asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Honda company concerning engine manufacture and full car production at its Swindon site; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

My Department holds discussions with Honda from time to time, as with any other potential inward investor in the United Kingdom. Such discussions are commercially confidential.

What is the Minister doing to protect the interests of British Leyland, bearing in mind all the money that has been invested in that firm and all the jobs that are involved? If Honda is allowed to engage in car production, will the Minister ensure that there is a high level of local content? Will the Minister state whether Honda will be allowed to import built-up cars, as some other multinationals are doing? Finally, what is the Minister doing about the location? Why does he not persuade Honda to go to a development area, or has his bargaining power been undermined by the changes in regional aid?

The hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers that Honda has publicly stated that it has as yet no firm plans either for an engine making plant or full car production in the United Kingdom. If Honda or any other Japanese or foreign company were to think of investing in the United Kingdom and approached the Government about it, one of the facts that we would consider would be the effect that it would have on producers in the United Kingdom. That would also influence any decision about assistance towards a plant in a development area, or any of the assisted areas. We would certainly consider the effect on existing producers.

Will my hon. Friend consider extremely carefully any proposal that may come from companies, such as Honda, to produce vehicles in the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the over-capacity in the European manufacturing network, which is further exacerbated by the intention of Nissan to increase its output to 200,000 units a year, and the fact that any additional capacity must have a grave effect on the employment prospects in the existing motor industry?

Obviously, we would take into account what my hon. Friend says about capacity. That is what I meant when I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the effect on existing producers. We would also consider the degree of United Kingdom content that was to be in any project, exactly as we did for the Nissan plant. I hope that hon. Members will not go overboard about the matter. If a company wishes to come to the United Kingdom, does not want a Government grant, is not going to an assisted area and wants to invest some of its own money in manufacturing capacity, we do not have the power to stop it coming. It might think it rather odd if we tried.

The Minister has just sought to reassure the House, but we, too, want to be sure that he will give adequate consideration to the needs and interests of existing car and component manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Will he bear in mind that as this matter comes so soon after the massive cut of £300 million a year in regional aid, it would be seen as a massive betrayal of the areas of highest unemployment if he used section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 to give comparable or better terms to such an employer to go outside assisted areas?

We have not been approached for assistance either inside or outside an assisted area, and so the question does not arise. If the question of aid did arise, as I have already said twice, we would take into account the effect on existing manufacturers. However, I must stress to the House that if a person wants to invest hundreds of millions of pounds of his own money in new manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom, the decision is essentially for him, although obviously we shall take those factors into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends that Britain should take internationally to curb protectionism.

The United Kingdom, through the European Commission, challenges protectionist measures in other countries and upholds its rights under the GATT. We support proposals for a new GATT round which will play an important role in reinforcing the open trading system. We also press for freer trade in our regular bilateral contacts with other Governments.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust support of free trade, but what advice—equally robust, I hope — would he give to those in the United States currently advocating a 20 per cent. import surcharge to cope with balance of payment problems?

It would be most regrettable if United States industry sought to solve difficulties made in the United States at the expense of the rest of the world. The United States steel industry, in particular, has some way to go in changing certain rigidities and methods of doing business.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not all countries take such an upright approach as he does and that this operates to the detriment of our exporters?

Few Governments and few people take such an upright approach as I do, but it usually pays in the long run.

Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps to protect horse riders in this country by banning the import of non-BSI-approved riding hats?

My hon. Friend raises a mildly esoteric point. Unusually for me, I should like notice of the matter and will write to my hon. Friend about it.

Was the proposed 20 per cent. import surcharge discussed by the Prime Minister on her recent visit to Washington, and, if so, what were the results? If British goods were to be covered by the surcharge, would that not be further proof that the Prime Minister's visit to Washington was more an ego trip for herself than of any benefit to Britain?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that whenever he gets to his feet he is on an ego trip. If he had listened to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday he would know that she raised with the United States Administration the threat of protectionism. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate, however, that even in the perhaps somewhat overheated atmosphere of last year's election in the United States the President and the Administration were robust in resisting calls for protectionism, and I hope that they will remain so.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's initiative in trying to get another round of GATT talks going, but is he aware that there is increasing protectionism in the United States and the suggestion of almost Socialist limits on imports and financial quotas? As with unilateral disarmament, will my right hon. Friend avoid throwing away the one area in which our own exporters can achieve some protection by imposing such measures on others?

