asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, following the recent review of the operation of COCOM, he is now satisfied that the COCOM rules apply equitably to British firms.

Yes, Sir.

I understand that the recommendations come into force when the right hon. Gentleman signs the documents. He will know that the matter has great ramifications and is causing anxiety to a number of hon. Members. Accordingly, will he have a word with the Leader of the House to try to find time to debate the agreements before the documents are signed?

The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have noticed the desire for a debate in a number of quarters of the House. I would certainly have no objection to that. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the computer software industry has been one of our most conspicuously, successful growth industries? Is he aware that leaders of that industry have expressed serious concern that their export potential might be inhibited if the rules that are suspected to have been agreed are implemented? Can my right hon. Friend give the industry any reassurance?

I hope that that is not the case. Industry representatives have been consulted at all stages, and representatives of the software industry were offered the same facilities for consultation as other industries. This is a package. In general I believe it to be in the overall British interest, but if hon. Members wish to raise particular points with me I shall be delighted to look at them.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he told me in a recent letter that he was considering mechanisms for restricting or licensing the export of intangible high-technology assets, which is the coy phrase used to describe the information in people's heads. Will he explain how that could be done except by limiting or restricting the freedom of United Kingdom nationals to move abroad?

I do not have that point in mind, but if there is an aspect of that issue that I have not answered satisfactorily perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me and I will gladly go into it in detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had any recent representations from British Leyland about the funding of future car models.

BL's 1985 corporate plan, which I have just received, deals with a number of matters, including the company's model strategy and proposals as to the funding of that strategy from non-Government sources.

Will my hon. Friend accept that British Leyland has done very well over the past few years, after a difficult spell in labour relations? Now that British Leyland is well founded, will the majority shareholder — the taxpayers, represented by the Government —assure us that we intend to keep a genuine British manufacturer of cars and that we shall not have merely an assembler of Japanese models? That way lies the strength and future of the British motor industry.

That is certainly the intention of the Government's policy, and that is why we have supported British Leyland. As my hon. Friend knows, in the end it must be up to the management and all who work at British Leyland to continue the great progress and to make themselves into a truly competitive British manufacturer.

Is it not another example of voodoo economics for the Government to give the Nissan car company £200 million of taxpayers' money to set up a factory in the north-east and to try to run down British Leyland at the same time? Nissan will provide possibly 500 jobs at a subsidy of £400,000 for every man and woman employed. If we got that in the mining industry, we would be sailing freely.

I am not sure about voodoo economics, but the hon. Gentleman cannot add up if he thinks that that is the assistance that we have given to Nissan. He has a slightly exaggerated view. The Nissan project will not reach full production until 1991, and by then Austin Rover either will, or will not, be fully competitive.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that for the company to arrange funding for new model development it is essential to have good strong home and export markets? Does he realise that the problems that the company faces with regard to Spain, in particular, have precluded sales in quantity to that country?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is today answering a written question detailing the arrangements that will come into force with Spain, and which we hope will lead to an improvement in the situation.

Does my hon. Friend have any plans for further reducing the Government's equity ownership in the British Leyland group?

It has been stated on many occasions that it is the Government's policy to want all the constituent parts of British Leyland to be returned to private ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department exercises any control over exports of grain which form part of the barter deals.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency I have 500 of the most efficient and productive cereal farmers in the world? What—

Heavily subsidised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) has an advantage in that he is a farmer representing an urban constituency. What is the point of forcing more and more grain into intervention? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more export credits and restitutions are granted so that we may export grain to the Third world and even to Soviet Russia?

I have a suspicion that most of my hon. Friend's question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to answer. However, my hon. Friend asked about export credits, and on 3 December we announced that two-year cover is available for grain sales to markets for which extended medium-term coverage is available. Thus, I think that I have gone some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contacts he has with Ministers responsible for small firms' matters in other countries.

As the Minister with responsibility for small firms I have met several of my opposite numbers in other countries and in October I attended the eleventh international small business congress in Amsterdam, which is attended by Government Ministers and others concerned with small firms from all over the world.

