asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of import penetration in textiles for 1983.

Forty-two per cent.

Is the Minister aware that Portugal is breaching a number of agreements that had been made with the European Community and that that action is severely damaging British industry? Will the hon. Gentleman seriously consider informing Portugal that it will not be made welcome as a partner in the EEC unless it changes its attitude and lives up to the agreements that it has made?

I am aware of that point. Yesterday, a meeting was held between the Portuguese and the Commission at which it was made absolutely clear that the Commission and the United Kingdom Government view seriously over-shipment of the restraint levels, especially from a potential member of the Community. It was made clear also that adjustment of the restraint levels that had been agreed for 1984 would be necessary to take account of those over-shipments. The Portuguese have outlined proposals for strengthening their export administration, which, it is hoped, will lead to better observance of the agreement. We shall watch this matter closely. Further consultation on this point will be needed later in the year.

I fully appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the answer by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does my hon. Friend accept that, on the other side of the coin, great problems are being faced by British cotton spinners because of the imposition of value added tax on imports of raw cotton, which will impose additional costs on the spinners at a time when the industry, which is vital to our textile industry, is beginning a recovery?

I note what my hon. Friend said. He knows that VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The changes announced by my right hon. Friend received full support from British industry.

Is the Minister aware that the textile industry in Leicester and similar places, which is so vital, is just starting to pick up again after a disastrous slump, and that import penetration remains a major worry for all parts of that industry? What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to ensure that the arrangements are applied fairly to and by all countries?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Imports have increased alarmingly recently, but at the same time the domestic outlook for the industry is quite good. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, last year output increased by about 3 per cent. In some sectors, such as wool textiles, there has been a marked increase in exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows also that the degree of protection given to the industry is unsurpassed by any other industry. We shall ensure that the multi-fibre arrangement is rigorously observed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a change in VAT legislation should help British manufacturers to compete more effectively against importers of finished goods?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but there seem to be divided views on this matter. I believe that my hon. Friend's view accords more fully with that of the majority of British industry.

Is the Minister aware that a number of non-EEC importers are using false certificates of origin to evade the quotas? What steps has the hon. Gentleman asked Customs and Excise to take to verify that certificates of origin genuinely relate to EEC imports?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me examples, I shall see that the matter is vigorously pursued. A number of instances have been investigated and, where a case has been proved, action has been taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the textile industry is already our most protected industry? Does he agree that the overriding interest of the United Kingdom as a trading nation is to stand against protectionism, and will he ensure that that is done?

Sit down.

In addition, does my hon. Friend agree that with a Third world we have a duty to provide markets for some of the poorest countries?[Interruption.]

If I may be allowed to intrude into the argument between the Back Benches, I confirm that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, it is true that the textile industry is our most protected industry. There is also the serious point that our clothing industry, which, with the textile industry, is one of our largest employers and exporters, must have access to the best fabrics and to a choice of materials.

Is the Minister aware that 42 per cent. import penetration represents a marked increase since the Conservatives came to power, and that the trade deficit in textiles in the first quarter of this year represents an annual rate of £1,200 million compared with only £250 million in 1979? Does he agree that that shows a calamitous fall in output, competitiveness, efficiency and in the jobs available to British people in the textile industry? Does he further agree that the scheme for £20 million capital aid, described as "modest" by the British Textile Confederation, is derisory and that it is time that the Government produced a policy so that we may look forward to a thriving British textile industry in the future?

I have already said that the rise in imports is a matter for concern. It is significant, however, that in the main the increase has come not from the low-cost countries but from the high-cost countries, with which we should be able to compete in design and quality if our industry is efficient. It is because our industry has so often been lacking in those areas that the increased deficit has developed.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether agreement has yet been reached with the United States of America and other COCOM countries about the details of computer devices requiring COCOM approval before export.

Not yet—but talks are going on at the present time.

As the outcome of the talks will have a profound effect on British high technology industry, and as the Pentagon publishes regular briefing papers on the progress of the talks so that the United States industry can comment, will the Minister consider providing a similar service for British industry and others so that they can comment on what is happening in COCOM?