I am not a believer in unilateral disarmament in this or any other matter, but there is a clear need for a great deal of disarmament in the matter of protectionism. I hope that we shall continue to be able to persuade the United States that its own interests, as much as those of the rest of the world, lie in free trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much it has cost to import oil and coal into Britain during the present coal industry dispute; and from which countries these imports have come.

In 1984, imports of coal and oil amounted to £8·8 billion. Figures for each country are published in the December edition of Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister think that the CEGB is acting legally in running up a £2 billion debt, and how does it intend to finance that enormous deficit? Does he agree that the issue should be debated in Parliament on the basis of figures provided by the Government rather than leaks in the press?

As the hon. Lady well knows, issues concerning the CEGB are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall not comment on other issues related to the miners' strike, save to express the hope that the hon. Lady will add her voice to those urging a return to work to get this ghastly strike over.

Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the cost to British industry of the restrictions imposed on the CEGB for many years with regard to coal imports, and on how many jobs have been lost in British industry because British coal is far too expensive?

Obviously we need an internationally competitive coal industry. Matters such as the CEGB and the coal industry are for my rght hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Is the Minister aware that in the last 12 months, because of the dollar-sterling exchange rate, the price of coal imported into Britain for industry has increased by nearly 50 per cent.? Is he further aware that many pits which have been classified by the Government as uneconomic could now be described as economic in view of that expensive imported coal?

We do not want to have to import coal, and we want an internationally competitive coal industry. Opposition Members and Mr. Scargill and their friends seem determined not to protect but to destroy jobs in Britain and to protect the jobs of American, Australian and German coalminers, from whose countries we have had to import coal.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aid that the Soviet Union has given to maintain the coal strike in this country has been the best investment that the Soviet Union could have made, as it has enabled it to sell us substantial quantities of coal that it would not otherwise have been able to do?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. The fellow Socialist workers of the Soviet Union and Poland seem to have taken the maximum advantage of the situation, which they obviously do not see as a pre-revolutionary one.

Does the Minister agree that the tragedy of the present dispute is that our balance of payments could have benefited enormously from increased coal exports had we had security of supply and an increasingly competitive industry, rather than one that is being dragged down at tha tail end by uneconomic pits that are making coal prices too high?

The hon. Gentleman is 100 per cent. right. Inside our coal industry is a successful coal industry trying to get out. This country, with its enormous riches — 300 years' supply of coal — should be exporting coal and using the coal industry as a wealth generator, not as a wealth consumer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress; and what matters were discussed.

I met Trades Union Congress leaders, including the general secretary, on 12 March 1984 when the subjects discussed included industrial restructuring, Government support for research and development and regional policy, as well as industrial policy in the European Community.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that he met the general secretary of the TUC again? If he did, would he be able to explain why he has no plans to encourage jobs in mining communities, which, by their policies, the Government are out to destroy? Would he be able to tell him what hope exists for youngsters in areas such as mine, where 42 per cent. of all 25-year-olds are out of work? Would he be able to tell him what the prospects are for young miners whose only crime has been to have been on strike, to have pilfered morsels of coal and to have lost their jobs?

I am sure that if the TUC general secretary wishes to come and discuss those matters with me, he will get in touch with me. He has not yet done so, no doubt because he has been too busy trying to talk some sense into such an obdurate man as Mr. Scargill.

If my right hon. Friend has a further meeting with the leadership of the TUC, as he has been invited to do, will he invite Mr. Willis to try to talk some sense into the leaders of the railway unions so that the railways can start moving ore and steel into the steelworks of Britain, a situation, which is continuing to cost the British Steel Corporation about £3·5 million a week? What effect does he think that this continuing policy will have on railwaymen's jobs?

It is clear that if the policy that has been pursued by some railwaymen of blacking coal trains were to continue, it would have a serious effect on the jobs of railwaymen and the finances of British Rail. It would probably be best, therefore, for the railwaymen whose jobs are being put at risk to have a word with their union leaders and put those leaders straight and remind them that their jobs are at risk unless they do what is in the interest of the membership.