What account do the Government take of other countries' policies when they are considering policies for small business in this country? Will my hon. Friend give an example of a country which has a particularly good approach to the problem?

We can certainly learn from the experience of other countries, although it is often difficult to replicate that experience exactly, because of the different circumstances that may prevail. However, we can still learn a great deal from the United States, particularly with regard to its attitude towards risk taking.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study loan guarantee schemes for small firms in other countries? If so, does he know of any other country in the free world which effectively charges up to 18 per cent. on the guaranteed part of loans, which is the result of the changes that he has made to the loan guarantee scheme?

I particularly studied the loan guarantee scheme when I visited Amsterdam in October. Our loan guarantee scheme is close to that scheme, and is closer to that scheme than to the equivalent scheme in the United States. I also noticed that the Dutch Government were extremely worried about the losses involved in the Government loan scheme — as the Dutch call it — and were possibly going to intervene with the banks to try to reduce the heavy loss rate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that other countries may have much to learn from us on the subject of policies for small businesses? Does he know that the enterprise allowance scheme is widely welcomed? Is he convinced that there are sufficient funds to meet the demand resulting from that good scheme? Can my hon. Friend give us some figures for the enterprise allowance scheme's success rate in creating jobs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but I think that he is suffering from the delusion that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the enterprise allowance scheme, when it is not. However, we have an input through the small firms service, for which I am responsible, in monitoring the success of the enterprise allowance scheme. Indeed, that scheme is widely acknowledged to be a success. I understand that at present the enterprise allowance scheme's failure rate is about one in five, compared with a one in three failure rate for small firms generally.

Is the Minister aware that in the short period that this Question Time has lasted his hon. Friends have asked for support and subsidies for farmers, support for small firms, and support for Japanese car factories? How does that compare with the fact that the Prime Minister and each of the Ministers on the Front Bench is constantly—

Order. The question is about small firms,.

In the area of small firms the hon. Gentleman suffers from the delusion of adequacy. The truth is that his knowledge of that subject is incredibly sparse. Had he listened more carefully to the Back Benchers who asked me questions on the subject, he would have realised that they were not asking for support. The success of small firms does not necessarily depend on the supply of money. Assistance with marketing and financial control is equally important.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the contribution made by trade with Libya to the United Kingdom's balance of payments during 1983 and in 1984 to date; and if he will list the British companies involved.

United Kingdom trade with Libya contributed £50·5 million in 1983 and £54·2 million in January to October 1984 to the United Kingdom's visible balance of payments. My Department does not maintain lists of exporters to any market.

Will the Minister accept that it was nothing more than hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to comment as she did on the NUM's trip to Libya earlier this year when those amounts of money are coming into Britain from Libya? Has any of that money been laundered into the Conservative party?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the difference between trading with a country, which in no way implies an approval of the regime, because we trade with many countries whose behaviour we dislike, and—

That is hypocrisy.

It is not hypocrisy. If we traded only with countries whose regimes we liked, we would trade with remarkably few. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should repudiate the leader of his party, who, referring to the miners' visit to Libya, said that any offer to them would be an insult to everything that the British Labour movement stands for.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the NUM went to a country which does not allow any free trade unions? Can he shed—

Order. The question is about trade, not trade unions.

What trade is likely to have come out of the deal between Mr. Scargill and the Libyan regime?

My hon. Friend has made his point forcefully. None whatever.

Despite the Minister's nonchalant arrogance in purporting to answer questions, is he aware that Her Majesty's Government have broken off diplomatic relations with Libya and that it is therefore disgraceful that, by implication, we should be receiving the Government's approval in continuing trade with Libya? Is he aware, for example, that the National Coal Board is at the moment training Libyan nationals in computer technology, which is easily adaptable for military purposes? Does that not imply a tacit approval of the Libyan regime?

The House will be able to judge whether or not I am arrogant. The House can certainly judge that the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that matter. Whether or not we have diplomatic relations with a country, we try not to impede normal exchanges, including normal civil trade, between two countries. That policy was followed by our predecessors just as much as it has been by ourselves.

