asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of section 4 grant-aid under the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The operation of the section 4 scheme is primarily a matter for the national tourist boards for England, Scotland and Wales, which have authority to approve individual offers of assistance up to £200,000. I believe that the scheme helps to stimulate investment in tourism projects which would not otherwise take place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for making additional funds available for this purpose; funds which not only widen and improve the quality of tourist projects in this country but help to create employment? Is he aware that whereas the average cost of creating a new job in the tourist industry is £4,500, each unemployed person costs the nation £6,000 a year?

There is no doubt that the tourism industry has made a magnificant contribution to job creation in the United Kingdom. In the hotel trade alone there was an increase of 14,000 jobs in the 12 months to September 1984. In that context, section 4 assistance has been cost effective. I cannot give my hon. Friend any reassurance on future spending under section 4, but he will be aware that our hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that he wants expenditure to continue over the next three years at approximately the 1983 rate.

Will the Minister accept that, given the parity of the pound against the dollar, this is a particularly good time to try to attract tourists to Britain, in particular from the United States? Will he ensure that adequate finance is available — even more finance than the expenditure limits at present allow for the Development of Tourism Act 1969—to maximise that potential?

There is no doubt that the current movements in exchange rates could provide a massive boost for the balance of payments through tourism. While the British Tourist Authority is doing its job very well indeed, we hope that it will take advantage, within its current funding levels, of the bonus that is being presented to it.

Will my hon. Friend see whether changes need to be made so that seaside towns which are outside assisted areas and are not in receipt of tourist grants are able to make application for EEC grants?

Section 4 is available, at the request of the tourist industry, on a national and sectoral basis, but it envisaged that the assisted area policy might result in some discrepancies which would not be wholly welcome to the industry. However, I note my hon. Friend's point on the European dimension and will convey it to my appropriate colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many local enterprise agencies are in existence; and how many are in the process of being set up.

There are 238 local enterprise agencies and a further 38 are in the process of being set up.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a local enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in King's Lynn, where, regrettably, the unemployment level is above the regional average? Is he further aware that, when established, it will play a crucial role in helping small buinesses, and thus will help to reduce unemployment? What Government help is available to such local enterprise agencies?

I am aware that an enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in west Norfolk. Having visited my hon. Friend's constituency on two occasions, I take this opportunity to pay him a warm tribute for the initiative that he has displayed in bringing forward this enterprise agency.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in enterprise zones the development—

Order. That is a different question. The question is about enterprise agencies.

I am referring to these zones in the context of small businesses. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the retail outlets that have been developed in enterprise zones are destroying the small businesses that lie outside those areas? Is it not a fact—

Order. The hon. Member is still referring to a different subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in persuading foreign countries to reduce their import tariffs on United Kingdom-manufactured shoes to levels the United Kingdom imposes through the common external tariff.

Footwear, like other British exports, has benefited from reductions in duty granted by trading partners in successive GATT negotiations. But many tariffs remain far too high—and not only on shoes.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, footwear manufacturing is important in my constituency of Kettering. We face high and often unfair tariffs. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to urge the European Commission, on the accession of Spain, to increase the common external tariff, as we are allowed to do under GATT, to the weighted average between the European Community as presently constituted and Spain, and to use that bargaining weapon with those other countries which so far have refused to reduce their tariffs?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I have been much impressed by the representations that he has made to me on a number of occasions on behalf of the footwear industry. The answer to my hon. Friend's specific point is that this would depend upon negotiations between the Community and the other contracting parties to GATT. I cannot say that any great increase in tariffs is in prospect.

If the Minister is concerned about the prospects for the shoe manufacturing industry, will he, in the coming weeks, spend less time considering the important question of tariff quotas and spend more time making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is considering imposing VAT on children's shoes?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend, and not for me.