I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I should be reluctant to say exactly what we hope to achieve in the negotiations, as that would reveal too much of our negotiating hand.

In the course of research for this question, did my right hon. Friend refer back to my Adjournment debate in 1974 on COCOM and the American Government's attitude to it? Does he accept that in many cases the Americans take a very restrictive and self-centred view of the COCOM list and organise things to suit their own industry? Will he ensure that we are more discriminating and intelligent in the way in which we interpret the list?

I certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's remarks. I must confess that his Adjournment debate in 1974 has eluded me so far, but I shall make sure that I read it this afternoon. I am sure that, as usual, my hon. Friend was ahead of the times.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a short, highly selective list of high technology items which all countries in the Western Alliance and Japan agree should be kept from the Warsaw pact for as long as is practicable, but that secrecy and possessiveness among countries belonging to the same alliance is deplorable, and that policies that represent a respectable cloak for trade protectionism are equally deplorable?

I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I must make the point that COCOM works on the basis of unanimity. We must get unanimous agreement before any changes can be made. We are trying to negotate along the lines that my hon. Friend is seeking.

COCOM certainly makes sense, but surely the Minister must accept that it would be far better for Britain to choose and make clear its own decision on which items to ban, rather than have that decision made for it simply because American and other multinational companies are operating through British subsidiaries. Should not the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the future of INMOS, an independent British firm, with independent British transputer capacity? It would be disastrous if that were allowed to fall into foreign hands.

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, INMOS was debated in the House last week. Most impartial observers thought that the right hon. Gentleman had rather the worst of the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many collaborative projects have received approval under the Alvey programme for advanced information technology.

Forty-seven projects had received technical approval under the Alvey programme by the beginning of June, representing £60 million out of the £200 million of public commitment to the programme. Of these, 30 were full collaborative projects and the remainder were academic projects with industry monitoring the work. Contract negotiations are in progress on these projects, with the work proceeding on many of them.

The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Is he satisfied with the level of cooperation between industry, the universities and his Department? What does he propose to do to encourage the expansion of this excellent programme?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. This is by far the most important research and development programme undertaken in Britain since the war—probably since the development of the jet engine. It is unique because of the co-operation between competitive companies and between companies and universities. I am satisfied that that co-operation is working well. As they are unique, the projects have taken some time to get off the ground. I must emphasise the unique importance of the research and development programme.

What proportion of the money committed to the project will go to small firms and to highly innovative projects which were proposed by universities in the first place? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money will go to support genuinely new projects which would not otherwise have been undertaken, rather than to subsidise large firms to do what they would have done anyway?

I am satisfied that some of the projects that I announced about a week ago would not have been undertaken without the programme. The work on the word processor that can receive voice input and other work of that sort, as well as the mobile system of telecommunications, would not have been undertaken without the research programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will ensure the continuation of the computer-aided design and test equipment support scheme after August.

No, Sir. The computer aided design and test equipment support scheme was closed in March of this year. There are no plans for its continuation.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is not the scheme's success reason enough to continue it? Is he aware that it is essential for the Government to support, especially in the north-west of England, schemes which will help companies to move into the new technology and away from the old?

I appreciate the reasons for my hon. Friend's question, especially in the context of the northwest. However, at some stage we must decide, especially on cash-limited programmes, where pump-priming is legitimate and whether it should end if recovery begins to gather momentum, or whether the schemes should become permanent subsidies to underpin decisions which companies may already be tempted to make as part of their business plans. The shift of spending within the DTI is towards support for innovation programmes generally.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the prospectus for the sale of shares in British Telecom plc.

A week or two before the closing date for acceptances of the offer for sale.

In view of the fiasco of Enterprise Oil last week, does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's best policy now would be not to publish the prospectus for BT until they have initiated a full public inquiry into all their flotations of public shares? Would not such an inquiry reveal the pathetic, bumbling incompetence of the Secretary of State? Would it not show that the Government's policies have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds—and, in the case of British Telecom, given its size, would cost the British public hundreds of millions of pounds? Is it not the Secretary of State's duty to conduct such an inquiry?