Is the Minister satisfied that leaders of Libyan industry who wish to trade with Britain have adequate access to Britain?

I have heard no complaints to the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards eliminating all barriers to trade in the internal market of the European Community.

The Government have taken a leading role in the Council of Ministers in eliminating barriers to internal trade. Yesterday we made a major step forward on simpler documentation for customs purposes—the so-called single administrative document. Other practical measures already secured include many common industrial standards, better opening hours at custom posts and faster clearance of lorries. We shall continue to press vigorously for progress.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement yesterday. May we have more details about what the agreement achieves? Will he tell us more about the faster clearance of lorries, which is immensely important to the haulage industry?

When it comes into force the single document will replace about 70 forms now needed for goods circulating within the Community. It will reduce and standardise the information which traders must provide and, over a period of years, it will provide savings for traders, Governments and all those involved in trade. I think that it is a step forward which the whole Community will welcome.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Parliament has called for an investigation into the different approaches of customs officers at internal borders? Does he agree that there are differences of approach which we could do well to iron out if trade is to be maximised?

There are certainly differences of approach and there are many historical reasons for them. We are making progress in that area with this document and with the measures to facilitate movement at frontiers in general. We shall continue to do so. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Skinner.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, you must provide balance.

It is about time that the hon. Gentleman tried doing so.

The hon. Gentleman is only a whippersnapper.

Order—

—and it is a barrier to trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for selective regional aid have been received from firms having business in Liverpool and by firms intending to set up businesses in Liverpool.

Between April 1979 and September 1984 some 300 applications for regional selective assistance were received for projects in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

Does the Minister agree that there have been a record number of bankruptcies in small businesses? On a number of occasions I have written to the Department asking for assistance to provide jobs in an area of high unemployment. In view of that, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that shows that this is yet another failure in the Government's portfolio of policies? When will he consider the genuine problems of businesses in that area and ensure that the Government assist them, if that is the Government's intention? This is supposed to be the Government of small businesses.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier answer when I said that 182 offers have a value of £32 million. That is only selective assistance. On top of that, large amounts of automatic grants and regional development grants have gone to the Liverpool travel-to-work area. Whatever else Liverpool has lacked, it has not lacked money from the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great resentment in areas which do not receive regional assistance but have high unemployment—.

Order. The same rules apply to all hon. Members. The question is about Liverpool.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many places such as Liverpool are treated generously compared with other areas of high unemployment, which receive no assistance?

That is no doubt why my hon. Friend supported our decision to cut £300 million from the regional policy budget.

Will not Liverpool be hit, like many other regions, by the cut in regional aid under the new regime that will operate? Will not Liverpool, other parts of the north, Scotland and Wales, have less money going into their economies because of the massive cuts in regional aid on which the Government have embarked?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Liverpool will continue to receive the highest status. It will qualify in the inner tier for assistance automatically. That assistance will be much better spent because it will be much more closely related to the creation of jobs. If we are to spend money on regional policies, it is sensible to relate it to jobs.

Will not the dilemma of Liverpool under the Government's new plans for regional aid be similar to that in many other parts of the country, especially the north-east of England, where, because of a refusal to honour a previous commitment, companies which made plans long ago for capital expansion involving job creation must now change their plans because the Government have peremptorily introduced a new policy on regional aid, on the completely false criterion of travel-to-work areas?

It is incorrect to say that the Government introduced these changes suddenly. There was a long period of consultation. Furthermore, the changes in the map were accompanied by generous transitional provisions which take account of the hon. Gentleman's point that companies may have been in the middle of formulating investment plans. Those are catered for in the transitional provisions

I assume that the Minister considered the position of Liverpool carefully in anticipation of answering this question. How much less money will be available to Liverpool as a result of the recent changes in regional development policy? What does it cost to create a job in an enterprise zone?

I cannot answer either question.

Why not?

We have not made an estimate of how each area will be affected by the changes in regional policy. Expenditure on regional policy is demand-led and depends on companies putting forward projects, as it always has. It is impossible to make an assessment for each travel-to-work area.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has plans to seek to promote wider ownership of shares in British industry.