As my right hon. Friend is well aware that the footwear industry is deeply concerned about the fact that everyone seems to be able to get into our markets, but we do not seem to be able to have the opportunity to get into other people's markets, will he tell the industry that there is nothing that he can do about the matter because he is quite powerless, and all power resides in Brussels with the European Community? The industry will then direct its complaints and attention to where something can be done about the problem.

My hon. Friend has slightly exaggerated the position. The British Government are perfectly capable of making representations to the Community and pressing the Community to take effective action. There are many areas where the footwear industry faces difficult exporting problems, but there are certain places — for example, South Korea — where progress is being made. We shall continue to press for progress to be made.

Is it not nonsense for the Minister to pretend that VAT is a matter for the Chancellor and not for him? After all, does not the Minister's Department represent the manufacturers? Will not the manufacturers be severely harmed if VAT is introduced? Does not the Minister's Department allegedly and purportedly represent the consumers? Will not the consumers be severely hurt if VAT is introduced?

Surely even the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

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

We are curently sponsoring seminars for professional advisers on the importance of business planning. I am confident that these will prove as popular and successful as our earlier series on Government grants and advisory services and on small firms finance.

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome his reply. Can he reassure the House that during the endeavour there will not be too great a shift of finite resources away from direct help to small businesses?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am anxious to educate, as far as we are able, the professional advisers who act as intermediaries and advise the important people—the small business men.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best help that he can give to small firms is to ensure that they obtain orders? If our large companies, whether they are in the public or the private sector, are going bust—and many of them are—then, by definition, the number of orders placed with small firms will be reduced. The best assistance that the hon. Gentleman can give these small firms is to ensure that there is an upsurge of demand by the large companies for the products of small companies.

That certainly has an obvious effect. However, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government's record on helping small firms is of the highest order. I published some figures not so long ago which showed that there had been a net increase in the number of small firms of some 47,000 in a year — slightly more than double the figure for the year before. That shows clearly that we are on the right track.

Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the work of the small firms centres, and in particular the Nottingham one, which covers the Leicestershire area and the city of Leicester? Will he ensure that those advising and helping — to a large extent from Leicester — are properly updated about all the assistance available for small firms, which represent the future of our country and which will provide real jobs?

I am grateful for the compliments that my hon. Friend has paid to the small firms centres, especially the one in Nottingham. I am certain that the service provided by the inquiry officer and the small firms counsellors in that region is very much appreciated in my hon. Friend's area and in his constituency.

Is the Minister keen for his Department to assist producer co-operatives? Do his officials work closely with local authorities, many of which have done good work in encouraging co-operatives in their areas?

We have shown that we are anxious to encourage the growth of co-operatives. The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act was passed by Parliament in 1984, and we are keen that the co-operative sector should expand. However, we must recognise that there are little more than 1,000 co-operatives in the country at the moment — we should like to see more — compared with an overall figure of 1·3 million small firms.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's loan guarantee scheme for small businesses is not working as well as it might? The scheme could be very valuable if everyone who could benefit from it was aware of its existence. Does the Minister know that in the area which he and I represent even some of the banks deny knowledge of the scheme?

That situation has not been brought to my attention. If it is correct, it is extremely worrying. I do not think that the Department has any difficulty in increasing awareness of the scheme. Our difficulty, and my personal embarrassment, has been that the loss rate has been far higher than we expected. I have therefore changed the terms and conditions of the scheme, thereby improving the appraisal and monitoring procedure.

Is not the biggest problem faced by small firms the severe decline in medium-sized and large businesses? Surely the biggest help that the Government could give the small firms would be to find a strategy for the survival and prosperity of manufacturing in this country? Is it not true that the most severe decline has taken place since the present Government took office and that a reversal of that decline is more important than all the schemes in the world?

The right hon. Gentleman's statement reflects the views held by his party when last in government. They took no cognisance of the fact that a greater concentration on small firms — as has been effected by the present Government — would increase employment potential in the larger firms. I find it difficult to imagine that the larger firms would increase their demand on the labour market as much as smaller firms, which have not only wealth-creating potential, but employment potential. It is a matter of balance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total surplus or deficit in trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community in 1984; and what was the comparable surplus or deficit in 1974.

