asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the 10 largest manufacturers of aerospace equipment in the United Kingdom.

The largest manufacturers of aerospace equipment in the United Kingdom include: British Aerospace, the Dowty group, Ferranti, GEC, Lucas Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Shorts, Smith Industries, Thorn EMI and Westland.

Will the Minister continue to assist Shorts in exploiting its well-known expertise in the aerospace industry?

Yes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Rolls-Royce is now producing the 535 E4 engine for the Boeing 757 which is the only engine to power a large jet which can land at airports which operate a curfew through the night, that it is proof of British excellence, and that airports, such as Heathrow, need not fear its increased use for day and night-time flights?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. He will be aware that the Government have given considerable support to Rolls-Royce in recent years. Most recently they have given £70 million of launch aid for the RB 211 535 and £60 million for the V2500 which was announced some months ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

The Minister will no doubt accept that Westland Aircraft is a vital component of the British Aerospace industry. Does he agree that it is important that that company should be able to go into the European collaborative projects of the early 1990s in as strong a position as possible and that therefore some of the delays that we are now experiencing over the AST 404 decision are unhelpful to the company?

As the hon. Gentleman would have heard if he had been present for defence questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement gave reasons for the possible delays in the AST 404. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. I note the hon. Gentleman's other point.

Does the Minister accept as one of his most important tasks the need to give positive direct and indirect help to preserve jobs in advanced technology in aviation and at the same time to preserve that technology? Will he give full support at all times to civil and defence projects?

Part of my brief in my right hon. Friend's Department is to take responsibility for advanced technology. Much of the activity of the aerospace industry is in that area. As we have said in the House many times in the past, we see no advantage to the United Kingdom in losing the vital capability to design as well as to manufacture advanced technology products.

Does my hon. Friend agree that delays in reaching a decision on the European fighter aircraft could seriously prejudice British Aerospace's design and manufacturing capability? Will he do all that he can to ensure that a quick decision is reached on the matter, or give us an assurance that a national programme will be put in hand instead?

As I think my hon. Friend is aware, the Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the Ministry of Defence on this development. I would not agree that there have been significant delays. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the date of the next ministerial meeting to consider the matter has slipped by about six weeks from the date originally envisaged. The Government take the point that no unreasonable delay must be allowed.

The Minister cannot shrug off his responsibilities as a representative of the sponsoring Ministry for Westland. Notwithstanding whatever was said yesterday, will the Minister undertake to use his best offices to ensure that perhaps even a small production order for the W30 helicopter is secured from the Ministry of Defence? The rumours in The Mail on Sunday and other newspapers are having a damaging effect on the export prospects of that company's products.

There is no question of shrugging off responsibilities. I have already told the House that we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence on this and other matters. We are fully aware of the company's loading and future aspirations. We shall continue to work with the Ministry of Defence.

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

In 1984, exports from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union increased by 65 per cent. to £735 million, while imports from the Soviet Union rose by 17 per cent. to £854 million, producing a balance in the Soviet Union's favour of £119 million.

I welcome the reduction in the imbalance of trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union compared with previous years, and recognise that many of the imports are processed for re-exporting from this country. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that countries entering into the COCOM agreement to restrict the export of certain technologies and products to Eastern bloc countries abide by that agreement, and that it is not unilaterally broken at the whim of any one country?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. COCOM works by unanimity. I know of no example of a country trying to do what my hon. Friend is protesting about. If he has any evidence that it was being done, we would investigate the complaint as a matter of urgency.

Will the Minister take a look at the list of items which may not be exported to the Soviet Union? One firm in my constituency, which is engaged in high technology, is prevented from exporting commercial packages and microchips to the Soviet Union, despite the fact that the same products can be bought virtually over the counter in London. There is no doubt that the restrictions are circumvented in that way. Would it not be better to reconsider the list and open up the possibility of trade to all such firms?

There must be some restriction on exports to Soviet bloc countries. The list was reviewed last year, and I hope to make an order setting out a new list, which will be laid before the House in the very near future. The list is kept continually under review. If there are any specific points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

If the Soviets are to restore growth to their economy, will they not have to accept some forms of financial incentive and decentralisation, and will they not also require massive imports from the West? Will that not therefore offer great opportunities for British manufacturers, financiers and traders, outside the restrictions on strategically important high technology exports?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Exports from the United Kingdom to the Soviet Union increased by 65 per cent. last year—an extremely good figure. When Mr. Gorbachev was in London, he said that he hoped that over the next few years there would be an increase of another 40 to 50 per cent. The chances are very good indeed.