We have just completed the biggest single step so far this century towards wider ownership of shares in British industry. More than 2 million people purchased BT shares, including many first-time investors and 184,000 employees of BT. We shall continue to encourage wider ownership of shares by employees and by individual investors.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the pleasure that most Conservative Members feel at the success of the British Telecom sale? Is he further aware that we hope that the Government will pursue a policy of extending share ownership to a wider proportion of the British public?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The Government will take his advice, not least through more privatisation.

Does the Minister agree that, in addition to the generous price at which BT shares were offered to the public, one reason for the great success of the sale was the change in marketing and the determined effort made publicly to sell those shares? When the Government prepare their White Paper on investment protection, will they examine the old legislation and, while ensuring investor protection, try to relax the rules on advertising and on prospectuses to ensure that similar efforts can be made for other share sales?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are planning to replace the existing Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. That will be the subject of a White Paper to be published early next year. We have learnt two lessons from the British Telecom privatisation: first, that there are many hundreds of thousands of willing investors in Britain; and, secondly, the stockbroking profession has learnt that by advertising its wares on a much bigger scale than usual it can ensure that those who wish to buy shares, including small investors, can do so.

While congratulating my hon. Friend on the success of the British Telecom issue, and on the fact that nearly 2 million people are shareholders for the first time, including more than 180,000 employees of British Telecom, may I ask whether he has considered an education programme for the new shareholders in the light of today's press reports that some understand the nature of a contract on the Stock Exchange? Will my hon. Friend consider running a programme of education about the nature of share ownership in conjunction with the Stock Exchange?

I am almost tempted, in a lighthearted way, to ask my hon. Friend whether he might not have an interest in such an educational programme. The sale of shares in this way and on such a scale is an educational programme in itself for the whole country, and not least for the Opposition parties.

In view of the Minister's pleasure at the sale of BT, will he tell us whether he would be pleased with, and would re-employ, a broker who sold his shares for half price—or would he run to a solicitor to take action for incompetence and negligence?

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has the wrong end of the stick. It is incorrect to conclude that the whole offer can be made at today's price or at the level of any increase in price since the offer was made. The current price reflects the marginal demand — that is the excess of willing buyers over willing sellers. That has always been the case in an issue such as this.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of official and commercially collected data in connection with the provision of statistics on the small business sector; and if he will make a statement.

The findings of the studies that regularly appear in British Business are that there was a net surplus of 112,000 small businesses over the past four years and that these firms create or preserve more jobs than their share of the labour market suggests. We take every opportunity to publicise these facts.

I asked whether the Minister would consider greater use of the official statistics. Does he not recall that, at the small business conference in Amsterdam in October this year, he rightly said that reliable and accurate data, which he admitted we did not have, on the life and death cycle of small businesses, are to use his own words, the

"life blood of governmental policy-making"?

The stock of reliable statistics is improving all the time, and I referred to that in my substantive answer to the substantive question. I admit that there is a paucity of available statistics for employment in small firms, although that is getting better. For example, we have established that the figure for self-employment is 2·25 million, which is the highest figure on record. My difficulty, as Minister with responsibility for small firms, is that I have to balance on the one hand the paucity of statistics in that particular sector with the fact that I wish to try to reduce the form-filling burden on small firms, which they regard as a handicap.

Are the collected statistics used by the small firms service? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the expertise in the breadth, and particularly the depth, of the service that is offered by the small firms service, particularly through the local enterprise agencies?

I have said on the Floor of the House before that I am extremely proud of the expertise in the small firms service. There has been a rapid growth in the local enterprise agencies. There has to be a close relationship between the small firms service and the local enterprise agencies. I have always believed that the directors of the enterprise agencies should be generalists and that the small firms counsellors should be specialists. I am taking steps to ensure that that happens and is successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to assist the power engineering industry.

The industry is supported by SFI assistance under the Science and Technology Act and by Industry Act grants. Many overseas projects have also benefited from Government assistance in the form of export credits and aid and trade provision.