The deficit in trade in manufactures with other members of the Community was £7¾ billion in 1984, offset by a surplus in trade in oil of £7·4 billion. In 1974, the deficit in manufacturing was £½ billion.

We still have a surplus in our manufacturing trade with the rest of the world. What are The main reasons for the devastating and appalling deficit in trade with the Common Market, which must be having an appalling effect on unemployment in this country?

What is important in these matters is not the particular balance in relation to one country or group of countries, or one manufacturing or trading activity as opposed to another, but the overall balance. In 1984, overall, we were in surplus, whereas in 1974, overall, we were in deficit. The position has improved in the last decade.

Will the Secretary of State urge on the Leader of the House the need for a debate, in Government time, on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has demonstrated dramatically the seriousness of the problem? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to balance one thing against another, does he agree that manufacturing is at the heart of wealth creation in Britain? What does he suggest that we live on when the oil runs out?

Of course manufacturing is an important part of wealth creation, but it is not the only part. If we lived in a slightly more rational world, coal extraction would be a wealth creating activity, instead of a wealth destroying one as it is today. The hon. Gentleman's question about a debate is an appropriate one to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions.

What is the latest indication that my right hon. Friend has received from the Confederation of British Industry about membership of the EEC? Does he agree that the CBI's previous assessment showed that 90 per cent. of its members thought that withdrawal from the Community would be a disaster for their business prospects?

Like the great majority of the British people, the CBI favours our continued membership of the Community. The problem for some right hon. and hon. Labour Members is that they opposed membership, lost the battle and have not yet been able to reconcile themselves to our membership.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most striking feature of our current trade figures is that our non-oil visible trade deficit has increased from £2·5 billion in 1982 to £11·4 billion last year, while our oil surplus has steadily increased? Does he agree that that explains why the pound has been under pressure; that it is because we are overdependent on the oil part of our economy?

If the hon. Gentleman is right — I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him — the reasonable consequence of what he says is that we should try to stick the oil back in the ground and pretend that we never found it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree chat EC countries still represent the largest and richest market for manufacturers in the world? How can it possibly be in our interests to cut ourselves off from that market? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer lies in making our manufactures sufficiently competitive for European consumers to choose to buy them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, it would be prudent for those who are engaged in wage negotiations to consider the type of wage negotiations that are going on in Germany and to contrast them with some of the absurd demands that are being made in Britain.

Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given include steel manufacturing? If so, are we not in danger of becoming over-generous compared with some of our European partners?

I always try not to be over-generous with our European partners. My business is to try to be as generous as possible with Britain. I understand that the figures include steel, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our steel industry was almost destroyed by the ravages of the Beswick review and other idiotic affairs of that type.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demand for overall industrial protection, which is implicit in many of the supplementary questions that have been fired at him, are utterly inconsistent with Britain's need to earn its living in a competitive world?

My hon. Friend is right. It is theoretically possible for us to put up barriers and to prevent our people from buying goods in the most advantageous markets, but we cannot force the rest of the world to buy our goods against its will.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese have managed to penetrate the European market, despite all the problems? Does he further agree that the lesson for British workers and management is that, if the Japanese can penetrate the market, the answer lies in their own hands?

Yes, but I only wish that it were a little easier for all European manufactures to penetrate the Japanese market. That seems to be rather difficult, and the reason does not always lie in the quality or price of the goods.

The Prime Minister professes to be puzzled by the fall in the pound's value. Do not the calamitous figures which the Secretary of State gave at least offer part of the answer? How can the Government continue to talk convincingly about economic recovery when this deficit, which is worth 1 million jobs in British industry, is allowed to continue and to grow? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the issue is being considered by the special working party which he set up to examine our disastrous decline in manufacturing trade? Will he assure us that, despite his public show of indifference, he, at least, is taking the matter seriously?

