increased their share of the market?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The by-products of denationalisation and a return to private management will be a much more effective addressing of the international market and, perhaps, a better use of public sector contracts to address those markets.

I hope that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is not seeking the privatisation of Royal Navy warships.

Of course we monitor closely the negotiations between Scott Lithgow, British Shipbuilders and potential purchasers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the earliest decision on this matter, which would be in the interests of the work force and the yard.

Can my hon. Friend say more precisely when it is likely that the privatisation of the warship building yards will take place? Is he aware that the Vosp.tr Thornycroft work force at Southampton, which has consistently contributed to British Shipbuilders rather than drawing upon its money, is concerned about getting an early decision?

Vosper's yard has an excellent record, not least in industrial relations and productivity. We are anxious to proceed as soon as possible, but will do so with proper consideration and prudence.

Does the Minister not understand that the basic difference between the state and plight of merchant shipbuilding yards and naval shipbuilding yards is precisely that the latter are sustained by some £2,000 million of British Government orders, whereas the other shipyards have virtually no orders, and some of those are in danger of being cancelled? Would it not be total folly to attempt to sell the one profitable area of shipbuilding during the middle of a continuing world recession, as that would be a death sentence to most of the marine shipbuilding yards?

The merchant shipbuilding yards will survive and, I hope, thrive again only if they continue to reduce their costs and to make the best use of the skills available to them. Whether the warship building yards are privatised or not—and they will be—the question still remains whether the merchant shipbuilding yards are prepared further to increase productivity, because only by so doing can they have the best safeguards for their future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the balance of Government incentives for the electronics industry between the attraction of inward investment and the development of indigenous enterprises.

I am satisfied that there is a reasonable balance in incentives between inward investment and the development of indigenous industry. When we consider inward investment cases, the benefits to the United Kingdom are taken into account in terms of trade, employment and technological development and the effects on existing industrial structures.

Will my right hon. Friend give some recent examples of success in inward investment policy in Britain in general and Scotland in particular, and the number of jobs involved? Can he assure the House that emphasis will be placed where there is a transfer of technology or skills, and that, in any event, the support for indigenous companies will be no less than that available to foreign companies?

In the last few months well over £100 million has been invested by overseas companies in developments in electronics in Scotland, and there is no doubt that the United Kingdom generally has become a magnet for investment of this sort. To give some examples: Hewlett Packard, 700 jobs at South Queensferry; Wang, 150 jobs at Stirling; and last week the Japanese silicon manufacturer, Shin Etsu, made a £37 million investment bringing 400 jobs to Livingston. [Interruption.] This is Japanese money. What is wrong with that?

Does the Minister agree that the development of new telecommunication services will provide tremendous incentives to the electronics industry? If so, why will Government not provide for more than just Mercury and BT to provide such services in this country?

The hon. Gentleman underestimates the degree of competition for which we are allowing. There is not only Mercury and BT—and the very existence of Mercury has led to substantial investment by Mercury itself, and orders that would not otherwise have been placed—there are also the two radio cellular networks and the 11 cable networks for which we have granted licences, which will also be capable of carrying data transmission. We are pushing ahead in all these areas because it is good for British technology and good for British jobs.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the tremendous incentive that his Department could give to the indigenous British electronics industry if he could encourage his colleagues at the Departments of Transport and of Defence to give special weighting to the advantages of buying British rather than importing?

I shall certainly draw the attention of my colleagues in those Departments to that. We try to use public purchasing creatively to encourage British development and industry.

On the basis of indigenous industry, may I ask the Minister to say why the Government are contemplating selling off Inmos, perhaps to a foreign buyer, when we are 30 per cent. short of silicon chips and are actually rationed? Is this not madness?

The House will know that we have provided in the last four or five years over £100 million of support for Inmos, and I am glad to say that the company is trading profitably and is now in a position to go to the market for further private funds.

I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). Will my right hon. Friend make strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse the present tax structure on made-up component boards coming here in favour of individual components coming into this country so that we can help assembly production and, therefore, employment in Britain?