When the TUC met the Secretary of State and discussed regional policy, did it raise with him the proposal being studied by the Minister of State to reduce the grant-in-aid to the North of England Development Ccouncil by up to 30 per cent.? In view of the ever worsening employment figures in the north of England, does he not think that instead of reducing the grant he should increase it to allow for an additional promotional effort? Is it not high time he said to the Minister of State, "Knock it off, Norman, it is not on"?

I suppose that is something which could be said both ways these days between the general secretary and me — I do not know. The general secretary would indeed have had to be endowed with great gifts of prophecy had he raised the matter on 12 March 1984. In regard to the merits of the issue, if the general secretary wants to come and talk to me about the matter, he is free to ask to do so. Of course, what the hon. Gentleman should remember is that the amounts of money which have been made available for the purposes of which he speaks have been increased.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met British Aerospace representatives to discuss the future of the company.

I see the chairman of British Aerospace plc and his senior colleagues frequently.

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the future of the company will be in grave jeopardy if the European fighter aircraft project does not go ahead? Does he not agree that jobs in my constituency and in many other constituencies and the British aerospace industry as a whole will be affected adversely if something does not happen shortly? Does he not recognise that that would cost the Exchequer a great deal in lost tax and in the payment of more unemployment benefit? Does he not agree that it would be better to let the project go ahead and keep people at work?

My hon. Friend no doubt knows that the Government and my Department in particular are fully aware of the issues he raises. The question is less one of when and whether the project will go forward, than of one in what form. That is what is occupying our attention at present.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulties that have arisen about selling the super 748 to the LIAT company? Is he aware that 10 countries wanted the 748, that the airline wanted it and that the Caribbean Bank wanted it, but that the European Commissioner said no? Will he ensure that the European Commissioner does not say no in future?

I cannot give the House an undertaking that I can prevent any European Commissioner saying no in future. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the satisfactory outcome that appears to be in prospect in regard to that matter. The Government have offered support in the form of grant-aid from the aid trade provision representing 38 per cent. of the value of the British Aerospace bid. The balance of the contract price has been offered on normal terms.

Bearing in mind the way in which my hon. Friend is always keen to promote exports, will he consider the difficulties that beset British Aerospace, in that if it cannot get export credit guarantee cover for exporting, it should not be expected to pay a levy of 7·5 per cent. to the Ministry of Defence on a successful sale? Will he have words with his opposite number in the Ministry of Defence to try to introduce some rationale?

These matters are frequently the subject of close exchanges between my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence and our Department.

Does the Minister agree that British Aerospace is not dependent upon the award of the contract for the RAF basic trainer, whereas Short Bros in Belfast would be justified in having that contract, since it receives only 2 per cent. of defence work?

I hope the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that the prime consideration has to be the technical acceptability of the aeroplane for the needs of the Royal Air Force. Only when that has been assessed — that process has not yet been completed by the Ministry of Defence — can consideration be given to any of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has rightly brought to the attention of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will complete his Department's repackaging exercises on assistance to small businesses and publish the new literature.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology announced on 12 November 1984 that new arrangements for regrouping all the Department's assistance schemes would be introduced within five months. That remains our intention. We shall make a further announcement nearer the time when the change takes place.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his repackaging and rescheduling of the programme. What are his future intentions for presentation?

I should point out to my hon. Friend that I am paid. I am not paid enough, but I am paid. The presentation arrangements will be the subject of a detailed announcement before they are introduced. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in July 1984, they involve grouping the supportive measures of the Department of Trade and Industry under four headings: support for advisory services, support for investment, support for innovation and support for exports.

Will the Minister take a leaf out of the Scottish Development Agency's book and publish a guide for England similar to the one that is already published in Scotland, which outlines clearly and in one publication the assistance that is available to small industries north of the border?

We have already produced an effective and, I think, widely accepted document entitled "Help for Growing Businesses" and another one that is called "How to Make Your Business Grow", which has met with wide support throughout the country. I am considering publishing a guide that could be fitted into the pocket which would provide a signposting service to those important people we are trying to help who are running small businesses.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he continues with his exercise of assistance to small businesses he will produce in due course a legislative framework which will ensure that there is a coherent policy for small businesses?