If it were a question of our balance of trade and balance of payments, sterling would, in general, have been lower under Labour Governments than it has been under Conservative Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations which he has consulted about his proposed new draft regulations concerning the safety of child buggy pushchairs.

The consultation documents on the proposed new safety regulations for pushchairs are available in the Library. They include a full list of those consulted.

Recognising the deficiencies in the existing regulations, will my hon. Friend say when he hopes to introduce the new regulations? Considering the serious, albeit few, accidents that there have been with the collapsible type child buggy pushchair, can he reiterate that that form of perambulator comes within the scope of the existing regulations?

On the second point, I can confirm that the existing regulations apply to buggies, and they will be covered also in the new ones. On the first point, the regulations will come into effect later this year.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary bear in mind that when the regulations were introduced in September 1978, after the death of children, they were described as the first step? Why are we still waiting for the second step six and a half years later? Has he read Which? magazine, which carried out a survey in 1982 and found that five of the 20 pushchairs that it checked were unsafe, that half of the owners of the buggy type of pushchair, and a quarter of the owners of the traditional type of pushchair, reported that they had had accidents, and that in one in 20 of those accidents a child had been injured?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's points. We are making new regulations to BSI standards, which will be put into practice as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in his Department's west midlands initiative.

The primary object of the Department's west midlands initiative was to increase the application of new technologies and new production techniques in the industries of the region, and that was achieved. Much of the region has now been granted intermediate area status, and hence the emphasis of the Department's work there has shifted to regional assistance.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he tell the House what hard results he has to show for his efforts for innovation, new products and new processes in companies in the west midlands?

I am delighted to report to my hon. Friend some of the excellent results achieved during that period. More than 1,200 companies received grants to introduce new techniques and machinery into their existing manufacturing processes, support under section 8 and under support for innovation totalled £70 million, and levered a total spend of £200 million in a cost-effective market-driven manner.

How does the Minister reconcile his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) with the fact that money available for technology has been reduced, as he knows? The two do not add up.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If he is referring to the support for innovation programme, he will know that it was significantly increased for the current financial year. The moratorium, to which I think he is referring, was invoked because awareness of the programme arrived like an express train and the application rate consequently increased. During the first few months of this year we therefore spent what had hitherto been a total year's allocation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his original reply is most encouraging? Will he make further efforts and do everything that he can to encourage and help the car components industry, which in its way is even more important than the car industry?

The car components industry was one of the major recipients of expenditure under section 8 and, indeed, under support for innovation. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the excellent work that is going on, for example, at Warwick university with BL Systems and two other key companies, which are trying to spread best practice in innovative manufacture of components throughout the British motor industry.

Is the Minister aware that for most industries in the west midlands his so-called initiative was either stillborn or died of paralysis? Is he also aware that since the Government came to power we have lost one third of industrial manufacturing capacity in the west midlands and one third of jobs in manufacturing totalling 225,000? Is he further aware that in the west midlands the phasing out of capital allowances, the massive hike in interest rates and the moratorium on regional aid amounts to nothing more than a further prolonged period of disaster for that region?

The Labour research department has fouled up again. The hon. Gentleman should know that section 7 assistance, the type of assistance that applies in the west midlands, is still being used in that region. There is no moratorium on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to provide assistance to smaller firms to help them to cope with the problems caused by late payments of bills by large firms.

I share the concern about the serious difficulties which that practice can cause for small firms. I have recently invited organisations representing industry to join me in examining possible initiatives.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider withholding DTI grants from those firms which do not settle their accounts, or delay settling their accounts, with smaller firms?

My hon. Friend advocates a course of action that has been suggested to me on a number of occasions. My immediate reaction to the suggestion is that that approach would be a recipe for bureaucratic complexity.