Does the Minister agree that, following the election of Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, the time is right—[HON. MEMBERS: "Election?"] Mr. Gorbachev was elected by the Praesidium. It would be helpful if Conservative Members paid some regard to the diplomatic niceties, if they wish to advance our trade with the Soviet Union.

Yes. When I saw Mr. Gorbachev in December we discussed the possibility of drawing up a new programme for a long-term trade agreement between our countries. I look forward to seeing his colleagues, who are coming in June for the United Kingdom-Soviet joint trade commission. I hope that we shall draw up a new trade document then. We shall certainly be prepared to consider further exchanges, either by trade missions or some other way, to increase the already great increase in British exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Tourist Authority; and if he will discuss with him the level of British Tourist Authority funding.

I am next meeting Mr. Bluck on 15 April. I expect to discuss a range of issues with him concerning the promotion and development of the United Kingdom tourism industry, which I am very pleased to see has just had a record year and seems set for even further growth in 1985.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of my interest in the tourism industry. Does it remain Government policy to invest in success? Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike the spurious claims of cuts in the National Health Service, there has been a cut in real terms in the budget of the British Tourist Authority overseas? Can he tell me of any other investment by the taxpayer which has been so cost-effective?

Of course we want to encourage tourism. It is a great growth industry and a positive prospect for employment. My hon. Friend is right, there has been a cut in real terms in the budget of the BTA, but it was relieved of some responsibilities in 1983. Furthermore, spending on tourism as a whole—the English Tourist Board, the BTA and section 4 — has broadly kept pace with inflation. We strongly want to encourage tourism.

Is the Minister aware of the recent increase in tourism in industrial areas and the efforts of some northern cities to attract foreign tourists to learn some of the history of our industrial areas and to visit local museums? Will he discuss that with the British Tourist Authority and help it to encourage that process?

I entirely agree. Cities such as Bradford have done remarkably well, as has Liverpool—

And Leeds.

And Leeds, the hon. Gentleman prompts me. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the BTA. We want to encourage such domestic tourism.

As to investing in success, when my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BTA, will he discuss an investment which the chairman could make through the ETB in the Birmingham convention centre? Following the success of the national exhibition centre, it will create thousands of jobs and bring prosperity, through business tourism, to the midlands, and especially to Birmingham. I should be obliged if he would take that chance.

I shall certainly discuss that matter. When my hon. Friend talks of investing in success, he should bear in mind that our intention is to support the boards so that they can support British tourism. The overwhelming proportion of the money invested in tourism will and must come from the private sector.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the real contribution that tourism makes to regional economies? Is he further aware that it is important, especially in respect of section 4 grant-aid, to make additional funds available to increase the quality of tourist attractions?

I am aware of the importance of tourism to the regions and areas such as the south-west. When I announced the conclusions of the review of tourism, I said that we intended to maintain the level of section 4 assistance, which we have increased to £8 million. That remains our intention.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the BTA, will he emphasise the need for Yorkshire and Humberside, and especially the seaside resort of Bridlington, to receive treatment equivalent to Wales, which has hitherto had a much greater share of resources than its population warrants?

The comparison should be between not the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board and Wales, but between the English Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. I am aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to introduce measures to promote the growth of the United Kingdom aerospace industry; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to add to those measures which already exist to help promote growth in the United Kingdom aerospace industry. The Government have given considerable assistance to the industry in recent years. It is our intention to increase further the international competitiveness of the industry by returning to the private sector as soon as possible those parts of the industry which remain under state control.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that equality of opportunity exists in the Short Bros factory in Belfast? Does he also accept that, as Shorts has made a commitment to use a small site in west Belfast, that site should be used by the company for future apprentice training?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth prospects for the United Kingdom aerospace industry as a whole would be enhanced if the Ministry of Defence were encouraged to make the attrition order for Tornados to keep the lines going throughout the country, and that every encouragement should be given to ensuring that the European fighter aircraft project gets off the ground so that the United Kingdom benefits throughout the length and breadth of the land? Will he use his considerable influence with the Ministry of Defence to put that into effect?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I am sure he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read this exchange tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had any further discussions with the Honda car company concerning its Swindon site; and if he will make a statement.