This is a matter not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer but for my Department, and we have taken it up with the Common Market. I am concerned about the differential levels of import duties on components and circuit boards, which in certain circumstances operate against our interests.

While on the subject of incentives for indigenous industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say when his Department will provide the incentives to enable our indigenous high-technology electronics industry to have a free market abroad by stopping the Americans from using Cocom in such a way as to block our exports so that their industry can clean up and move in?

My right hon. Friend raised this issue on his recent visit to America, and we are concerned about certain actions of this sort. Generally in these matters we are in favour of the most free market possible because we have the fastest growing electronics industry in Europe, and we can have that only with a substantial international market.

Will the Minister confirm that the great attraction for the several Japanese electronic companies that are poised to come into the United Kingdom is access to the Common Market? In exchange for that benefit, will he ensure not only that there will be, as he has said, the maximum use of British components and a net addition to the jobs in the industry, but that any newcomers bring research and development capability with them, which so many of their predecessors have failed to do? Will he also confirm that another Japanese company in a different sector, which has for five or six months been wanting to invest in Britain is having that investment blocked by the EEC?

If firms were interested solely in a base to get into the Common Market, they could invest in Germany, France or Italy. They come here because we have a strong electronic base and a high throughput of electronic engineers and training for technicians. They benefit from this. As to screwdriver assemblies, I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Sony came here to make television sets in south Wales, many hon. Members tried to stop it because it was a screwdriver assembly operation. Now, 85 to 90 per cent. of the components in that plant are made in Britain. This is an undoubted success story, and we shall encourage every investment, because even if it begins in a modest way it may lead eventually to full R and D.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest figure for the total number of applications made under the Design Advisory Service funded consultancy scheme.

Up to the end of January 1984 a total of 1,491 applications had been received. The rate of applications currently being received — about 80 per month—is almost double that of the same period last year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that successful design work is essential to British industry if it is to capture its proper share of the growing market in consumer goods? Is he satisfied that British industry as a whole is making sufficient use of this excellent scheme?

The scheme is an excellent supply side measure, which has been used to good effect by all sectors of British industry. My hon. Friend has a strong point. We should use our functional engineering and industrial designers to far greater effect to help companies to address the domestic and international markets with far more vigour. For consumer goods in particular, there is evidence that the well-designed products are the products consumers will buy, and more of them should and must be British.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to assist the textile industry further to improve its international competitiveness.

The Government's policy will continue to be directed towards establishing the right economic framework for sustainable growth, and to giving firms confidence to invest and increase their competitiveness. I have been pleased to see recent reports of improved company results. The higher figures for both output and employment suggest that the textile industry is pulling out of recession.

Is the Minister aware that profitability is still lower than it was four years ago, and of the now urgent need for investment in the new generation of textile manufacturing equipment if the industry is to improve its international competitiveness? Will the Government. respond to the British Textile Confederation's document entitled "Plan for Action", which was published a year ago and which sets out proposals for achieving the right level of investment?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we wanted to consider these proposals alongside those that we have received from the economic development committees of the clothing, knitting, footwear and leather industries, which were received later than the textile industry's submission. It is logical to consider them together and we hope to make a response shortly. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. As regards profitability, although profits are historically low, there has been a sharp increase. Courtaulds, Vantona-Viyella, Dawson International, Illingworth Morris, have all reported sharply improved profits.

Is not the new emphasis on international competitiveness as a key objective for the textile industry a welcome development, and will my hon. Friend take every opportunity to encourage the industries which he named, which have applied for assistance under the Industry Act schemes, to continue to put the emphasis on increasing international competitiveness rather than looking to the Government to protect them against international competitiveness?

My hon. Friend is right. The underlying fact is that there have been dramatic improvements in the British textile industry, particularly in companies such as Courtaulds, which have dramatically turned round

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry has been extremely competitive and has done a great deal of good work in spite of the Government's policies, which it has had to endure over the past four years? Is it not time that the Government responded with the action that has been demanded by all parts of the industry? Is he aware that what the Government have done in other sectors, such as education and training, has not been done for the textile industry and represents a dereliction of duty that could damage the future of the textile industry?