Will the Minister recognise that, as well as large firms, among those most guilty of this practice are local government organisations, many of them Conservative-controlled? Will he also recognise that in a period such as the present, with ruinously high interest rates, the late payment of bills can mean the death of small firms? If legislation is not appropriate in this matter, will he give consideration to the Government backing a code of practice, which can then be operative in the field?

The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the problem that I identified in my answer to the substantive question. It is important that we should stop short of legislation, as he seems to be suggesting, because a problem may arise where small firms may not be paying the bills of other small firms on time and where small firms may not be paying the bills of large firms on time. I should prefer to see some code of practice initiated by industry rather than by the Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the measures that he has introduced to help small businesses in Britain, for which they are deeply grateful, but is he aware that many of the small companies in Britain are having inflicted upon them the large companies, who are dining out on the overdrafts of those small companies, and that many of those large companies are enjoying massive Government contracts? Is it at all possible that one or two of those companies could be exposed as late payers to help the small businesses?

I doubt whether there would have been anything wrong if my hon. Friend had chosen to expose one or two of those companies in his question to me. If there is evidence that a number of large companies are delaying the payment of bills, I shall be grateful to receive it so that we can look at it more carefully.

I have noted the reply to the question from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). Will the Minister also have regard to the problems facing small industry and the help and protection that it needs because of water charges? Will he have a word with his colleagues—

Order. The question is about the late payment of bills.

This is a problem, because the water authorities demand payment immediately and the increase in water charges is causing a problem for small firms. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues to try to get some easement for small firms?

Certainly I am prepared to discuss the matter with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

Will the Minister recognise that, disastrous enough in itself as the 4 per cent. increase in interest rates has been for small firms, that increase worsens the problems outlined in the initial question? Will he further recognise that not only does it make it massively more expensive for small firms to finance the cash gap caused by this practice by large firms, but the higher rate of interest encourages large firms to delay payments even more?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday at Question Time, it is a disappointment to see interest rates at this level. We all hope that the present level of interest rates is only temporary. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the effect could be worse if inflation were to rip as it did under the Labour Administration. I must take the opportunity to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome his new interest in small firms. We were appalled when in a debate on small firms on 18 January the official Opposition—

Order. I think that that is also a bit wide of the subject of late payment of bills.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for improving publicity for the small firms service.

I am keen to ensure that small business men are fully aware of the advice and information available from the small firms service. We are at present advertising in the national and regional press to promote greater use of the service.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Why is it thought necessary to run a Government information service through the small firms service when private initiatives are being taken in this regard?

The small firms service provides a national facility, which offers consistent quality. It does not seek to compete with other initiatives, which are very welcome. It is a complementary service to local initiatives. Those services offered at local level are very much appreciated.

Will the Minister attempt to ensure not only that the small firms service is known throughout the community but that small firms are assisted to become known throughout the world? The deputation that is to go to China does not, so far as I am aware, contain any representatives of small firms. That is a great disappointment to small firms in my part of the world. What steps has his Department taken to ensure that small firms are represented on such delegations?

Small firms are normally well represented on delegations abroad and the British Overseas Trade Board is anxious to encourage that. I shall certainly consider seriously the particular point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done for the small firms service. Does he not agree that there is room for involving people apart from those who would otherwise be retired in giving advice to potential small business men on developing businesses, in that the older people tend to be slightly out of touch with current developments concerning small business advice?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am anxious to encourage people who are working in industry, some who are semi-retired and some who are retired, to come forward. Many of them will have a significant contribution to make. It is important to underline that in the local enterprise agency movement mushrooming throughout the country we have a source of business counselling dealing with problems at the sharp end, which is invaluable.

Does the Minister recall that in the 1979 election campaign the Conservative party said that it intended to help small businesses because that was where jobs would come from? Since then, year by year, more and more small firms have fallen by the wayside. Does he appreciate that if nothing is done about that problem there will be no small businesses left to publicise?