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

Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate to hide behind the cloak of business confidentiality, because people want to know what the British content will be if a project is built at Swindon? What will be the effect on the fortunes of British Leyland? As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I should like to know whether Wales was seriously considered for this project. Alternatively, because of recent Government changes in regional policy, is Wales now so much less attractive to potential investors?

I am not sure to what project the hon. Gentleman is referring. Honda has publicly stated that it has no firm plans for an engine-making plant or for full car production in the United Kingdom. It is not just convenient, but it is absolutely necessary to shelter behind the cloak of commercial confidentiality, as anyone will realise when discussing such matters with companies which might invest in this country. The hon. Gentleman has raised the same question as he raised last time. I wish that he would make up his mind whether he is against any project or whether he wants it in his constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the delight in Swindon at Honda's interest in that town, as well as the full-hearted support from all parties for the move that Honda is proposing? Will he give an absolute assurance that in no way will he be tempted by the hints of centralised planning from the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)?

I have noted what my hon. Friend has said, as, I am sure, has Honda.

Inward investment is bound to be welcome, but is the Minister at all concerned about the loss of design, research and development capacity in industry? I hope he will accept that we do not want a series of screwdriver operations, thereby losing the skills and abilities which are so necessary to our future.

Of course we are concerned about loss of research or design capacity, but in this hypothetical case we are talking not about a loss but about a potential addition. It is Government policy on any inward investment to take account of the effect on domestic industry.

When discussing inward investment, and especially any proposals from Honda to produce vehicles or components in this country, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems identified by the Ford Motor Company—that, in view of the present state of the European market, there is too much production capacity, and that that company is seeking to eliminate some of its own capacity?

If a company wishes to come to this country, using its own money, it is up to that company to judge whether there is overcapacity in this country. People may wish to invest here without any Government support or involvement, but if the question of Government support arises we certainly take account of the points raised by my hon. Friend.

We do not wish the Minister to betray any commercial confidences, but we would welcome any increase in research and development or production of motor cars in this country. Nevertheless, the terms must be right. Will he confirm that he will not consider any takeover bid by Honda for Austin Rover and that inward investment from abroad will not be regarded as a substitute for a continued heavy research and development and production effort by Austin Rover? Will he also consider further Government assistance to Austin Rover on merit, not on the usual Government prejudice?

Any proposal for inward investment requiring Government assistance must be on the basis that the terms are right. We have regard to the local content, especially as there are conditions relating to the import of Japanese cars into this country. No proposal for a takeover of Austin Rover has been put forward, and I decline to answer such hypothetical questions. We shall, of course, consider carefully the impact on indigenous producers of any proposed investment by any vehicle manufacturer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies he has undertaken of Government assistance to small businesses in other European Economic Community countries.

My Department keeps continually in touch with other EC Governments' measures in the small business field.

Does the Minister accept that the imposition of rates as a cost to small businesses is unique in Europe in that it is not related to any ability of the businesses to pay? Will he undertake to make representations on behalf of small businesses to his colleagues who are studying the rating system to try to alleviate that impost?

As the hon. Gentleman implies, that is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Nevertheless, I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is extremely nice to have all-party support for attempts to reduce rates. That has not always been evident in all parts of the House.

In the past my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have taken note of any EC initiative to help small businesses, such as the loan guarantee scheme and improvements in employment legislation. Will he guarantee that if another good idea comes out of the EC that, too, will be introduced here?

Yes, indeed, but we have quite a few good ideas of our own. We are determined to go on removing any burdens which can sensibly be removed from small firms to increase their expansion and numbers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the latest progress achieved in the privatisation of British Shipbuilders' interest in Southampton.

I have asked British Shipbuilders to sell all its warship-building interests, including Vosper Thornycroft, by 31 March 1986. I understand that British Shipbuilders hopes to issue a sale document for Vosper Thornycroft by the summer. Vosper Shiprepair is also on the market and British Shipbuilders is in discussion with potential purchasers.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Is he aware that the continuing delays have caused much anxiety among the work force? Will he ensure that British Shipbuilders does not delay any further in implementing these important privatisation measures?

I know that British Shipbuilders is anxious to get on with the matter. It is not always easy to handle all the sales at once. It is getting on as quickly as it reasonably can, and certainly I shall give it all the help that I can to complete the task.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new steps he is taking to encourage tourism in East Anglia.

