asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, when he next meets the chairman of the Post Office, he will raise the closure of post offices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has recently discussed the criteria for closing sub-post offices with the chairman of the Post Office.

My right hon. Friend has not recently discussed the criteria for closing post offices with the chairman of the Post Office and does not propose to do so.

Is the Minister aware that many people will consider that answer to be unsatisfactory because of the way in which the Post Office is using its position as a monopoly supplier in relation to the closure programme? Why are the Government prepared to intervene in the nationalised industries when to do so is to the public disadvantage, but not when such action would help the public?

I compliment the hon. Gentleman in his persistence, because he had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 23 May. I do not think that he has any quarrel with the Government or with the Department of Trade and Industry. His quarrel is principally with his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was responsible for setting up a Post Office Board with its own board of directors in 1969. It is interesting to note that when the Labour party was last in office it did not intervene once in any sub-post office closure.

Will the Minister nevertheless recognise that the criteria applied by the Post Office to sub-post office closures are unsatisfactory because they do not take account of the wider implications, such as their importance to local communities and the fact that the presence of a sub-post office in a local shop can mean the difference between that shop surviving and closing?

The criteria that are used by the Post Office in deciding whether to keep open or to close sub-post offices were discussed at great length in the debate which took place on the Floor of the House on 23 January. Much more lenient criteria are applied to rural sub-post offices.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed in Shrewsbury about a recent decision to close four sub-post offices. Bearing in mind the recent denationalisation of British Telecom and the responsibility for the provision of rural services placed on that now private company, is it not time that we reviewed the 1981 Act and the code of practice placed on the Post Office so that there is much wider consultation before sub-post office closures, perhaps with a better form of appeal?

There is nothing wrong with the present system of consultation. I appreciate the concern about the proposed closure of some sub-post offices in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that full advantage v/ill be taken of the appeals procedure as it now stands, it may be of comfort to him to know that 10 per cent, of appeals are successful.

I appreciate the constitutional relationship that exists between the Government and the Post Office, but is there a remote chance that perhaps on a social occasion, quite informally, Ministers might raise not only the subject of the closure of sub-post offices but the possibility that at some time in the future first-class post might arrive in somewhat less than three days from the date of posting?

If my hon. Friend has a specific example of mail, especially first-class mail, being delayed, I should be grateful if he would bring it to my attention, and I, in turn, will draw it to the attention of the Post Office Board.

Is the Minister aware that his statement that the Labour Government did not intervene over post office closures is grossly inaccurate? My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), who is present in the House, intervened when Sir William Ryland was chairman of the Post Office Board and stopped it from closing post offices. The Minister ought to correct the misleading impression that he has given. Is he further aware that the Post Office's problem was created for it by the Government, who reduced its external financing limit and caused the closure of 5 per cent, of post offices? The Government were responsible for that policy, and the Minister ought not to shirk that fact.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) intervened. He did so under the general powers in section 11(2) of the Post Office Act 1969, which states that he has power to intervene on matters of a general character for remedying

"a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers."

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals and how many organisations have made representations to him in favour of floating exchange rates in the past 12 months.

None, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that international trade was facilitated and that the British economy worked much better when there were fixed exchange rates? What steps are the Governnent taking to encourage greater order in international exchange rates? To that end, when will Britain join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

As my hon. Friend knows, the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS is not a system of fixed exchange rates. There have been fluctuations in the exchange rates between European currencies and the dollar. Of course all of us, especially exporters, would like a more stable exchange rate, but it is impossible to imagine that there could be a system of fixed exchange rates without enormous pressures on currencies when the rates become substantially out of line with true market values.

How far would European financial stability assist this country in competing effectively with the United States of America?

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), in the last few months there have been enormous fluctuations in the exchange rates between European currencies and the dollar. We should not avoid that problem by joining the EMS.

Is it not important to do everything that we can to limit those movements? Is it not unrealistic to expect an expansion of trade in manufactured goods across international frontiers if we cannot tell from one month to the next what revenue we shall receive for given export orders because of fluctuations in exchange rates?

I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern about the problems faced by exporters, but it is not just this country which finds itself in that position. Every other country has the same system of floating exchange rates. We must try to obtain greater market stability by encouraging sound monetary and fiscal policies, not only in this country but in many others. That was one of the aims of the recent international summit.