Is the Minister aware that this industry, particularly in my constituency, still continues to shed jobs at a high and regrettable rate? Is he further aware that the industry is suffering because of the collapse of domestic and overseas demand? Will the Government look seriously at their role in ensuring that we have a power engineering industry in the future, which means that we shall have to bring forward, with Government assistance, plans for the refurbishment or rebuilding of power stations in the near future, and not leave it for the next decade?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions about domestic power station orders are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. As regards support in export markets, we shall continue to support the industry. We have been successful. GEC, a company located in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984 won more turbine generator orders than any other company in the world. It is the world leader. However, we recognise that the market position remains uncertain, but the company has had a lot of help, including £100 million from the aid and trade provision since 1980. There has been a lot of Government support, and we shall continue to do all that we can to help.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the few remaining effective firms in the gas turbine industry, is situated in my constituency? Is he further aware that the real costs facing such industries in developing new models to enter world markets are high? If there is to be any Government support to the turbine industry, my hon. Friend should look carefully at the support needed to develop new models to beat our overseas competitors.

I note what my hon. Friend says. Since 1980, under the Science and Technology Act, £11 million has gone towards supporting this sort of development. We shall, of course, continue to do what we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be in a position to publish the Silbertson report on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The report was published on 13 December.

A cursory analysis of the report shows many parts where the conclusions seem to be based on speculative hypotheses rather than on firm evidence, and where the policy recommendations seem to fail to take account of the implications for some of the areas affected by the report's conclusions. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take other counsel as well as consider the recommendations in the Silbertson report before agreeing to phase out the agreement rapidly?

Most definitely. Before any decision is taken, I hope to obtain the views of the industry and all the other people who are interested in this topic.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a sunrise and not a sunset industry? Is he further aware that the industry is not afraid of fair free trade, but that many non-tariff barriers are imposed on British textile exports? Until those non-tariff barriers can be eliminated, some type of MFA is required.

I note my hon. Friend's views on that topic, and we shall bear them very much in mind.

Does the Minister agree that the proposals in the report met with a chorus of criticism from the British textile industry and that his reply during the last Trade and Industry Question Time gave rise to considerable concern? Will give a clear assurance, without equivocation, reservations, winks or nods, that the British Government are totally committed to the renegotiation of the MFA to ensure that there is no unfair import penetration and to protect British textile jobs?

I read accounts which were critical of the report and the comments which were favourable. At the moment the Government are merely consulting. Surely we are entitled to consult and consider all the evidence before any decisions are reached.

Is my right hon. Friend not conerned that the report appears to support and enourage the export of British jobs? Should not such a policy be resisted with great vigour?

Put like that, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive argument. I do not necessarily accept his preface, but I must repeat to the House that all views will be gratefully received. We shall consider them carefully. The Government will have to make their position clear to the House when the decisions have been arrived at.

Is the Minister aware that much of the criticism focused on the report has pointed out that its conclusions are flawed because of the doubtful assumptions and methodology adopted by its author? Will that fact be borne in mind? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the Government have not reached a conclusion about whether they want a new MFA? Is it not high time that the Government committed themselves clearly to another MFA and told the House of that commitment?

Of course we shall tell the House. The report was received only six days ago. Surely we are entitled to study the report and the evidence in favour of more liberalisation, and the evidence in favour of less liberalisation. That seems to be perfectly reasonable, and I believe that any sensible Government would wish to study all the evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although we appreciate the fact that he must study this newly published report, a word of encouragement to the textile industry, which during the past 20 years has suffered traumatically, would be much appreciated? The industry urgently needs not just one renewal of the MFA, but possibly two.

From the exchanges in the House today, I am left in no doubt about the feeling that exists on both sides on this issue. It is something which I and the Government must consider. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The textile industry has done extremely well and has good prospects for the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with safety standards relating to child buggy pushchairs.

No, I am not. That is why I propose to remake the existing safety regulations on pushchairs. The consultation process is almost complete, and I hope to lay draft new regulations before the House in the spring.