I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's last point. He heard what I said to his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). We shall be replying to the submission in "Plan for Action" as quickly as possible.

While my hon. Friend has been able to quote a number of companies which have returned a very satisfactory level of profit this year, is he aware that the overall return on capital involved in the industry is extremely low and does not encourage the investment that will be necessary for the industry to purchase the new generation of high technology machinery which is essential if we are to compete in the real world, in which textiles are seeking to compete at present? Will he therefore come forward with some proposals to assist investment in this vital industry?

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that although the profits of the textile industry have increased sharply the margins are lower than in British industry generally. However, he ought to recognise that it is the function of management in this industry to widen the margins and to improve design of clothes and textiles. It is design — not just price — that is a key to the competitiveness of the textile and clothing industries.

Is there no limit to the complacency of the Government on this matter? The Minister may like to consider two specific points that would help the industry enormously. The first is protection against oil-subsidised imports from America, particularly from South Carolina, which have directly resulted in three companies in the north-east of England going bankrupt—one, P. Shapiro Ltd., only last week. Will he also consider the British Technology Group's policy of investment in manufacturing industries, with a view to giving further help to the textile industry?

The British Technology Group has very little to do with the textile industry. We have set out our views on the group's functions in the White Paper. The question of American energy prices is one that we have taken up on many occasions with the United States Administration. The one thing that people cannot say about the textile industry is that it lacks protection. It has very extensive protection indeed. Of course, through the MFA, we wish to make that protection effective in places where agreements have been negotiated. Those agreements should be honoured.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if other countries did not subsidise their electricity prices that would help British manufacturers?

If my hon. Friend is able to provide evidence about the subsidisation of electricity prices in other countries, we will examine it very carefully. He will be aware that the cost of generating electricity in many countries is cheaper because of cheaper coal and a higher proportion of nuclear power.

Is the Minister aware that this is a model industry, in Conservative terms, in that it has had high capital investment and very low wages? One of the common accusations that we hear is that the wages of the work force have been too high and that this has driven firms out of business. This was not and is not the case with the textile industry. Will he seriously examine its problems and consider how a Government who are concerned to preserve an industry can go about helping it in a real fashion?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is certainly a model industry in terms of industrial relations and that high wages have not been a cause of its problems. As I have said to the House already, we are looking at "Plan for Action" and we shall respond to it.

In the light of the comments made in the British Textile Confederation's paper, will the Government consider instituting a small textile firms investment scheme, similar to that which operates in the engineering sector?

As the hon. Gentleman said, that is one of the proposals that have been put forward, and we are looking at it.

Is it not ludicrous for the Minister to say in one breath that the Government want to create the right framework for the industry and in the next to say that they have delayed, dallied and dithered for 12 months in response to a plea for urgent action from the industry? Contrary to the Minister's optimism, the fact is that the industry has levels of profitability that are so low that it cannot afford the new generation of machinery that is essential to its survival. The Minister is guilty of appalling complacency and irresponsibility.

The right hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. In bringing about the right climate, we have achieved significantly improved results within the textile industry. I quoted Vantona, Dawson, Illingworth Morris and Courtaulds—all leading companies. The right hon. Gentleman merely needs to look at the runaway performance of the textile sector on the stock exchange to see that it is facing a very much brighter climate and is doing very much better as a direct result of the Government's policies on inflation and interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will increase the number of times a registered radio amateur emergency network group may participate in exercises with their user services to four per month.

The present limit on Raynet group exercises of one per month was agreed between the Department and the Radio Society of Great Britain. We are currently considering this issue again with the society, and shall consider any proposals it puts forward.

In view of the importance of Raynet to charities and other organisations that may run fétes in the summer, will my hon. Friend carefully consider this matter, as I believe that there is considerable demand for this type of assistance on those occasions? It helps to clear the airwaves of the type of behaviour found among some CB enthusiasts and it is particularly important for civil defence. In that regard, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend were as generous as possible.