As far as I can disinter the half dozen or so muddled questions put by the hon. Gentleman, my answers must be no, no, no and no.

Are the purchases of BT shares likely to be at a higher, or lower, price as a result of the Government blocking the first application by Rio Tinto-Zinc for the shares of Enterprise Oil?

The price offered for BT by investors will be set by their view of the company's prospects. Inevitably, there will be those who will look carefully, and rightly so, at any restrictions which the Government may place upon the maximum number of shares to be held by any one investor. Such limits may discourage some investors and encourage others. Therefore, my hon. Friend's question is difficult to answer.

Does the Secretary of State accept that because of the happenings over the sale of Enterprise Oil, the only way in which BT can be floated on the market in the present environment is if a substantial discount is offered on the price? Would that not constitute even worse asset-stripping than we have already seen? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman defer the sale of BT beyond the end of the year?

There has been no asset-stripping, so the hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospectus for the shares of BT will show clearly that it is worth buying into that company, especially as it will maintain the facilities and service of which we are so proud?

The important point about all the privatisations is that underlined on television on Sunday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), that every one of the companies that has been denationalised has performed better under its new private sector ownership than it did in the public sector.

In the light of experience of the various efforts to sell publicly-owned assets—on the one hand Amersham International being 29 times over-subscribed on a fixed price sale, with quick killings for the profit seekers, and on the other Enterprise Oil being a fiasco with 70-odd per cent. of its shares left with the underwriters —does the Secretary of State not believe that he should carefully reconsider the Government's strategy?

That is an unusually puerile suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman. The objective of privatisation is that companies should be taken out of state control and put back into true public ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will place in the Library a list of all submissions received in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the responses he has received to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that he has received from areas such as the south-west many representations of a high calibre which make sense economically and socially? If that is typical of the country, does it not suggest that an effective programme of regional policy should be maintained by the Government?

My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper states that the Government intend to maintain an effective regional policy. I confirm that I have received many representations from the south-west and that they are of very good quality.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the representations show less anxiety about the reorganisation of regional policy than about the drastic cuts in it at a time when we need investment and have record unemployment? Will he acknowledge that there is real anxiety that many of our traditionally based industries will be cut off from Government help when they need it most, the consequences of which will be increased unemployment, especially in rural and remote areas? Will he recognise that his revision of regional policy is a disaster for future investment and employment?

I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know how he can say that the policy is a disaster before we have reached any decisions. With regard to representations, we have received some that urge us to scrap regional policy altogether.

May I remind my hon. Friend that many people believe that regional aid should be scrapped? It distorts management decisions and, in the past, has been used to subsidise, at the expense of taxpayers in constituencies such as mine, developments which would have been undertaken.

I see that there is as much unanimity on the Back Benches on this question as there is on protecting the textile industry. My hon. Friend knows that at the general election we said that we would maintain an effective regional policy. We believe that much-money has been wasted on regional policy and that we can get better value for money. There is no point in spending huge sums of money shuffling jobs from one area to another.

Will the Minister describe the precise link between the current review of travel-to-work areas and the definition of assisted areas, which is expected in the autumn? Will he assure the House that any changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas in places such as Bradford, which will reduce the rate of unemployment, will not be used to strip away assisted area status from such places?

The link is that the travel-to-work areas are the building blocks of the assisted area map. Until we have the redefined travel-to-work areas, which we shall have at the end of this month, we cannot redraw the map. I cannot give guarantees about a particular area, because the travel-to-work area is the basis on which all decisions must be made.

Will the Minister accept that, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), most countries in the Economic Community have substantially more extensive regional policies than we have? Does he realise that many companies are in a state of uncertainty? They are waiting for an announcement and are holding back investment decisions until they know what will happen. Will he tell the House when the announcement will be made?

I, of course, accept that this matter is bound to cause a degree of uncertainty. We are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It depends upon the revision of the travel-to-work areas. We then have to do the work on the map. We hope to make a decision as quickly as we can in the autumn.