While welcoming my hon. Friend's reply and applauding the initiative that he has taken, may I ask him to confirm that some designs of collapsible child buggies have caused serious accidents and that, by definition, they are pushchairs and therefore come within the 1978 regulations — a fact which apparently some trading standards officers do not appreciate?

I take my hon. Friend's point. There should be no doubt in trading standards officers' minds that pushchairs are included in the existing regulations, as they will be in the new regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making together with other European Economic Community Ministers in securing a free market for insurance within the European Economic Community.

Finance Ministers discussed the proposed directive on freedom to provide non-life insurance last week. Negotiations are continuing on this directive, and on this and in general we shall continue to press for rapid progress towards a free Community market for insurance.

When will the EEC give substance to its claim to be a common market? When will the European Court take effective action against those countries which continue to block our insurance industry? The British people are becoming tired of paying an expensive membership fee to a club which continues to block our trade in that way.

No one would dispute what my hon. Friend has said. There are four court cases pending. The British Government are intervening in each of them. I am told that the oral hearings in the first two cases have been set down for next March.

The Minister has again fobbed us off with a meaningless answer on that point. Our trade with the EEC in manufactures is running at an annual deficit of £9 billion. Is it not time that he insisted that we had proper access for the British insurance industry and other providers of financial services to the Common Market? Has he not allowed the Germans and others who have been obstructive for such a long time to get away with it for far too long?

I have given the best and most truthful answer to the House. Whether the hon. Member likes it is neither here nor there. It is all very well for him to say that I must insist on certain things taking place. He knows perfectly well that there is no way of insisting in this case. Nothing will happen until those court cases are settled. He knows that just as well as I do. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

When did the EEC first promise to secure a free market for insurance?

I cannot give my hon. Friend a definite answer, but my view is that we are entitled to freedom of insurance under the Treaty of Rome.

Is the Minister aware that it is difficult enough to get money out of insurance companies in this country? It would be a dead loss to try to get money out of insurance companies in the EC countries.

My idea is that British companies should have more opportunities abroad, rather than the other way round.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific steps Her Majesty's Government take to faciltate the access of small firms to Government contracts.

For lower value contracts firms need no longer go through the Department's approval procedures before winning orders. The threshold was initially set at £2,000 two years ago and has since been raised to £10,000. Above that level, non-approved firms can tender for contracts which are not urgent, subject to being approved afterwards if they are successful. Departments have been asked to rotate invitations to tender among firms on their approved lists so that more firms get an opportunity to bid. For firms seeking approval we have standardised the financial and general information that Departments require.

I am sure that the House will welcome that encouraging news, but what proportion of Government procurement contracts go to small firms? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with that figure?

Records are not kept at the moment of the details of which business goes to small firms, but we have asked the Ministry of Defence to supply information, through a survey that it is currently conducting, as to how much of its procurement business goes to firms employing fewer than 200 people. The findings of that survey will, of course, be of great interest to us.

Does the Minister accept that such records should be kept for all industries? Does he agree that the size and power of the Government's procurement system makes it the most potent weapon available to the Government for assisting small industries? Surely it is even more powerful than the Government's much-vaunted 103 measures put together. When will he take more strenuous action to use the Government's procurement system to assist small industries more effectively?

The hon. Gentleman is being uncharitable to the Government. We have done a great deal in the past five years to improve access for small firms to Government procurement contracts. In my answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) I referred to another initiative that we have taken. I appreciate that it is important and valuable that we adopt such an approach, and that is why we are doing something about it.

Will my hon. Friend ensure—I am sure that he will—that when small firms deservedly win contracts with Government Departments the Departments settle their accounts on time? Is he aware that it is becoming a common complaint that small firms are not having their accounts settled by large firms as quickly as they should be?

My hon. Friend is right. I take every available opportunity to try to get the message across that large firms should pay the bills of small firms on time wherever possible. I accept that there are a number of laggards. If my hon. Friend is aware of any examples of Government Departments not paying the bills of small firms on time, I shall be grateful if he will let me have the evidence, whereupon I shall investigate the matter.