The Government will continue to fund the promotion of all areas of England, including East Anglia, through the English tourist board and to provide an economic climate in which this sector can continue to grow and prosper.

I am grateful for the reply, and East Anglia is grateful for what the Government have done but will the Minister speak to the English tourist board and do something about its preoccupation with advertisements for Stratford, Oxford, Caernarfon and Edinburgh, and encourage it to broadcast the allure of Foul Anchor, Prickwillow and Pidley Fen?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's personal interest in tourism, as I had to pay, not an extortionate, but a handsomely priced car parking fee when I went to the Walberswick crab fishing festival last year and used his car park.

For charity.

I shall certainly draw the attention of the chairman of the tourist board to the hon. Gentleman's point. It is our intention that the regions of England should be able to market themselves strongly through the tourist board's activities. I am in favour of some devolution from the ETB to the regions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Budget changes in national insurance contributions will stimulate employment in the tourist industry in East Anglia by making it possible for people to accept lower paid jobs in that service industry, and that, therefore East Anglia will be ready to meet the large influx of tourists which my hon. Friend is helping us to achieve?

My hon. Friend is right. The changes in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will make a considerable difference to the economics of the hotel and tourism industries.

asked the secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increases have occurred in input costs for manufacturing industry over the past 12 months; and to what extent these have been offset by improvements in productivity.

Comparing 1984 with 1983, material and fuel costs of manufacturing industry rose by 8 per cent., while wage and salary costs increased by 8·75 per cent. The strong productivity performance, up 4·5 per cent., allowed the increase in unit labour costs and manufacturers output prices to be limited to 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively.

I welcome the increase in productivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that as a trading nation we must compete with the performance of other countries, and that the creation of jobs depends on that? Does he further agree that in that respect it is essential that our unit costs rise less than those of other countries? How has our performance been in that respect?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in drawing attention to this problem. Unit labour costs continue to rise too fast compared with those of our competitors. On the latest figures available, unit labour costs in manufacturing fell during the past year by 5 per cent. in Japan, and 2 per cent. in Germany. They remained static in France and rose by 1 per cent. in the United States.

Is it not the case that total factory production has fallen by 8·7 per cent. since the Government came to power? Will the Minister tell us when he expects the total ex-factory production in the United Kingdom to reach the point that his Government inherited in 1979?

The hon. Gentleman's statistics are incorrect. Productivity has increased considerably in the last two quarters. We see no reason why it should not continue to do so.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the effect that the increase in raw material costs priced in dollars has had on the British Steel Corporation. Has his hon. Friend who attended the Steel Council meeting yesterday informed him of what success he had in increasing BSC's steel quota, the United Kingdom's steel quota or United Kingdom steel prices? What is the prospect of offsetting those increased costs?

My hon. Friend will agree that that matter does not arise out of this question, but I am sure that he will find ways of drawing his point to the attention of my hon. Friend.

To what extent are high interest rates impeding industrial expansion?

Obviously, to some extent. We estimate that higher interest rates have added about £230 million for each 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, but we should not consider that in isolation. Many firms will benefit from the lower value of sterling. It is interesting to note that the 4·5 per cent. increase in base rates in January is equivalent to about 1·25 per cent. of companies' pay bills. Therefore, to return to the original question, a modest slowdown in the growth of earnings would offset the damaging effect, if any, of the increase in interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the current estimated savings by his Department for 1984–85 as a result of privatisation schemes.

There have been no privatisations of the functions of my Department in 1984–85. Savings as a result of contracting-out of services are estimated as at least £600,000 in this financial year.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that small firms are given every opportunity to tender for those schemes?

Yes, Sir. Several contracts have been placed with small firms for cleaning, data preparation, reprographics, press cuttings, the printing of British Business and workshop services.

What savings have been made by privatising parts of the steel industry, especially with regard to Phoenix 1 and 3? When will there be an announcement on Phoenix 2? Are steps being taken to restructure the BSC engineering steel division before Phoenix 2 is announced?

All those matters are currently under consideration in the Department.

Will my hon. Friend, as a Minister in the Department, underline the position that every company, big and small, in the private sector, as a matter of course, considers its ancillary services to see whether they would be better handled in-house or out-of-house? Does he agree that that message must be hammered home, especially to Opposition Members, who seem to have forgotten that simple fact?

It is an important part of Government policy to transfer work out of Government Departments when that is commensurate with sound management and good value for money for the taxpayer.