As I said in a debate on a private Member's Bill on 18 January 1985, I am concerned about the number of initiatives that are coming forward. There may need to be some composite framework to enable initiatives to be brought forward. The most important thing that the Government can do is to concentrate on the economic environment in which small businesses operate.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the performance of those businesses which his Department has returned to the private sector, whilst retaining a financial interest.

Not merely satisfied, but pleased and encouraged.

My right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that his opinion on these matters coincides with my own. Will he confirm that all the businesses that his Department has returned to the private sector have improved their performance as a result? As this makes jobs both more numerous and more secure, we all look forward to his pressing ahead with privatisation in other areas.

Yes, in general all the businesses which have been returned to the private sector have been doing very well, for example, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, Jaguar, Tyne Shiprepairers, Allied Steel and Wire, Inmos, and Goole shipyard. The House may be interested in the example of Cable and Wireless. Since privatisation its profits have nearly trebled. The Government's income from our 23 per cent. holding is now roughly the same as that which we received when we were the sole shareholder. Our 23 per cent. stake has a stock market valuation of over £500 million, which is a little more than the valuation of the entire company when we first sold 50 per cent.

But what about the future of Johnson Matthey? Why is access being denied to the records of the company? Is something being hidden?

It has not been privatised. It does not arise on this question.

Can my right hon. Friend give an update to the House on the privatisation of British Airways? We are all anxious that privatisation should go ahead, and an update from him would be useful.

We are so closely approaching the further sale of shares in British Aerospace that it would be wise for me, not to say anything about that matter without careful consideration. British Airways is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I hope that he will be able to make a statement in the not too distant future which will presage the launch of British Airways back into the private sector.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the establishment of Sheffield Forgemasters, which, if I remember rightly, was code named Phoenix III, has been a near disaster, not just for the British Steel Corporation but for the private sector company involved? In connection with the Phoenix II scheme involving a merger of BSC Special Steels with the GKN Brimbo works, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that GKN is now advertising in the South Yorkshire Press for a manager with experience of continuous casting for its Brimbo works where there is no continuous casting at the moment? Does that not support the view that I have expressed before that Phoenix II will not happen?

There is no guarantee of success merely because of privatisation. It is the lack of guarantee that makes success far more likely. There was no guarantee of success for the firms involved in Sheffield Forgemasters or the possible participants in Phoenix II. There is no guarantee of success if those parts stay in the public sector. The hon. Gentleman characteristically forgot to mention Allied Steel and Wire, which is by far the biggest privatisation and is extremely successful.

Does the Secretary of State believe that, since its return to the private sector, British Telecom has taken sufficient cognisance of the effects on British industry and the consumer of its procurement policy and, in particular, its decision to purchase the derived services system from AT and T and its decision on system Y? Does he agree that the long-term interests of British industry and consumers should come before short-term profit motives?

Yes, I do. That is why it is wise to put such firms back into the private sector where such long-term considerations are not distorted by short-term political considerations.

As the Tornado aircraft is of considerable importance to at least one of the companies properly denationalised, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great shame that the Treasury is denying ECGD facilities for the sale to Turkey of 40 Tornado aircraft, which amounts to about £1 billion?

I have no information that such an order has been placed nor that the Treasury, as opposed to ECGD, which is part of my Department, has denied credit to cover such an order. It could not be, since an order has not been placed. The whole raison d'être of exporting, like any other form of business, is to ensure that one sells to a customer who is well able to afford the purchase price and accept the credit terms that might be involved.

With regard to British Telecom, is the Secretary of State aware that BT's imminent decisions to purchase an alternative switching system to that of system X from an overseas manufacturer will have damaging consequences for United Kingdom telecom manufacturers, European co-operation and the export prospects of system X? He is anxious to take what credit he can. Will he now face his responsibilities? Does he agree that it is a matter for his attention under part I, section 3, of the Telecommunications Act 1984? It should be a matter under which he could give a general direction under part III of that Act to the Director General of Oftel to investigate the reason and the need for British Telecom to take that decision.