I urge my hon. Friend to refresh his mind on the debate that took place in the House on this subject in relation to the West Country recently. Will he take note of the comment made over and over again by Conservative Members about the need for his consideration to take into account communications, and road communications in particular? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that subject?

I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Many people feel that investment in infrastructure is one of the most effective ways of helping the regions. It is often much more effective than grants.

Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the MSC is handling its review of travel-to-work areas? St. Helens council was given only eight days in which to respond to the proposition that the borough of St. Helens should be split into three different travel-to-work areas. That is unacceptable nonsense. Will he give a guarantee that he will reject the proposal when it comes before him?

Travel-to-work areas are a matter for the Department of Employment, not the MSC. I shall, of course, look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Would it not be better to make the whole country a development area and concentrate our assistance on an industry-by-industry, case-by-case basis, so that we obtain value for money?

We should not be able to do that and qualify for any money from the European regional development fund. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends take in that point. Nor should we be able to maintain a system of incentives alone for inward investment. That has to be related to regional policy, and that is clearly laid down under the competition rules within the Community.

Has the Minister noticed, from Scottish representations, the fear and alarm at the idea that this review is no more than an attack on the share of resources for industrial development that Scotland receives? Will he, therefore, give an assurance to the House of Commons now that under no circumstances will Scotland's share be reduced, when we have 330,000 people out of work?

I do not know whether deliberately or accidentally, but the hon. Gentleman interprets everything that is said in the House as an attack on Scotland and its share of resources. Surely the hon. Gentleman should recognise that when such huge sums of money have been spent on regional policy, with no obvious benefit, it is right that there should be a review of how cost-effective that aid has been. We cannot give guarantees to any areas because we must take into account the high rates of unemployment in many areas which at present are not assisted.

When considering those high-calibre representations from the south-west, particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives, will my hon. Friend ensure that any local authority which stands to lose its assisted area status or be downgraded is given adequate opportunity to make representations before the order is laid before the House, as the House will not be able to amend the order?

It is for hon. Members to represent. The whole purpose of the consultation period through which we are now going is for individual areas and their Members of Parliament to make representations. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not exactly backward at doing that, because we have received over 460 different submissions.

Is the Minister aware that the prospect of the implementation of the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper is causing deep anguish and anxiety in Cumbria? Is the Minister further aware that he has no moral authority to come forward with proposals which will effectively terminate regional aid to parts of the northern region and maintain high levels of unemployment which are unacceptable in a modern society? When he reviews all the communications that he has received from his hon. Friends asking for cuts in regional aid, will he remember that what he proposes will keep people on the dole in my constituency, and that is unacceptable?

The hon. Gentleman is just jumping to conclusions. I have made no proposals relating to any area at the moment. We have made it clear that those areas which have a strong case based on the highest levels of unemployment will continue to be assisted. That is the moral authority that we have.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to correct himself? Two decisions have already been taken amounting to cuts of £200 million by the removal of replacement and non-job-creating modernisation schemes from the Government's regional policy. Those decisions were taken in advance of consultation. Will he confirm that none of the documents that have argued for a regional policy have agreed with that decision taken in advance of consultations? Will he therefore review that decision after consultation?

No, Some people have supported the decision with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I stand by what I said earlier—no decisions about the map have been made.

Do not the questions that have so far been asked show that on the question of consultation the Government are getting themselves into a terrible tangle with the House? It is only a matter of weeks before the recess and we still do not know the Government's intentions. Does not the fact that the boundaries order, which is due to be introduced in the autumn, will have immediate effect mean that any debate in the House will occur after the event? Shall we not be dealing with a fait accompli? If the only debate on the details is the debate on the order, hon. Members will have a mere one and a half hours, minus two speeches from the Minister, in which to make their representations. Because of the Government's persistent secrecy in regard to their intentions on the boundaries, any debate before the order will occur in a vacuum, because no hon. Member will know the Government's intentions for his constituency.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that a matter of this importance will be disposed of in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation, but today's questions have revealed that a protracted consultation period results in many hon. Members being determined to make representations for their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to ensure that British telecommunications equipment manufacturers are not discriminated against in countries whose own manufacturers are at present enjoying increased access to the British market.