How can the Minister justify small savings from privatisation when British consumers and industry can lose so much as a result of procurement decisions by, for instance, British Telecom? Will he assure the House that no decision will be taken by British Telecom to go ahead with systems X or Y until Professor Bryan Carsberg has completed his investigations on behalf of Oftel?

The Director General of Oftel made a statement on that matter on 22 March. He will consider the implications of any such move.

As it seems extremely likely that British Telecom will acquire some digital exchanges from Ericsson, is my hon. Friend satisfied that Plessey and GEC have reciprocal access to the Swedish telecommunications market, where Ericsson has almost a state-assured monopoly?

Most European countries do not have easy access to telecommunications. We are anxious to ensure that those markets are open to British industry, just as British suppliers are seeking quotes elsewhere.

Has not the Minister just admitted that the Government abide by the rules, while all our competitors break them as often as they can? Is it not high time that, instead of apologising for that, Ministers took the more robust defence of British interests as their most important objective?

We make a robust defence of the interests of British consumers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to facilitate the registration of new companies.

The time taken to incorporate new companies has been reduced to 15 working days under the simplified procedures introduced by the Companies Act 1981.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that his Department is making in this respect. However, with the enormous number of companies being formed, is it not important that we continue to simplify this process, as some people find it difficult to fill out all the forms?

I will be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend of any difficulties that his constituents have experienced.

Of the new companies that have registered in the past five years, how many are flouting the law by refusing to file their annual accounts? Is the Minister aware that about two fifths of companies in Britain are disobeying the law by doing just that? As the Government are always shouting about the importance of the law, what energetic steps are they taking to ensure that private business obeys the law?

The backlog is being reduced vigorously and action is being taken against companies which fail to file their accounts in time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions are attached to the block exemption of the motor industry from the competition rules of the treaty of Rome.

Those designed to help give consumers the benefit of a genuine common market in motor vehicles.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but is he satisfied that the distribution system under the new regulation can possibly be in the interests of the consumer?

There is little doubt that the new regulation, when it comes into force, will help the consumer. It is a difficult matter to get a common market in motor vehicles that is properly effective in Europe, not least as the German decision on vehicle emissions has tended to lead to even greater fragmentation of the market.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the present arrangements allow for the necessary price reactions by manufacturers to future changes in taxation and currency among EEC member countries?

Yes, there are protections for the manufacturers, and that is why comparisons with prices in markets that are distorted by excessive taxation or price controls are excluded. It is interesting, in the light of the noises being made a few moments ago about the need to protect British industry rather than the consumer, that there is so little comment from Labour Benches now. They want it both ways.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems is that while we may have a Common Market, there are not common conditions throughout the market?

Yes, that is absolutely correct and that is why some parts of the market will not be used for comparative purposes, as it would be unfair to do so. I wish that we could persuade somebody from the Labour Benches to get up and say a good word for the rights of the consumer to buy his motor car at the most advantageous price in the European market.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from organisations representing the textile and knitwear industry regarding the need for an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement; and what response he has given.

I have received representations from the TUC, the British Textile Confederation, the British Clothing Industry Association and the Knitting Industries' Federation and from individual companies in those industries. I have told these bodies that their views, and those of other interested parties, will be taken into account in the formulation of the Government's policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that substantial concern persists in the knitwear and textile industries, which are major employers of labour, that Ministers are taking an ambivalent attitude towards the extension of the MFA? Will he give an assurance that he understands the disastrous effect that there would be on employment if the arrangement were not effectively renewed as soon as possible?

I take note of my hon. Friend's comment. The Government are consulting all concerned and in due course will make a statement. The MFA does not completely run out until the end of next year, so there is still some time.

Does the Minister not understand that there will be massive job losses if the MFA is abandoned or radically liberalised? Does he not understand also that in west Yorkshire one in three manufacturing jobs are in the textile and clothing industry? As the so-called Budget for jobs has done nothing for areas such as mine, will he give a firm, clear and unequivocal assurance that the Government are committed to renewal of the MFA, and a tough MFA at that?