British Telecom has the prime duty of serving its consumers. That is of vital economic importance. It is one of the reasons why companies are now coming back from overseas into the City of London to enjoy good telecommunications facilities as opposed to the position when his Government were in office and British Telecom was being mucked around from one end of Whitehall to the other and companies were leaving the City of London because they could not get adequate telecommunications. In acting in the best interests of the consumer, British Telecom will be acting in the best interests of the British economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a statement about the review of the small workshops scheme.

A statement will be made when the review of the scheme is complete.

Can my right hon. Friend comment on the success and encouragement of the private sector in the provision of workshops?

The scheme has encouraged more private sector provision of workshops, without any doubt. Our preliminary study in 1982 found that the number of small workshops provided each year had probably tripled since the scheme was introduced.

The Minister will be aware that there is something like 19 million sq ft of vacant industrial property in Manchester. If it is not put to good use for small business units or received.-tech, it will fall into dereliction and demolition. What is the Government's policy on the financing of refurbishment?

The hon. Gentleman may be impressed to hear that I made a regional official visit to Manchester to see some of the small workshops operating In his constituency and outside it. I found to my great surprise that some of the costs that were to be charged to the small business man were far too high. It has to be recognised that, certainly initially, the rents have to be relatively low to encourage these people to come into small workshops.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable interest in the scheme in Norfolk? Does he agree with me that it is imperative to keep it going, if only on a limited scale, applying to a smaller square footage?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I shall draw his attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the budget for export fairs by the British Overseas Trade Board for 1985–86 and 1986–87.

The net expenditure provision for the export promotion services administered by the British Overseas Trade Board is £27·7 million for 1985–86 and £27·4 million for 1986–87. The BOTB set out its provisional allocations of this money to individual programmes, including overseas trade fairs, in a consultation document circulated to industry last December, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It will be reviewing the allocations in the light of comments received.

Is my hon. Friend aware that shoe exports to the United States are booming at present, but the strong dollar will not last and the industry faces high and unfair tariff barriers against it, particularly in the Commonwealth and in that arch-protectionist country, Japan? Will he therefore ensure, when he sets the budget allocation for overseas fairs, that he targets that money against those countries that unfairly discriminate against us?

I am delighted to hear of any industry that takes advantage of the favourable trading conditions now pertaining arising from the dollar exchange rate, and that the shoe industry in particular is now making its presence felt in that market. I am aware of a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised on behalf of his constituents. We shall certainly take into account in the current review the comment that he has made.

Is the Minister aware of the concern of the chemical industry about the proposed changes in the future activities of the BOTB, because it believes that these changes could lead to lesser representation abroad and gaps which individual companies could not fill?

One of the areas of concern has been the change that may result in less support for those who go regularly to the same markets and to the same sort of promotion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw some encouragement from the proposals made by the BOTB, which emphasise the support that should be given to the smaller firms, which are not represented in large measure in the chemical industry but are in most other industries, particularly the first-time visitor to a new market, for whom the contribution is being reduced.

In carrying out this consultation, will my hon. Friend make sure that he has up-to-date information on what the French, Germans and Italians offer in this field, because from the evidence that I found in south-east Asia we are not yet competing on equal terms in this area?

It is always difficult to compare like with like. With regard to this type of support measure, we believe that the United Kingdom has a level of support which is more or less par for the course. But, of course, there are other ways in which companies can support their trading efforts, and we keep these under constant surveillance. We are anxious to see that our own exporters have an equal chance when faced with these competitive discrepancies.

Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of instances recently where high technology firms, seeking to display their goods at export fairs, have been prevented from doing so because of the American Government seeking to apply their law in Britain? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen in future?

We have to keep the problem in its proper context. The hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange on it last Friday. Although we have to look after British interests, particularly in regard to new technology exports, we should be aware of the immense efforts that Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union are making to strip out strategic exports, particularly in certain delicate areas of software and information technology hardware.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level of co-ordination and co-operation between the British Overseas Trade Board and the regional development associations which sponsor trade missions and the various cultural missions to promote Britain abroad?

I think it is all part of the general package to sell "UK Ltd." effort in the international markets. We are anxious to liaise with and support any measure that enhances the reputation of British goods abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers to impose quotas on the export of scrap iron and steel.