The Government have strongly backed the European Commission's initiative to establish a Community telecommunications policy, and in particular to develop harmonised standards for terminal equipment. British manufacturers are already showing a more competitive stance in a number of world markets as a result of our liberalisation policies.

Has not the liberalisation of British Telecom been of the greatest benefit to consumers and to businesses, on which employment depends? However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that many British manufacturers are deeply worrid by the unreciprocated access that overseaas manufacturers have to the United Kingdom market. For example, BT currently distributes a Japanese key system, but British manufacturers have no reciprocal access to the Japanese market.

Of the 365 products that have been liberalised, the United Kingdom content is rather more than 70 per cent. We have tried to ensure that, when foreign equipment is approved, there are commitments to manufacture and develop that equipment in the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. Friend of what I said in my original answer. In Europe we must establish a common market in such equipment, otherwise our manufacturers will be at a disadvantage.

What about Japan?

I was about to mention Japan. Very little Japanese telecommunications equipment is sold in the United Kingdom at the moment. For equipment which we have approved we have received undertakings that, if the market takes off, it will be manufactured in the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that there is much talk about a link between BT and IBM? Is he aware that such a link would massively increase IBM's growing monopoly in the market place? Will the House have an opportunity to scrutinise any such link? What is the Government's attitude to it?

If there were such a link between BT and IBM in a network operation, it would require a separate licence and a consultative period during which views of the House and other interested parties would be taken. We are anxious about that type of development. That is why I took an initiative in Europe to establish what is called an open systems interconnect — a common standard into which a variety of manufacturers can link so that there is compatibility. The hon. Gentleman is on to an important point as regards the viability of European industry in the next 10 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give an estimate of the effect on trade and current national industrial performance of the present coal industry dispute.

The whole House will be pleased to know that the dispute has had no effect on the output and performance of the vast majority of United Kingdom industries. Imports of oil, coal and coke have increased and there has been some reduction in steel exports.

Is it not a fact that last month, and in May, the balance of payments worsened by about £200 million as a result of additional oil imports? Is it not also a fact that industrial production is being hit by increased energy costs? Will the Secretary of State use all of his tact and diplomacy — [HON. MEMBERS: "And charm."] — to persuade the Secretary of State for Energy that it is in the national interest for him to intervene to bring the dispute in the coal mining industry to a speedy conclusion?

Although it is difficult to say how much influence the miners strike has had upon the import of oil and how much of the change in the balance of payments has been due to stockpiling, possibly because of concern about events in the Gulf, there is little doubt that Mr. Scargill—and it is presumably what he wanted to do—has had great success in converting much of Britain's industry and power generation from coal to oil. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all his powers of tact and persuasion to get Mr. Scargill to come to the negotiating table without any preconditions——

He has offered to.

Mr. Scargill has not yet offered to do so without preconditions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use all the tact and diplomacy at his command to support Mr. Bill Sirs and the steel workers, as well as the transport workers and the 60,000 Coal Board employees still at work, instead of just backing the minority clique of Scargill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most devastating effect on British trade and industry would be caused by the surrender to, or appeasement of, a violent minority of the mineworkers' union? Will he give an assurance that the Department and the Government as a whole will not encourage any surrender or intervention along those lines?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Such a surrender would also put the miners who are at work—all told, about 60,000 Coal Board employees are working in the collieries—as well as the steel workers, at the mercy of a bunch of most ruthless and violent bullies.

If 60,000 miners are working and 120,000 miners are on strike and the latter, and particularly their families, are being penalised by the Government, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that those 60,000 at work are the majority?

I referred not merely to the mineworkers but to the 70,000 steel workers in the British Steel Corporation and the transport workers who are loyally carrying coal to help that industry to survive. Anyway, we do not know what the majority of coal miners think, because Mr. Scargill is scared to hold a ballot.

Might it be valuable to make an assessment of the amount of coal substitution that has occurred as a result of this strike and the number of orders lost overseas, and to publish the results?