I looked recently at the figures for the Yorkshire wool industry, and I was glad to see that the wool textile sector increased its exports by 23 per cent. last year. All of us want to see a flourishing clothing and textile industry. The Government are consulting, and the figures for unemployment which the hon. Gentleman cites are by no means agreed. This is a matter of great importance, about which the Government are entitled to think clearly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the textile, clothing and knitwear industries are the country's fourth largest employer, that unanimously the representatives of those industries have demanded a renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement and that the Silberston report, which comes to some very ridiculous conclusions, provides no substantive evidence for those conclusions? Unless the Government renew the MFA, not only in 1986 but subsequently, unemployment in this country will increase and an important manufacturing base will be undermined.

I note my hon. Friend's views and I understand the feelings expressed by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. Naturally, it is a factor which will be taken into account.

That was a pathetic reply.

Is the Minister aware of the urgent need to give confidence to this major employer and exporter to invest in new plant, material and machinery? Confidence is needed now. Post-Silberston there is a lack of confidence in the industry. The Minister must act quickly on the MFA to restore confidence so that investment can take place.

Of course the Government will have to act with reasonable speed about the matter. On the other hand, I have already pointed out that the MFA does not expire until the end of next year. On an issue of very great importance it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to consult all the interested parties. I am to see some of them tomorrow. I think it is a bit rough to be expected to announce a decision today.

I understand the generality of our stance against protectionism—

It is not protectionism.

My hon. Friend should ask his own questions.

I do, I do.

Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) must contain himself.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite right.

I take my hon. Friend's question extremely seriously. He raises a very important point—[Interruption.] I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman takes that attitude. The textile and clothing industry is a very important industry. British textile and clothing exports rose by over 15 per cent. last year to almost £2·5 billion. The Government take this question extremely seriously. All of these points will be borne in mind, and of course I note the views of the House on this matter.

As the European Community has just vetoed any extension of Government support for the textile industry, and as the Government themselves have deliberately debarred the industry from any modernisation assistance under regional development grants, will the Minister take this opportunity to give the industry a categorical assurance that the Government will fight for a strong MFA?

I have now answered this question about nine times. I have already said that the Government are consulting all the interested parties and will announce their conclusion at an early date. I take note of all the points of view expressed by the House. I think that some of the right hon. Gentleman's preamble was misleading, but I certainly take note of what the House thinks.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the trade implications of the liberalising of frontier arrangements between France, West Germany and the Benelux countries.

So far, the trading implications of this possible move are not clear.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfortunate if Her Majesty's Government and Lord Cockfield subscribed to all the theories and good intentions involved in creating a common market, but showed reluctance when it came to the practical steps?

I agree, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that there are important reasons why we should take particular care of our sea and airports—to ensure that we do not allow criminals in and that we protect animal health. For important, overriding international reasons we should care about what goes on at our ports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom trade deficit for 1984 with Japan; and what action the Government intend to take to rectify this position.

The visible trade deficit with Japan in 1984 was £2,870 million. I shall take the opportunity of my forthcoming visit to Japan to encourage measures to open Japanese markets to United Kingdom exports.

Does my right hon. Friend not find the figures extremely disturbing? Is the Japanese market now open to British goods and services to the extent that the British market is open to Japanese goods and services?

No, it is not.

If it is not, will my right hon. Friend tell the Japanese that the time for prevarication is over and that we want action? Will he tell them that if they do not open the market soon the pressure for retaliation by Britain will be irresistible?

My hon. Friend rightly points to a deep-seated problem which is also experienced by others. The Americans have a deficit on trade with Japan of $32 billion and the Federal Republic of Germany has a deficit with Japan of $3·9 billion, compared with our deficit with Japan of $3·4 billion. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my Japanese hosts the fact that they have a great interest in the open trading system and that if that system is seen not to work because of protectionist measures by any country the whole system will be threatened.

Has the Secretary of State noticed the Japanese determination to resist foreign ownership of its telecommunications industry? Does that not contrast with his policy of selling off and selling out Britain at the drop of a hat?

I thought that there was general applause for the concept that the Japanese economy should be made more open, not that we should try to close our economy. We are vigorous in our action when Japanese malpractice can be proved on such matters as dumping. Vigorous antidumping measures have been taken by the European Community in recent months.

What about the importance of employment?

My hon. Friend will not have an answer to his questions if he shouts them at me from a sedentary position.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm that while Japan is a specialised and complex market, a number of well-established British trading companies in Tokyo are willing and able to evaluate the suitability of British products for the Japanese market and to help with marketing?