National controls could be imposed only on exports to third countries, not to the European Community. In the absence of an EC export control regime, exports would simply be diverted via another member state, and the controls would be ineffective.

Is the Minister aware that it is very worrying that he does not seem to appreciate the problems of British iron and steel foundries, which have been seriously affected because the price of scrap iron and steel has increased threefold in the past 18 months? Companies such as the Grahamston Iron Company in my constituency have worked hard, on the advice of the Government, to get themselves into a profitable situation, only to have their feet cut from under them by the Government's failure to take action on this very serious problem.

I am very much aware of the current concerns of the foundrymen. I met a large number of them last Friday, representing several branches of their institute. They told me of their concern about scrap prices. We have to decide to what extent it is a temporary phenomenon—there is usually a peak in January and February—and the extent to which co-ordinated European Community action can be brought to bear on the problem. I am also aware of the problem regarding Spain. I believe that the question of the Italian subsidy has been satisfactorily resolved through the European Commission.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, obliged as we are to him for being much aware of the problem, that is no substitute for action in the matter? Is he aware that the reason for scrap metal prices rising threefold, damaging an already bereft industry, is Spain's protection of its steel industry, which enables it to pay more and more for scrap metal? Will the Minister be less aware and more active on our behalf?

The question of Spanish practice in this connection will be resolved entirely when Spain comes into the European Community. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that he requires more action. That action must come within Europe. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will, if appropriate, make representations to the Steel Council if the current phenomenon looks like being permanently damaging.

Does the Minister realise that for him to suggest that we have to wait for the problem to be dealt with until Spain's accession to the Common Market is unforgivable indolence on the part of the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand two things. The first is that we have a surplus of scrap output of 4 million tonnes per annum. Therefore, within the European Community it is virtually impossible for us to take the measures that he requires.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest position regarding the negotiation of an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The European Community will need to express a view in the GATT textiles committee in July of this year, on whether these restrictions should be extended, modified or discontinued. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has been consulting interested parties before deciding what line the United Kingdom should take.

Is my hon. Friend aware that right hon. and hon. Members from Leicestershire and the east midlands will insist that this essential arrangement for knitwear and textiles be extended and that we shall want to see him pressing hard in the Common Market for an effective and realistic marketing policy?

I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will as well. We take representations made by the knitting industry seriously. We have consulted trade bodies in the past few months.

Has the Minister seen the letter from the "Think British" campaign, which expresses deep anxiety lest the Silberston report be accepted by the Government and the multi-fibre arrangement be scrapped? Surely the Minister will not give any credence to that report when he realises that 67 per cent. of textiles in Britain are now being imported.

The hon. Gentleman says that we should not give any credence to the report, but, with a sector that has been as protected as the textile industry—

Rubbish.

Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says, it is difficult to deny that textiles have been the most protected sector of British industry. It is plainly right that we should have some independent assessment of the cost to the consumer and to employment of that industry. It must be right to ask that question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the textile and clothing industry is the fourth largest employer in the country, having at one time been the largest, but having been decimated by unfair competition during the past 50 years? Will he accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and take on board the one recommendation from the Silberston report that makes sense — that the MFA be renewed in 1986? The rest of the report's recommendations are based on utterly unconvincing arguments and, according to the whole of the industry, on no sound evidence. Will my hon. Friend guarantee to continue the MFA?

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate of the textile industry and has a strong constituency interest in it. I am sure he agrees that we must examine these matters from a wider, national point of view. We must consider the cost to the United Kingdom as a whole. I agree that the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry is a substantial employer — it accounts for 10 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry. We must take account of that, but Professor Silberston attempted to answer and qualify whether gains to employment elsewhere, outside my hon. Friend's constituency, could have been greater if there had not been such protection.

And he came up with no evidence.

It is sensible to ask and examine that question.

Is the Minister aware that even Professor Silberston said, as a modest estimate, that 40,000 jobs would disappear if the MFA was phased out? Is he aware that his failure to give a firm commitment to renew the MFA causes great lack of confidence in the industry? Is he further aware that an extension of the MFA is wanted unanimously by employers and employees?