It would be prudent to wait until the end of the strike for a final assessment. However, we know that coal for the impressive contract for the supply of coke from Durham, negotiated by Mr. MacGregor, is currently being supplied from Europe. We also know that the ICI conversion scheme is being held in abeyance, that the flood of applications from industry for assistance with converting from oil to coal has virtually come to an end, and that many people are very gloomy about whether it would be right to rely in future on the Coal Board for the supply of coal. I believe that they are wrong and that at the end of the dispute it will be quite clear that the majority of moderate mineworkers who want to work will have won, and that in future miners will behave in the same way as the steel workers are behaving today, and will be determined to ensure that their industry survives by supplying good products reliably to their customers.

Does the Secretary of State think it helpful to describe what, even on his own figures, would be 120,000 miners, as "ruthless and violent bullies", when —[Interruption.] That is the phrase that the right hon. Gentleman used. Does he realise that the future of this country's trade and industry depends on the skill of miners, the overwhelming majority of whom will not accept the Government's policy? [Interruption.] How does he suppose that the co-operation of such people can be secured by such most violent, bitter and unprincipled abuse from the Secretary of State?

I have not referred to the 120,000 miners who are on strike in the terms that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Yes the right hon. Gentleman did.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman tries listening instead of making up fairy tales, for a change. Not even in the worst of the scenes of violent picketing have we seen 120,000 miners. We have seen a tiny minority of violent bullies who are bullying the majority of miners and who want to bully 70,000 steel workers into losing their jobs as well. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not give some comradely support to Bill Sirs instead of forever licking the boots of Mr. Scargill?

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that it was not so long ago that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was complaining about high electricity costs for industry? As 80 per cent. of electricity is usually generated from coal, is he not, by opposing the closure of uneconomic pits, arguing for higher electricity prices?

Yes, of course he is doing so, but that is because he is the captive of one small union within the whole trade union movement. He refuses to speak up for the steel workers the transport workers and the car workers and all the others whose jobs are now being put at risk.

Having conceded that the miners' strike is having an effect on the balance of payments, does the Secretary of State not think that the recent statement by the chairman of the NCB advising his senior management to continue the strike until the end of the year is completely irresponsible and the action of a mindless bully?

No. Mr. MacGregor did not advise his managers to continue the strike. He has advised his managers to seek to persuade the miners who are still on strike to join those who are back at work and he will continue so to do. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman, who has some influence in these matters, were to seek to arrive at a conclusion on whether the miners who are on strike want to be on strike, by pressing Mr. Scargill to risk his authority again on another ballot.

How many colleagues of the right hon. and wrongly demagogic Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have spoken up in support of the miners who are at work and that significant number among the 120,000 who are intimidated from going to work?

I think that my hon. Friend knows the answer to that question— scarcely one of them. They will not speak up for the steel workers, either. Why are they so silent on the steel workers? They always pretended to be their friends. They supported the steel workers' strike which prejudiced steel workers' jobs. Why do they not support the steel workers who are staying at work to save their jobs?

With all his many faults, the Secretary of State tends to be rather more open in his approach to politics than many of his Cabinet colleagues. In view of his reference to Bill Sirs of the steel workers' union, may I invite him to meet Bill Sirs and his colleagues to consider the doubtful approach that has been adopted by the BSC to the supply of coke and coal to Scunthorpe, because many of us believe that there has been a determined and calculated effort to ensure that there has been as much upheaval in that supply as possible?

What the hon. Gentleman says is quite disgraceful. He knows full well that from top to bottom of the BSC — workers and management — everybody is united in the desire to keep the corporation going. They are united in their determination to use the coal, coke and iron ore which is getting into that steel works despite everything that the Scargill clique is doing to try to prevent it and to break British Steel.

May I take the Secretary of State from his natural habitat of insolence and abuse back to the facts? We noted that he said that the strike so far had had no effect upon Britain's visible non-oil trade. That being so, will he now address his mind to the reasons why the manufactured trade balance is running at the rate of minus £2,400 million this year so far? What on earth does he intend to do about it?