Does the Minister accept that there is no such thing as a clean float and that one of the dirtiest elements is the current level of interest rates, which in the last six months has helped to push up the pound against the yen by over 6 per cent, and against the deutschmark by nearly 5 per cent.? Does the Minister think that loss of competitiveness of that kind is helping British business men who are trying to sell in international markets?

It is impossible to please the whole House on this issue. Whatever the rate of the pound may be, the Opposition will criticise it. The real point is that it is impossible to move against market pressures on any one currency if those pressures are sufficiently strong. It is an illusion to imagine that fixed exchange rates can work in a situation of that kind. We saw what happened when the Labour Government tried to operate such a policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department now provides to Business in the Community and to local enterprise agencies.

In the current financial year Business in the Community is receiving a grant of £75,000, and £175,000 has been allocated for support of local enterprise agencies on a pump-priming basis.

I thank my right hon. Friend for those figures. Is he aware that not only has Business in the Community helped to set up many successful small businesses, but that it has helped to prevent one or two ill-conceived ventures from going ahead, thus avoiding the pain and the distress that would have been caused when the crunch eventually came? May I ask my right hon. Friend to build upon that success by asking the British Overseas Trade Board to liaise more closely with local enterprise agencies in order to encourage the enterprising smaller firms to become more involved in exports?

Certainly. My hon. Friend has made two good points. The Department's regional offices cover BOTB regional services. They have, of late, been increasing their links with the local enterprise agencies, and we have encouraged them to use the whole of the Department's services. We have also been making presentations on exporting to local enterprise agencies and to other organisations gathering small firms together. That is why, I think, some 75 per cent, of BOTB users are, indeed, small firms.

Has the Secretary of State any plans to assist those mining communities which are about to lose their pits, which are their only source of employment? Has he any plans to assist areas such as mine?

I should be happy if local enterprise agencies were formed in such areas. The concept of the local enterprise agency is that it should be a community, and predominently private-sector, based organisation, although of course a good deal of the funding comes from local authorities and central Government. In addition to my Department's spending, the Department of the Environment contributed £843,000 last year through the urban programme, while the Development Commission contributed £12,000. The Welsh Office contributed £150,000 through the urban aid scheme and the Welsh Development Agency contributed £34,000. Furthermore, the Scottish Development Agency has contributed £280,000. In several areas where there are problems associated with pit closures, funding is clearly therefore available for local enterprise agencies. I hope that some of them will be of help to those setting up in business in such areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its first 18 months of operation Business Initiatives Carlisle, a local enterprise agency, helped to create more than 100 small businesses with more than 200 jobs? Does he agree that although his investment of £175,000 in local enterprise agencies is most welcome, it is desirable to give yet more resources to such agencies, because helping successful organisations, such as BIC, is one of the best investments for creating jobs that the Department can make?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. However, one of the keys to the success of local enterprise agencies is that they have not become the mere creatures of Government but have very live and valuable support from local industry. It is local industry that benefits most from supporting other parts of local industry. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that funding is predominantly of a local nature.

I welcome the Secretary of State's support for Business in the Community and local enterprise agencies, but will he say something about the future of the Department's small firms service? Is he aware that many small businesses welcome the service provided by his Department? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to pass it over to the agency or to other parts of the private sector, or to close it?

The Department is extremely interested in continuing with its support for small businesses. That is, not least, why we are very active in pursuing policies that are directed towards removing the burdens of Government from small businesses. That is something that is best done through the Government, not through any other agency. Thus, whatever happens, we will remain extremely active in our support for small businesses.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications for regional assistance have so far been received in the newly designated assisted area in the west midlands.

Up to 24 May, 369 applications for assistance had been received by the Department's west midlands regional office.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Perhaps I could put to him the equally important question: is he satisfied that west midlands industry has been adequately informed about the range of assistance available under regional aid so that it might not say that it has not been given sufficient information?

That is unlikely, as we have received more than 7,000 inquiries about regional selective assistance since the scheme's inception. Indeed, in case of doubt, we have gone out of our way to advertise such services, with about 40 seminars, which have been attended by more than 4,000 business men. My hon. Friend might like to know that the inquiries received by the Department and those that have become firm applications are equal to £100 million of expenditure— that is, grants of £11·8 million—which would create or safeguard about 7,400 jobs.

Is the Minister aware of the large-scale redundancies and closures in the west midlands and the fact that, apart from Northern Ireland, that region now has the largest percentage of people unemployed for longer than 12 months? When will the Government recognise the tremendous harm that they have done to the west midlands by their disastrous economic policies? The people of the west midlands want to be able to earn their own living again, but there is no sign that such a policy will come from this Government.