The hon. Gentleman must not leap to the conclusion that we have formed a decision on this matter. He misrepresents the Silberston report. I agree that it said that jobs would disappear in textiles, but it also said that other jobs would be created elsewhere in the economy as a result.

But it did not say where.

Professor Silberston said that prices in the United Kingdom would be 5 per cent. lower and that prices of imports would be 5 to 10 per cent. lower.

But he gave no evidence at all.

Such price reductions would help to create jobs. Any Government with the national interest at hear must ask and examine that question.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the multi-fibre arrangement was first introduced it was for only a short time to allow the industry to become more modern? Does this not show that protectionism defends the inefficiencies of an industry and prevents it from becoming efficient? In addition, is not the MFA a direct attack on the consumer, adding to costs and high prices?

Crass ignorance.

I am glad to see that this issue arouses strong emotions both ways. I think that Professor Silberston demonstrated that many jobs in the textile industry would have disappeared, even with protection, because of increasing productivity and because so much of the competition for our textile and clothing industry has come from within the Common Market. That is where the greatest increase of imports has come from, not from the low-cost countries.

Has the Minister paid sufficient attention and given sufficient weight to the powerful, expert and conclusive criticism from all quarters of the methodology and conclusions of the Silberston report? Will he take this opportunity to dispel the strong impression that the Government do not care about the future of the textile industry? Will he repudiate the Silberston report and make it clear that the Government's policy is to negotiate a new and fully effective multi-fibre arrangement?

The Government care about the textile industry and were responsible for the negotiation of the last round of the MFA. I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that we recognise that it accounts for a large number of jobs, but it is legitimate and right for a Government to attempt to quantify the cost to the customer and the United Kingdom economy of that continuing protection. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has said that everybody criticises the methodology of the Silberston report. He is wrong. Some people, such as Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times two weeks ago, criticise it because it underestimates the cost to the economy and to the consumer. We have to take those things into account.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his robust defence of the consumer in opposing protectionism by measures such as the MFA. I look forward to his negotiating an agreement that will see the end of that in a few years. When and how will he take into account the opinion of the House before he comes to a view in his Department before going to Brussels in June?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and obviously the opinion of the House is important. I hope that, through the usual channels, we can arrange a debate so that opinion on this matter can be expressed. I am grateful for what he said about protectionism. I am sure that he will have noticed the contrast between what hon. Members have been saying in the past few seconds and what they were saying 25 minutes ago about protectionism in the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactured goods in each of the last four years; and what are the trends in the current year.

In 1981 the United Kingdom share of world trade in manufactured goods was 6·25 per cent. This information is not available for later years.

Is the Minister aware that various estimates show that the proportion is decreasing? Is not one of the main reasons for that the fact that since 1979 investment in manufacturing industry has gone down by about 30 per cent. and that in 1984 we were importing £4,000 million worth more of manufactured goods than we were exporting? This is deplorable. What do the Government intend to do about it?

rose—

Never mind the pained expression.

It is a rather pained expression because I find it boring to try to teach the hon. Gentleman basic economics when he is not ready to learn them. I have heard the hon. Gentleman express sympathy for the cause of the less developed world and the newly industrialised countries. I should have thought he would understand that, as they come into the world of manufacturing exports, it is inevitable that the share of some other countries will be reduced and that he will want the developing countries to take a larger share.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that our share of the world's manufacturing market is very seriously affected by the barriers that other countries may raise against us? When he considers a successor multi-fibre arrangement, will he take into account the fact that the United States, which has a considerable market for textile imports, also operates considerable tariff barriers against imports? Will he also take into account the fact that if the European Community were to get rid of quotas without commensurate action being taken by the United States, it would have a serious effect upon industry, particularly upon employment?

Yes, I shall, but my task in combating protectionism in the United States, particularly in textiles, will not be made any easier for me if I find, when I go to the United States, that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) have been quoted there, and I am told that a most robust defence of protectionism is being made and that it is members of the Government party who are making it. Hon Members ought to be encouraged by the fact that in 1984 our volume of manufactured exports rose by 8·5 per cent. over 1983. That is not a bad performance.