There is a question on that subject later on the Order Paper. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could contain their rambling supplementary questions, we might even manage to reach it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to secure the co-operation of the Department of Education and Science in promoting British school technology.

The Department of Education and Science and the Manpower Services Commission have co-operated with my Department in setting up the programme known as British school technology, and all will be represented on its council of management, which Sir Henry Chilver will chair.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that in 1980 the DES launched a microelectronics programme for schools, at a cost of £20 million, which was supposed to run for sax years until 1986? As my right hon. Friend's Department has so far apparently been unaware of that DES programme, can he assure us that full co-operation is encouraged?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are only too well aware of that programme. Our micros in schools programme is part of it. The object is to try to instil some practical skills in youngsters at school, because we think that that will help them to get jobs in technology industries. We are having some success with computer studies. About 10,000 O-levels were taken in that subject in 1979 and the number had risen to about 44,000 in 1983. That shows an encouraging shift towards more practical training in schools.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman pitting the development of technology in schools, with which I agree, against the development of medical research? By reducing the money spent on various types of research, the Government aim to save money to use in the development of technology.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that money spent on research by my Department will be greater this year than it was last year and greater next year than it is this year. We attach considerable importance to it. The aim of these programmes is to instil a more technical, practical vein of educatiion in schools. That is important for our future prosperity when those youngsters get jobs.

If the Minister is encouraged by the co-operation between his Department and the DES., how does he explain the recent Institute of Manpower Studies report, which showed that the number of graduates in computer studies will decline over the next few years from 1,589 to 1,432 and that the number of graduates in microelectronic engineering will decline from 2,129 to 1,887—a reduction of almost 10 per cent. in an area that is crucial to our future development?

I am speaking from memory, but I believe that in the next two years the total number of graduates across the whole range of computer science—including electronic engineering and computers—from universities and polytechnics will be greater than ever before.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide figures indicating the contribution made by industry on Merseyside to the current level of British exports and gross domestic product, respectively, in actual and percentage terms.

The total gross domestic product of Merseyside in 1981 is provisionally estimated by the Central Statistical Office at £4,902 million, or 2·4 per cent. of the United Kingdom total, excluding the continental shelf region. Figures for exports by Merseyside industry are not available.

Does the Minister accept that those figures represent a tragedy for Merseyside in general and for the borough of Knowsley in particular, which has one third of the manufacturing base of Merseyside, yet 27 per cent. unemployment? Will the Minister accept that the Regional Studies Association report was correct when it said that the scale of the necessary reconstruction on Merseyside is so great that it is beyond the scope of traditional regional policies and that central Government direction is required?

I certainly do not agree with the latter point. I also do not agree that, considerable though the problems of Merseyside are, the figures illustrate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Huge amounts of Government aid have been poured into Merseyside and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has not proved effective. That is one reason why it is right to look again at regional policy and to try to find a more effective way of deploying that money.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British membership of the European Economic Community has affected the competitiveness of British exports to markets outside the European Economic Community.

Access to a wider Community market has allowed British manufacturers to achieve greater economies of scale. This will have improved the ability of British exporters to compete in all markets.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a fact that, were it not for the stiffer competition that British industry faces in the EEC, it would find it harder to compete in markets outside the EEC?

There can be no doubt that being a member of the Community has been a reason why, for example, there has been anxiety to achieve so much foreign investment in this country. That is because of the access that we have to a domestic market as large as 270 million people.

Something must have caused a decline in competitiveness, because the most commonly used index shows a loss of over 27 per cent. since the first quarter of 1979. Is it not a remarkable piece of mismanagement which has allowed what were supposed to have been two great advantages to British industry, membership of the EEC and North sea oil, to cancel each other out so that every penny of the £10 billion benefit to our balance of payments from North sea oil will be needed this year to pay for the deficit in our trade in manufactured goods with the EEC, a deficit which is rising inexorably by £2 billion a year?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures—I am sure that he knows them — show that we have had a surplus on our trading figures for the last four years. It would be impossible for our trading figures to show a surplus in every product or with every part of the world. That would be out of the question. It is undoubtedly true that British industry is now much more competitive than it was a few yers ago. We are better at performance, quality, design, reliability and at selling our goods abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will instruct the reviewing committee on the export of works of art to take into consideration the physical security of the proposed location of works of art leaving the United Kingdom in tendering him their advice.