If this basic information is not available, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that it is available in future?

It seems that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply to an earlier supplementary question. I said that we were taking the initiative of asking — [Interruption.] That is a good example. There is much business there that is available for small firms. Having taken the initiative, it will be interesting to compare how much public procurement business goes to small firms in Britain as against that going to similar firms in the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making on removing barriers to trade in telecommunications' equipment between European Economic Community member states.

The Government have strongly encouraged the development of a Community telecommunications programme aimed at expanding intra-Community trade. Two important measures recently agreed are the urgent development of harmonised standards for terminal equipment and a recommendation that operators should open up their tendering procedures to suppliers in other member states.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about terminals, but will he give the House an assurance that the proposals that he has mentioned will be implemented and brought to fruition in 1985? Does he agree that reciprocal trading agreements for other telecommunications equipment such as PABXs, which directly affect firms in my constituency of Swindon, which wish to manufacture and market them, would be of advantage in creating inward investment and, therefore, jobs, and in providing more export opportunities throughout the European Common Market?

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case in the second part of his question. As for the first part, it is the British Government's hope that that will be done in 1985. That is not entirely within our gift, but I hope very much that that will be done.

Great though the progress may be on our side in liberalising the purchasing arrangements in Government telecommunication contracts, is the Minister aware that in the EEC as a whole there may not be anything like a similar desire and determination to do likewise? Will he note that the French Government have clearly taken no steps to liberalise and open their ordering and tendering system? Will he undertake to the House to obtain matching agreements so that there are clear commitments from our European partners, especially the French?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about reciprocity. He has said that the British Government's attitude is not always the same as that of other member states. I shall be grateful if he will have a word with those sitting beside him, so that he can understand some of the problems.

Where telecommunication developments require certification by the division within my right hon. Friend's Department, especially if they are inventions of small firms in non-assisted areas such as my constituency of Shrewsbury, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the applications will be processed with the greatest possible speed?

I had better look carefully at what my hon. Friend has said. I shall consider it and reply to him sympathetically and quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to seek to ensure that in 1985 the United Kingdom exports more manufactured goods than it imports.

There is no means, short of direct controls incompatible with our interests as a trading nation, of doing what the hon. Member wants.

Does the Minister accept that this country's wealth has always depended on the manufacturing industries and that it is essential that we get back into a surplus of trade in those industries as soon as possible? Does he further accept that many Opposition Members and people in the country at large are very concerned at the Government's apparent disregard of the fact that we have been trading in deficit on manufactured goods?

What is far more important than a surplus or deficit in any one part of our trading account is whether we are making any progress in trying to increase the productivity of the British manufacturing industry and, indeed, other industries. We are making considerable strides, in that our productivity has been increasing in the past three years at more than twice the rate achieved by either France or Germany. That is a creditable achievement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's obsession with mercantalist economics is typical of its attitude to economic policy in general, and that what is required is recognition of the fact that the contribution to be made by the export of services to our economic future is as important, if not more so, that of manufacturing?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the voodoo economics practised by Opposition Members, but what we should like to see, of course, is a good performance — [Interruption.] It is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) today—

And the hon. Gentleman yesterday.

What he said yesterday, the hon. Gentleman says today.

Does the Minister accept that the rate of productivity in many British manufacturing industries is now very high and that the real problem about competitiveness is in areas that are within the scope of the Government's own policies; for example, energy prices and the alarmingly imbalanced exchange rates between sterling and European currencies?

In fact, at the present rate of sterling in many parts of the world, British goods are more competitive than ever before, rather than less competitive. This is because so many currencies are linked to the dollar. It is perfectly true that other factors affect competitiveness, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to recognise the steps that we have taken to try to help businesses, via taxation reforms, the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the control of public spending—which I emphasise. There are major efforts to help British industry.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, important as our manufacturing base is—as long as it suits its product to what the market actually wants—our service industries in the export market do not have the import element within them that most of our manufacturing industries do, and that makes them even more important in terms of balance of payments to this country?