But is the Secretary of State aware that it is not the developing countries, but Japan, Germany, France and Italy which have taken our share of the trade in manufactured goods? We are by now familiar with the right hon. Gentleman's pretence that he is not worried about this decline, but will he now come clean and tell us what progress has been made by the special working party that he set up to look into the problem?

I am slightly mystified by this special working party, about which I myself have not heard. I do not want to be boring, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that what matters is not the balance of any particular sector, or any particular trading partner, but the overall balance of trade. Last year was the fifth year running of a surplus on our current account. That record is unsurpassed since 1945.

Oil.

The hon. Gentleman speaks of oil. I strongly suspect that if, in 20 years' time, the shadow Opposition spokesman on trade and industry says that the decline in our oil exports marks a total disaster for the British economy and my successor say, "But look at our manufactured exports," it will be dismissed as irrelevant. The one thing that the Opposition do not like is good news. That is why they have not quoted the latest CBI report on exports, particularly on manufactured exports.

But is the Secretary of State utterly oblivious of the fact that for the first time in the modern industrial history of this country there is a deficit on manufactured trade? Does he realise that any upturn in manufactured exports that there happens to be at the moment is due to the fall in the pound, a fall for which the Government insist that they have no responsibility?

The right hon. Gentleman wants it both ways. I understand that yesterday his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described the fall in the value of the pound as a great British disaster. Now the right hon. Gentleman is saying that it is very good for British industry. The only criticism today is that we were not responsible for it. I wish to God he would get together with his right hon. Friend so that there is some consistency in what they say. I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that our manufactured exports are recovering very well, that an 8·5 per cent. increase in volume over 12 months is not a bad record and that the CBI believes that the outlook is very, very good.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is proposing to solve the problems of skill shortages in the information technology industries.

My Department already supports a number of training initiatives in information technology. In addition, the information technology skill shortages committee, which I chair, will shortly be publishing its final report. That will sum up progress made in implementing recommendations already made by the committee, and will provide signposts for future action.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Obviously the Government have a real interest, but what are Ministers doing to persuade the industry that it should provide training to help provide the people needed?

The first major result of our initial report on skill shortages has already been delivered, and that is the setting up of an information technology skills agency within the education foundation of the CBI. That will specifically charge itself with the channelling of private sector resources into our higher education sector. I hope that the new partnership, which is a market-driven link between industry and academia, will shortly be in place.

What steps will the Minister take about the £2 billion deficit in our trade and information technology? That was supposed to be one of the industries of the future. Will it now be another Government failure?

The information technology industry in the United Kingdom, in terms of both hardware and software, is coming back strongly. There is not a pure deficit in information technology products if consumer electronics such as videos are excluded. But it is the case that the Government will do something about the skills shortage factor, which many of our electronics companies are saying is a major constraint on further development.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not to be regretted that in one hour this afternoon we have covered only some 13 questions? Would the process of achieving greater productivity, which would be appropriate for trade and industry questions, be improved if two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen had not spoken on question 12?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that some of us feel that the recent doctrine that you have introduced of calling two Front Bench spokesmen from the Labour Opposition during the course of statements and other such proceedings in the House is intolerable to Back Benchers who wish to speak. May we have an assurance that we will not now have a further extension of that doctrine, with two Labour Front Bench spokesmen being called on individual questions during Question Time?

The Liberal and SDP alliance had no fewer than five questions called this afternoon. In relation to the numbers in the Chamber that is a fair measure.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) a bit ambiguous? As only one SDP Member is present, there has been no opportunity to call two of them.

Further to a point of order raised earlier Mr. Speaker. You obviously did not see me sitting in the corner of the Chamber. A short time ago the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) raised a point of order—

Order. Have not we dealt with that?

No. This is a serious point. From time to time there are complaints and points of order from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the length of time taken by supplementary questions to Ministers and their replies. I think you will agree that there needs to be a hurrying up of questions and answers—[HON. MEMBERS: "And points of order."] The real problem is at the Government Dispatch Box. Today we have had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spending far too much time attacking the Labour party when he should have been answering questions.

Order. If I may deal with the hon. Gentleman's general proposition, I think that both Front Benches will understand when I say that I am anxious to ensure that more Back Benchers are called. The longer the time taken by Front Benchers on both sides of the House, the less time there is for Back Benchers.