Yes. British companies are succeeding in the Japanese market. It is a difficult market, not only because of restraints that may be imposed by the Japanese Government, but because of cultural attitudes in Japan. Many British business men do not speak Japanese, whereas many Japanese business men speak English. The Japanese are exceptionally good at maintaining quality and delivery times, whereas in the past that has not been a special characteristic of British manufacturers, who are perpetually hindered by the universal support for every trade dispute, however absurd, by Opposition Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on recent trends in British trade.

Underlying export volume has been rising since mid-1984. Indications are that this will continue in 1985. CBI surveys show manufacturers increasingly optimistic about export prospects.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the improved prospects for the engineering industry in the east midlands where some of the bigger firms now have order books extending for 15 or 18 months? Does this not augur well for exports and show that Britain really does mean business?

My hon. and learned Friend is right. It is not merely a matter of what is happening in Leicester, but that manufactured exports, excluding erratic items — [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is going on below the Gangway, but I ask hon. Members to listen to the answers.

As I was saying, manufactured exports, excluding erratic items, are 12 per cent. up in volume terms in the latest three months against the equivalent three months of a year ago. That is against imports, which are only 7 per cent. up, so there is good news there.

Does the Secretary of State think that it is good news that we now have a £4 billion deficit in the balance of trade on manufactured goods? Is that some sign of the success of the Government's policies?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman gets rather boring about this matter, and I shall have to be rather boring about it, too, I am afraid, and give him the elementary lesson that it is unlikely that any country can maintain a surplus on every category of trade or with every one of its trading partners. The crucial point is that for the past five years consecutively we have maintained a surplus, and that has not been done since the end of the war—

Oil.

Yes, and oil is an exported item just like textiles.

Oil will run out but textiles will not.

Order. That is very uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). [Interruption.] Well, I think it is very uncharacteristic.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that our international competitiveness is being undermined by unit labour costs in this country arising considerably faster than those of our major competitors overseas? What do the Government intend to do about that?

It is not a question of what the Government can do because we do not believe that it is right to run an incomes policy, because every one that has been run in the past has failed. I am interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman's party is now committed to introducing an incomes policy and to backing it with a measure to freeze wages. That will interest the electorate when it is put to it just as much as the proposals of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for an incomes policy will interest his colleagues in the trade union movement when they are put to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The European Commission will have to express a view on behalf of member states in July in the GATT textiles committee discussion as to whether the multi-fibre arrangement should be extended, modified or discontinued. The Government are carefully considering what our policy should be.

Does the Minister appreciate that he will continue to get a rough ride from the House on this issue and that some of his hon. Friends will describe his replies as pathetic until he makes one simple statement, namely that the Government are committed to the renewal of the MFA? Will that statement be made within days, weeks or months?

It will be made at an appropriate time, and clearly it will be made before July, when the decision has to be taken.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the last report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on Britain's export and import performance, and the importance attached in it to maintaining the MFA because of the practices of many of our competitors outside Europe, particularly in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia?

We shall naturally want to study what the Select Committee has said, and I shall take particular note of my hon. Friend's point.

Will the Minster bear in mind that a large percentage—probably more than 50 per cent.—of all the textile and clothing imports to this country come from developed countries, not from the MFA countries? What are the Government proposing to do about assisting the textile industry to compete with those countries?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a very important point. It is perfectly true that a large number of imports of textiles come from developed countries that are in no way covered by the MFA. The House must address its mind to that problem, and not only to the problem relating to the MFA.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the textile industry that is most successful is that which is not protected? Is it not able to export to Hong Kong and Japan textiles made in this country? It has benefited most, and so have the consumers benefited by that activity.

There was certainly an extremely successful exhibition, sale and sales promotion of British textiles and clothing in Hong Kong not long ago, so. I agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will bring forward new proposals to assist industrial development in Amble.

I have no plans for proposals specifically to assist industrial development in Amble, although companies there are, of course, able to take advantage of nationwide Government schemes of assistance for industry in exactly the same way as companies anywhere else, provided that they meet the relevant criteria.

As the Minister says, those forms of assistance are nationwide and available to all the competing areas with far lower levels of unemployment. Will he come and look for himself, and realise that his decision to exclude Amble from regional development status was a mistake and is something that he should rectify?

We are not planning to review the map again so soon after we announced the decision. The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on several occasions during Question Time and on Adjournment debates. He knows the reasons why we decided to exclude Amble. I am afraid that the matter cannot be reconsidered at the moment.