The reviewing committee on the export of works of art advises my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts and this problem is for him. I am advised, however, that the committee would give careful consideration to any exceptional circumstances affecting particular works of art.

As the Getty museum at Malibu is situated in one of the highest earthquake risk zones in the world, will my right hon. Friend, in the interests of international art conservation, refuse export licences to the trustees of the Getty museum until they move the museum from Malibu to somewhere that is reasonably safe?

I was concerned not long ago with my hon. Friend in a debate on these issues, and I know his views about the Getty museum. He adduces on ingenious argument for refusing an export licence—because it is in an earthquake zone. That is a new point, which I shall see is conveyed to the Minister for the Arts, who will, no doubt, decide the matter on the advice, if any, that he receives from the reviewing committee on the export of works of art.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be an earthquake in Britain unless the Government, to prevent the dispersal of national treasures abroad, either introduce tax incentives a la Americaine or export controls, as the Italians and French do, to debar the export of works of art and treasures that should be kept in the national custody?

I also recall debating that issue with the hon. Gentleman not long ago. Although I do not agree with the second part of his supplementary question, it is clear that, if he is threatening an earthquake in Britain, we shall all have to watch out.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present assistance given to small businesses.

Considerable progress has been made and we shall continue to build on it, but we have not finished with the task we have set ourselves. One of our main priorities is to encourage the development of a strong and successful small firms sector.

Is the Secretary of State concerned about the record high levels of bankruptcies during the period of Conservative rule? How many small businesses which started up under the enterprise allowance scheme have ultimately failed?

I do not yet have the figures to show the success or failure rate of the enterprise allowance scheme. It is encouraging to note — I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome this—that, taking the figures from the VAT returns, last year there was a surplus of about 47,000 start-ups over deaths of businesses. In the four years from 1980 to 1983 there was a net surplus of 118,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the managerial advice that is now being given to small businesses through local enterprise agencies is helping to reduce the number of bankruptcies? Would he care to tell the House how many local enterprise agencies are in existence?

I should like to give that information to the House, but I happen not to have the figure in my mind. I am given to understand that it is about 200. We had an extremely successful local enterprise week recently, in which more than 400 organisations took part. That is not surprising, because over the past few years the Government have helped small businesses in a number of ways. For example, they have helped them through rate capping, the abolition of metropolitan counties and the GLC, a stimulated flow of equity, the business expansion scheme, the stimulation of loan capital by means of the loan guarantee scheme, the promotion of local enterprise through the agencies, a change in the tax climate to provide more incentives for enterprise, and by reducing inflation to less than 5 per cent. I am looking forward with a great deal of interest to seeing how much further we can go in many directions to assist small businesses.

It might be of greater benefit to the House if, in future, the right hon. Gentleman allows those of his colleagues who know something about small businesses to answer questions on them. Is it not manifest nonsense that the Government, who can apparently turn a blind eye to the loss of £1,000 million as a result of the coal dispute, feel it necessary to cut the mere £25 million of support that is being given under the small loans guarantee scheme for small businesses, aid to the one sector of the economy that is actually creating new jobs? Should it not be a matter of shame for him and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, under the new scheme that has been introduced, they expect to attract only just over half the number of applications that were attracted by the old scheme? This will mean that about 2,000 businesses a year will be denied access to the loan guarantee scheme.

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman of my part in looking after small businesses and of my activities in doing so. I visited the National Federation of Self-Employed headquarters at its invitation yesterday. I shall meet the Association of Independent Businesses tomorrow. I shall be speaking to the London region of the NFSE at dinner on Monday. I recently took part in a successful function, together with the BBC, in its Radio Four and Radio Times enterprise award. All these organisations and activities are vital to small businesses.