The Government have done two things. First, they have categorised parts of the west midlands as assisted areas. I have given information that shows that potentially there is a great deal of help available for firms in those areas.

When dealing with the applications, will my hon. Friend ensure that they are not simply transferring existing jobs from one part of the country to another? Has he considered the possible inadvertence of enabling a foreign manufacturer to reduce his surplus manufacturing capacity at marginal cost by assembling in this country? Will he look carefully at the activities of the Sprick Corporation of West Germany and the possible adverse effects on TI Raleigh in my constituency?

Obviously I shall consider the case my hon. Friend mentioned. When giving selective assistance to foreign investors in Britain, one of the major factors that we take into account is the impact on existing firms. Therefore, that is already part of the system. On the point about transferring jobs, my hon. Friend will know that as a result of our review of regional policy we have tightened the criteria to reduce the element of job shuffling.

On the question of Government aid to the west midlands, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the critical decision at Talbot, given the hold-up of payments on the Iran contract. Is he aware that with the barter trade arrangements, which we know are notoriously difficult, complex and at a difficult stage, the collapse of the Iran contract could prejudice the whole of the Talbot operation in the west midlands, with 10,000 jobs at stake? If his Department is not already active, will he consider taking an initiative to resolve the problem?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am extremely involved in that matter. We are well aware of the position and are doing everything that we can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's future commitment to British Leyland.

The Government remain committed to the restoration of BL to commercial viability.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to go down in history as the saboteur of Britain's only major indigenous motor manufacturer? Does he admit the accuracy of the report in today's Financial Times that Austin Rover is to be forced to rely on Honda engines, which, combined with the privatisation of Jaguar and the proposed privatisation of Unipart, make industrial sense only if the Government are planning to facilitate the eventual takeover of BL by Honda or some other multinational?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his point about the article in the Financial Times is that I have no intention of commenting upon an article that is a sort of bouillabaisse — a fishy stew; a mixture of truth, half-truth, inaccuracy and downright untruth.

Before my right hon. Friend commits further sums of public money to BL, will he fully satisfy himself that it has learnt the first rule of business—that the customer is always right?

Yes; and I am of the opinion that that lesson has been well learnt.

Does the Minister realise that if he were as ready with decisions as he always is with insults, BL would not be waiting after six months and the British Steel Corporation would not be waiting after 11 months for decisions about their futures? Does he accept that this inexcusable dither and delay by himself and his Department is damaging BL and that the uncertainty is stimulating and provoking the very type of speculation —I hope false—that we have seen in the newspaper that used to employ the right hon. Gentleman? The standards there have not changed at all. Is not this speculation destroying the morale that has been carefully built up during BL's recovery period? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there is any truth in the proposition that BL is to be forced to drop engine production and to buy Japanese engines, so giving up high value skilled work in exchange for low value Meccano assembly operations, that will trigger off a massive storm not only in the west midlands but throughout the car and components industries?

I have to say of my employer of some 30 or 40 years ago that the standards seem to have gone down as the pay has gone up. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. However, although we received the original corporate plan for BL some months ago, at a late stage in our consideration of the plan, BL and Honda put to the Government some important proposals for collaborative projects. That changed the nature of the corporate plan. It is not unreasonable that we should have given extremely close consideration to those proposals. We are now nearing completion of our scrutiny of the corporate plan and the proposed further collaborative arrangements with Honda. I hope that I shall be able to announce our conclusions shortly.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, at this stage in his deliberations, he fully appreciates the crucial importance of the continuation of engine production by motor manufacturers, such as the Austin-Rover group, to their viability as full-scale manufacturers, and the key importance to the west midlands of that production?

I fully undertstand what my hon. Friend says, but, having been firm in what I said to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about the fact that I shall announce our conclusions shortly, it would be wrong if I commented by way of half statements on bits and pieces of the proposals before us.

Even in advance of that statement, can the Secretary of State agree that it is vital for the whole of the British industry and economy that we retain the volume production of cars at British Leyland? Will he give a pledge that he will do everything in his power to sustain the volume production of cars, which can be done only if engine production is continued?