If the hon. Gentleman would open his ears rather than his mouth, a whole new world might be opened up to him. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, a net increase in small firms in this country has led to greater employment. I am glad that he referred to the commitment to small firms in our 1979 manifesto. We have consistently continued that commitment, but it was notably absent from the Labour party manifesto in 1979 and also in 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to place contributions by companies to political parties or for other political purposes on the same legal footing as contributions by trade unions to political parties or for other political purposes.

I have no plans to do so.

Will the Secretary of State explain why trade unions need to have a political fund and are now required to have a ballot, but companies do not need a political fund before contributing to political parties? Does he recognise that the way in which the Government have used their majority in this Parliament can only be described as a form of political corruption?

I do not recognise that at all. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that companies and trade unions are governed by completely different statutes and are set up for completely different purposes. He would be the last person to want standards of company law applied to trade unions. If they were so applied, I can think of at least one prominent trade unionist today who would probably have been prosecuted for the way in which he has debased the union for which he works, destroyed its power, corrupted its members and wasted its money.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the annual general meeting of a company allows shareholders to express their opinions each year? Does he further agree that it would be a good thing if trade union members had the same right to express an opinion in that way each year?

Yes, I do. Again, however, my hon. Friend must not assume that unions and companies should be run in the same way or governed by the same kind of statute. One must also keep a sense of proportion in these matters. In 1981, for example, in respect of their political funds trade unions spent £4·8 million or 12·8 per cent. of the amount that they spent on benefits to their members. When companies donate money to political parties it is more like 0·02 per cent. of profit or turnover. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the total?"] According to The Economist, the total is about £2·5 million. Moreover, the figure that I gave for trade unions excludes spending such as the £1 million campaign to "Kill the Bill" — a Bill which is now in good health as an Act of Parliament and helping to democratise trade unions. My figure also excluded £1 million spending by NALGO on another fruitless exercise against the interests of its members.

If the Secretary of State is ever tempted to go down that road, will he stop the nonsense of having ballots on the existence of political funds and instead introduce ballots for the party to which the funds should be donated? Is he aware that that would prevent the current attempt by the Labour party to camouflage the fact that 80 per cent. of the political funds of the trade union movement go straight into Labour party coffers?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I wish there was more consistency in these matters. Perhaps he will tell us at some time whether the president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, asked for ballots of members of APEX when it was giving money to the Labour party, and whether the SDP has sought and obtained donations from companies without requiring the companies to ask their shareholders.

Accepting the Secretary of State's point about the need for a sense of proportion on the matter and the fact that the laws for trade unions and companies are different, would it not be a good idea to consider this from the point of view of the House? If it is right to control political expenditure by trade unions, surely it is equally right to control it by companies. If he considered it that way, could we not have an interesting argument and dialogue and come to a conclusion that accepts both sides and is not based on party dogma?

It is always a sign of a pretty rocky case in the House when an hon. Member says, "Let us decide this without reference to party dogma". One knows that the hon. Member is trying to slip a quick one in somewhere.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong in any company giving a political donation? If Opposition Members care to read any annual report, they will realise that all declarations in excess of £500 are already declared.

My hon. Friend is right. Once again one has to look at these things in the round. I am indebted to the New Statesman of 30 November 1984, in which I read that part of the Labour party's jobs and industry campaign for this year includes a strong recommendation that the Labour party should approach companies for political donations. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) should speak to his own party about these matters.

Despite all the attempts by the Secretary of State to cloud the issue, is it not crystal clear to any fair-minded person that what the Government want to see is special controls on the political funds operated by trade unions but none whatsoever on the companies and corporate forces that support the Conservative party? Is that not blatantly and grossly unfair from any standpoint?

No. There are controls in each case, but because of the different natures of the organisations they are different controls. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the 1908 Act, which first arranged the compact, as one might call it—

1913.

I think that the 1908 Act was the first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right on the date. The Act in question provided that the union had to have a ballot of its members to authorise the setting-up of a fund. Whether those ballots were held just after 1908 or 1913, there cannot be many of that electorate who are still left around and it is about time there was another ballot.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what prospects for increased Anglo-Soviet trade resulted from the recent visit of Mr. Gorbachev.