We shall be happy to consider any proposals that are put to us.

Mention has been made of civil defence. Has the Minister considered the introduction of a novice's radio licence for radio amateurs so that they can eventually hold a full licence and be of benefit to the nation?

We are not considering a novice's licence, but arrangements exist whereby very young people can learn to use these radios under supervision from a proper licence holder.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding Government policy and strategy for the television and video industry.

The Government's policy for the television and video industry is to encourage British companies to compete with foreign manufacturers in both domestic and export markets by improving their productivity and the quality and technology of their products.

Does the Minister recognise that in respect of cable and satellite television, the British television and electronics industry is at present well in advance of our Japanese and foreign competitors? Will the Government take all the necessary decisions to ensure that British manufacturers take advantage of this lead before the Japanese and other competitors catch us up?

I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons why we are keen on both cable and DBS is that at present we have a lead in both these technologies. If cable systems can be operated in the United Kingdom in the next 12 months, and if the satellite can be launched successfully, we shall have satellite television in 1987–88 and have a lead on any other European country. That will give us a technological lead in the manufacture of sets and equipment. That is why we are pushing ahead so strongly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest stimulus that could be given to the television and video industry is for the Government to revise the policy whereby licensing, which is a form of taxation, removes the incentive for entrepreneurs such as Clive Sinclair? Would it not be much better if the industry were freed from this outmoded taxation — which falls unfairly on all sectors of the community—by the abolition of television licensing, thereby allowing the BBC to be funded in a different manner?

That matter is really for the Home Secretary, as it goes much wider than my departmental responsibilities. The present licensing system has not hindered Sir Clive Sinclair, who has developed the best small television set in the world, at about a third of the cost of that produced by the Japanese.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on British Shipbuilders policy towards shiprepair.

British Shipbuilders is, with the Government's approval, in the process of moving out of shiprepairing. In disposing of its shiprepair activities, BS is mindful of the need to preserve as many jobs as possible. Successful management buy-outs have been achieved at Tyne Shiprepair and Grangemouth Dockyard Ltd. Taken together with Readheads, about 600 jobs in all have been preserved.

Do not the two management buy-outs and the Readheads co-operative point the way to the future of shiprepair in this country, and to the sort of working practices that must be applied throughout British Shipbuilders?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a nationalised industry gets out of an area of operation it makes sense to give the labour force a chance to buy assets and to have a management buy-out. I regret that when the workers wanted to buy the yard at Readheads they were opposed by the trade unions and Opposition Members.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to raise this point of order with you, as you will recall, shortly after the answer to question No. 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the London Dockland Transportation Consortium, but the Secretary of State declared frankly and openly that that matter was not for him, as it was not within his remit and interest as the Secretary of State. Something is wrong, as my hon. Friend should have been advised in good time if that were the case. My hon. Friend sought an answer to a legitimate question, which should have been transferred. I ask you, for the future benefit of my hon. Friend, and Members on both sides of the House, what advice should have been tendered, or could be offered, to hon. Members who table a question to the wrong Minister.

In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about not raising points of order until the end of Question Time, that is exactly the practice I have always followed and I shall continue it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was misled by circumstances. I understood that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was particularly anxious to put his question to me, although he was aware that I had no departmental responsibility for the contractual matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Member for Tooting asked when I had last met the management of the group and, therefore, I had to tell him that I had not done that and had no plans to do so.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the Shadow Leader of the Opposition — the House—[Interruption.] You never know. Anything can happen. In view of my right hon. Friend's remarks regarding points of order, and the fact that he wanted to see impartiality, will you confirm that, when the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was asleep and did not ask question No. 7, a point of order was raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who tabled question No. 10, and that he somehow managed to get his point of order across?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help. I did not see the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), and I did not hear the question asked or see he hon. Gentleman rise in his place. Sometimes the view from the Speaker's Chair is restricted, but the hon. Gentleman was obviously in his seat.