I am anxious to ensure the success of BL from every point of view. I am conscious of the fact that motor cars that appear to the consumer to be British have had some foreign production. For example, on average, about half of a Ford motor car is British, about a third of a GM Vauxhall is British, and over 90 per cent, of a BL car is British. Therefore, we have a clear interest in that and also in the fact that BL is a British car exporter, alongside Jaguar, although on a different scale. We are acutely conscious of BL's importance in the British industrial scene.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with BL on the future of the commercial vehicles industry.

The prospects of BL's commercial vehicles business are covered in the company's annual corporate plan.

What can Her Majesty's Government do to assist the continuation of commercial vehicle manufacture in Bathgate?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision about Bathgate has been made and, unfortunately, that decision will not be changed. As regards assistance to the area and alternative uses for the plant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is obviously prepared to view sympathetically applications for alternative use of the plant, or bits of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the travel-to-work area is a development area and therefore qualifies for the highest level of assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industrialists about pressures on output through difficulties in recruiting skilled or semi-skilled labour in recent months.

My Department has received a number of such representations, notably but not exclusively in the area of information technology.

In view of the concern expressed by knitwear firms in Leicestershire recently, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have discussions urgently with the Department of Employment to see what can be done to deal with the problems and in particular to encourage recruitment and training?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall do that. I know that as a result of his questions to my right hon. Friends a special Manpower Services Commission investigation is taking place. My hon. Friend has raised a very important issue.

May I remind the Minister that British industry does not compare with its foreign competitors in investment in training for skill shortages? Is he aware that France invests twice as much as Britain, and that in America six times as much is being spent on training? Is it not time that the Minister got in touch with industrialists, shook them and told them that they have responsibilities to provide trained personnel?

I agree that industry has responsibilities. If the hon. Member is talking about Government expenditure on training, I am surprised to hear what he says. After all, total expenditure has risen from £380 million in 1979 to £1·2 billion in 1985–86. That does not seem to me to be a reduction but rather an enormous increase and something that the whole House will welcome.

Is it not a criticism of schools and technical colleges that employers have so much difficulty in finding suitably qualified personnel? Has the Minister seen in the Daily Telegraph every Thursday 10 to 14 pages of advertisements for technically qualified staff? Is he aware that employers continually complain that they cannot get suitably qualified applicants?

That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend has authorised a substantial contribution of £12·5 million from the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry towards the package that has been made available to provide additional places in higher education for students in engineering and technology.

Is it not the case that this autumn, as last autumn, there will be a significant number of unfilled vacancies in apprentice training establishments, both in the public and in the private sector, because firms cannot afford to fill those places? In that case, will the Government urge the Manpower Services Commission to fill those places at public expense so as to overcome the skill shortages that are affecting British industry?

The hon. Member has raised a number of very important points that are primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I must reiterate that expenditure on training is high. Special steps have been taken in higher education as well. I am sure that my right hon. Friends, and the Secretary of State in particular, are doing everything in their power to increase the amount of expenditure on training.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is essential to train as many people as possible, there is a vast reservoir of trained and skilled people who are unemployed? Is he aware that the main reason why they are unable to find jobs is that they cannot find anywhere to live, however far they ride on their bicycles? Is he further aware that it would be a saving for the Government and the country if my right hon. Friend could ask the Secretary of State to suggest in Cabinet that, when a man has been unemployed for six months, the Government might give him an advance of another year's unemployment benefit as a deposit on a house in another part of the country, allowing him to fill a skilled job, thereby saving the unemployment costs and improving the efficiency of the country?

My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting point. I shall certainly make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware of it.

Does the Minister agree that it is to be deplored that the Government, through the trebling of company liquidations and the destruction of manufacturing industry at double the rate of our European competitor countries, have created conditions in which, even if there were world growth, Britain could not obtain its fair share because we no longer have enough industrial capacity? Does he not recognise that even more grotesque is the fact that, even with the present limited level of growth, many sections of British industry cannot take full advantage of it because of skill starvation? That is the direct result of the Government's blind destruction of the skill training system that they inherited.

The right hon. Gentleman churns out that gush at every Question Time and it is no more valid today. The growth in the British economy this year is likely to be the highest in western Europe, and certainly the highest in the European Community. The economy is expanding. Training is a problem, but the Government, as the figures show, have done their utmost to try to provide more money. As has been said industry also has a responsibility for training.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the effect of rates on trade and industry.