When I met Mr. Gorbachev last month we agreed that trade between our two countries should be developed on a long-term basis. Mr. Gorbachev said that he hoped for an increase in trade of 40 to 50 per cent. in the short term and we discussed a number of opportunities that would help us to achieve this objective. These are now being actively pursued by the companies concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Russian promises to ease restrictions on mutual trade are borne out in practice, and further ensure that when Russian cruise ships, which offer lower grade cruises than Britian's luxury cruise ships, use British ports they receive fair and equal treatment?

I shall be delighted to look at the point raised by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms went bankrupt in 1984; and what is the total number of bankruptcies since 1979.

Provisional 1984 figures for Great Britain are 8,509 bankruptcies and 14,210 company liquidations. In the six years 1979 to 1984 there were 34,862 bankruptcies and 61,785 company liquidations. The bankruptcy figures include deeds of arrangement, and cover all individuals and partnerships.

Does the Minister agree that the figures are a terrible indictment of his Government? How many more firms will go bust as the pound declines and interest rates reach record level, s? Will he tell us the truth for a change?

I shall tell the hon. Member another truth — the number of new company starts is also at a record level with almost 100,000 new starts in 1984 alone. In other major industrial countries the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies in the last few years has been very high. Perhaps the next time that the hon. Gentleman visits the Red Army in Afghanistan he will stop off at one or two countries and find out for himself.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many bankruptcies are caused by poor management, but that occasionally companies run into difficulties because of unfair trade barriers set up by other countries? Is my hon. Friend aware that Siemens sell telex machines and telecommunications equipment on the British market and that other companies, such as Olivetti, have telex equipment on sale and approved in this market but that British telex and telcommunications manufacturers are not allowed to sell in Italy, Germany, Japan, France and most other countries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he can provide details I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will look into that.

Will the Minister be realistic and rectify what is happening in my constituency, where virtually every week, without fail, bankruptcies occur? Is the Minister aware that the construction company for which I worked, which is now over 100 years old, will close its doors on 1 February? Is he also aware that, because of Government policy, that company has gone out of commission? Does the Minister remember the 1979 Conservative manifesto in which promises were made to smaller companies and to industrialists in general? Finally is he aware that companies are now sadly disillusioned with the Government? Pray God that they will vote Labour at the next general election.

I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman seeks aid from yet another place. The point is that manufacturing investment in companies in the market today amounted to £6 billion in the year to September 1984. That was up 16 per cent. on the year before. Retail sales were up 4·5 per cent. in real terms in 1984 compared with 1983. There is no shortage of demand in the market. The challenge is for British companies to meet that demand.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of firms in the city of Leicester went bankrupt because they were crucified by a monstrous rate bill imposed by the city council?

I am sure that that is correct. It applies to many companies, especially small companies, throughout the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that because the deposit on a debtor's petition and the minimum debt to support a creditor's petition were increased by 100 per cent. and 120 per cent. respectively in October last year, the figures which he has just given the House do not fully reflect the full severity of this immense and record surge in business failures? Is the Minister further aware that if the figures are disaggregated they cast a yet more unflattering light on Government policy because they show that, following the imposition of VAT on home improvements, business failures among glazing firms have doubled and that even in high technolgy — computer manufacturers and distributors — so much touted as a success by the Government, the failures have doubled?

Even taking into account the increase in the debtor's petition, the monthly figures show a levelling off in the number of bankruptcies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recent representations he has received on his decision to alter the criteria governing regional aid.