As my hon. Friend says, it is absolutely right that our service industries are providing more substantial amounts for our balance of payments and our export effort. I am sure that that trend will continue over the next few years.

Is not the acid test of our international competitiveness how well we actually perform in international markets? Is the Minister completely unaware of the fact that the deficit in our trade and manufactured goods which appeared for the first time last year threatens already this year to more than double? Is that not so alarming a trend as to dent even the Minister's complacency?

We have had this discussion before. So far, I have been unable to convince the hon. Gentleman that, although there has been a considerable surplus in the past few years, it is impossible at all stages to have a surplus in oil, manufactured goods and everything else—

Rubbish.

It is not rubbish. If we did that, we would have to export even more capital. When the hon. Gentleman is not whingeing about one thing, he is whingeing about the other.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that during 1985 the Government will have to make a decision about participation by Britain in the American manned space station programme? Is he aware that that participation is vital to our manufacturing industry over a wide range of high technology products? When will he be in a position to make a statement about participation in that very important programme?

I hope that we shall be in a position to make a statement early next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the accounting practices within the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Yes, I am satisfied with the accounting practices employed by those industries within my Department's responsibility in preparing statutory accounts.

Has the Minister ever intervened to direct British Shipbuilders as to the way in which it prepares its accounts?

I have never issued a directive to British Shipbuilders about the preparation of its accounts, although a couple of years ago we had discussions about the presentation of results as between different divisions.

Question No. 21.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order at the end of Question Time.

A number of hon. Members wished to ask supplementary questions on my question No. 20.

Order. A number of hon. Members—well over 40 of them — wish to ask the remaining questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods.

In the first 10 months of this year there was a deficit of £3·7 billion.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government's trading record is the worst in British trading history and is yet further proof of the abysmal failure of the Government's economic strategy? Is he not ashamed to be a member of such an inefficient, uncompetitive Government? Is it not time that the Department of Trade and Industry team resigned en masse so that Britian can regain leadership in world markets?

The hon. Gentleman will have already heard the exchange of questions on this at Question Time. We have had a surplus on current account in each of the past four years. We would have had a surplus this year but for the miners' strike, and we expect a surplus on current account next year. That is a pretty good record.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trade with the Soviet Union.

In the first 10 months of 1984 the level of trade between our two countries increased by 32 per cent. I consider that the prospects for trade with the Soviet Union are better now than they have been for a number of years, and I hope that this trend will be maintained.

As Mr. Gorbachev is visiting our free, democratic country this week, can my hon. Friend say whether he has already met or is about to meet Mr. Gorbachev so as to ensure that Anglo-Soviet trade can be increased in some areas, with the exception of certain scientific, technical and industrial equipment which it could be against our future interests to sell?

I have met Mr. Gorbachev once this week. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and I, among others, are giving him dinner tomorrow. One of the main topics so far has been Anglo-Soviet trading relations and I hope that we shall be able to make important progress in that regard.

rose—[Interruption.]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to ask a question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult due to the rabble beside me.

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to provide encouragement for greater employee participation through share ownership schemes in the enterprises under his control.

As I have already told the House today, we have just completed the biggest single step so far this century towards wider ownership of shares in British industry. Over 2 million people purchased British Telecom shares, including many first-time investors and 184,000 employees of BT. We shall continue to encourage wider ownership of shares both by employees and by individual investors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I ask him whether he has any expectation that, in the near future, share ownership in this country will rise to the levels that currently exist in France and West Germany?

We would be extremely pleased to see that happen. We are taking other steps, too. Privatisation is very important, but changes are also taking place in the Stock Exchange and in the financial services sector in general which will encourage wider share ownership.

Does the Minister recollect, in relation to BT, that there were warnings that those who made multiple applications could face actions for fraud? Can he tell us that his Department intends to initiate such legal action, bearing in mind the Prime Minister's injunction that the law must be obeyed? Or is it only working men and women who have to obey the law, and not the Government's friends in the City?

There is no justification for that remark. My Department is investigating very carefully the cases that have been brought to our attention.