About 120 written submissions on the changes in regional industrial policy have been received since my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry announced them on 28 November. Ministers in the Department have also had a number of discussions with right hon. and hon. Members and others about local and general industrial development questions against the background of the new policy.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concede that the five or six criteria in the new policy for regional aid are adequate to respond neither to the underlying unemployment trends, such as job vacancies or youth or long-term unemployment, nor to the inherent industrial problems of an area such as mine in north Staffordshire? Will he recognise that his plans leave an area such as north Staffordshire in a worse position, sandwiched as it is between two areas to which he has given aid? Will he therefore reconsider his plans?

I fully understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's question, particularly in the light of the pending early redundancies. However, I hope he will agree with me that there was no other way for the Government to proceed but upon objective criteria, impartially applied, and paying due cognisance to the core factor, which was the absolute level of unemployment and the level of long-term unemployment. On that basis, and on the travel-to-work-area basis, unfortunately — or perhaps one should say fortunately — Stoke was not sufficiently disadvantaged to qualify.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the west midlands welcomes the modest change in regional aid in our area, but could he help us about what the effect will be upon BL, a company which is owned in the majority by the taxpayer? Although in the past BL needed aid to save it from bankruptcy, it has now become a successful company. Are the Government, as the major shareholder, willing to invest further in its success so as to secure the jobs that are most desperately needed by the motor industry and the west midlands.

My hon. Friend referred to the new changes as modest, but I am bound to say that industrialists in the Birmingham area do not see it in that light. I would cite as evidence the fact that 2,000 companies have already made inquiries about the workings of the system, of which 10 are from the inner city area of Birmingham, with which I know my hon. Friend has some preoccupation. As for BL, we look at its applications for various forms of assistance on their merits, but at the moment there is no application, either formal or informal, before us. We are also anxious to continue the support that we give to the BL component suppliers, which BL regards as a very important part of the industry.

On top of the Government's recent discriminatory refusal to give to Scottish old-age pensioners the heating allowances that they are dishing out in the south of England and in the midlands, does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in Scotland we feel that we are also being discriminated against on industrial aid—

Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Member's question to regional aid.

I did, Mr. Speaker, refer to industrial aid. What proposals do the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have for restoring to the Scottish economy the £100 million that they have embezzled from it?

I find that a most incredible assertion. Scotland has received significant aid,, from this Administration and from many other Administrations during the last two or three decades. Not only has Scotland received significant aid, but the Scots were not discriminated against during the last evaluation of assisted area status. Scotland has been subjected to exactly the same criteria as the rest of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the small firms service answered during 1984.

During 1984 the small firms service dealt with 279,201 inquiries in Great Britain.

Is this not a most encouraging figure? Does it not demonstrate quite clearly the resurgence of interest in the starting up of new businesses? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the quality of the advice that is being given as well as with the quantity?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure is encouraging. For counselling cases it seems to improve year on year. I am very proud of the small firms service. Nevertheless, it should be reviewed. I am concentrating upon a review of that service right now.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Her Majesty's Government favour a new round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

Yes, provided the preparatory discussions show good prospects of success.

When are these talks likely to take place? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom depends very heavily upon trade and that we must aim further to reduce barriers? Therefore, when these talks take place will my right hon. Friend insist that those countries to which we experience difficulty in exporting freely, such as Spain and Japan, significantly reduce their trade barriers?

It would be a prime aim during the talks and in other fora to ensure a genuine opening-up of the Japanese market. With Spain coming into the European Community, there will be free trade between Spain and the rest of the Community in a comparatively short time. No one can yet tell whether there will be a round of talks on the GATT, but I think that there will preliminary talks this year and every likelihood of substantive talks towards the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total volume of cheese exported from the United Kingdom in 1984.

Thirty-two thousand tonnes of cheese and curd were exported in 1984.

Is the Minister aware that producers in my constituency have been advised that they should expect a cut in the exports of cheese to markets such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the Caribbean? Are the Government taking any steps to impose such an artificial restriction? If so, what is the reason for that?

Some of those points are probably matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales. I know of no plans deliberately to limit exports. We export a great deal of cheese, not only to the countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but to Algeria. A great deal of Cheddar cheese is exported all over the world.