A number of representations have been received from various bodies on behalf of industry and from individual business men expressing concern at the adverse effects of rates increases on industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Stockport and Manchester are next door to each other and that there is not a blade of grass between the two? Is he aware that the rates in Stockport are two thirds those of Manchester, that Stockport has half the number of local authority employees per head of population and that at the height of the recession, between 1977 and 1981, employment went up in Stockport by 4 per cent, when in Greater Manchester as a whole it went down by 9 per cent.? Does he draw any conclusions from that?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am not sure that I need to underline his conclusions. Obviously, rates increases cost jobs. Perhaps he should send a copy of his question to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency the rates levied on industry and commerce could be at least 30 per cent, lower if the Government of which he is a member had not progressively reduced the rate support grant year by year? Will he therefore make representations in appropriate Cabinet circles for the terrible rate burden to be reduced by restoring the rate support grant to its former level?

The hon. Gentleman's assertion would be more convincing if local authorities elsewhere in the country had not managed to combine a reduction in the rate support grant with modest rate increases. If empty buses did not travel half the night through Sheffield, the rates there would be a lot lower.

Can my hon. Friend explain to hard-pressed employers in Southend, who pay a lot in rates despite the excellent prudence of the splendid Southend borough council, why they should pay quite so much when the agriculture industry makes no rates contribution whatsoever?

Fortunately, I am not responsible for The Times this morning, the Department of the Environment or for agriculture so I shall pass on that question.

Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has his facts wrong, because there is a considerable area of grass between Stockport and Manchester? The biggest problem is that for years Stockport has neglected many of its old council houses. Is the Minister aware that, like the hon. Member for Stockport, I should like them to be modernised? Is not the problem that such modernisation involves local government expenditure, not only in money but in staff, to ensure that the work is done?

Yes, but other local authorities have absorbed cuts in the rate support grant. Local authority expenditure in England has been rising by about 8 per cent, in real terms. There is no reason why people should expect to be subsidised by the general taxpayer in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of BL concerning future investment.

Yes, Sir.

When will the Secretary of State realise that unemployment is now the principal concern throughout the country? Will he bear in mind that the motor industry is a major employer of labour, and therefore that new investment is vital? Does he agree that without it we shall hear further redundancy announcements such as that recently made by the Girling company in South Wales?

I am able to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of all those matters and, of course, as he will be aware, the number of people in work in the United Kingdom has been increasing since the first quarter of 1983.

I think that all hon. Members will have been reassured by the measured and constructive tone in which the Secretary of State has spoken of the importance to the whole of Britain—the components industry, the capital goods industry—of British Leyland, but we are looking to him now to put his money where his mouth is. In that respect, can he confirm that he shares the view that an essential part of British Leyland to play will be in the continued manufacture of the power train— engine and gearboxes—in this country, and will he back the Austin Rover new engine project?

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, if it comes to a question of money and mouth, he should recollect that since this Government have been in office we have directly contributed something like £1·2 billion to the restoration to viability of British Leyland. Beyond that, I would advise him not to go too far in praising me —it might upset his hon. Friends. I hope that I shall be able to make a statement before too long which will please all those of a constructive frame of mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will have discussions with representatives of local enterprise boards and of industry with a view to securing a co-ordinated approach to local investment.

I frequently meet representatives of local and national bodies concerned with investment in industry, including local enterprise agencies.

Is the Minister aware that there will be a wide welcome in the House for the more constructive Government and business attitude towards the local authority enterprise boards? Will he accept the need for better co-ordination to give prompt help to new and expanded businesses? Can he give the House any assurance of the future of the West Yorkshire enterprise board and about its urgent need for further capital resources?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is essential that I should stress that local enterprise boards, as opposed to enterprise agencies, are companies limited by guarantee and not directly affected by the Local Government Bill currently before the House. I understand that West Yorkshire county council has asked for consent for funding of the enterprise board to a sum of £2 million in 1985–86, and that that is currently before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I am constantly trying to encourage the use of local enterprise agencies such as the Leeds business venture, with which I know he is very familiar, as a signposting service and as a one-stop shop. I think that that excellent enterprise agency is in a very strong position with regard to acting as a co-ordinator in getting small firms financed. That will speed matters up and, I hope, remove many of the obstacles and the confusion which the hon. Gentleman has identified in his question.

I listened to what the Minister had to say, but he is not doing very well, is he? He visited a particular boat-building firm in my constituency and made certain promises, and then let it down. Why have these exhibitions been cancelled?

I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I have not the slightest clue what he is talking about.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to seek to increase the level of public procurement placed with small firms.

Contracts must be won on merit, irrespective of company size. However, we recognise that small firms often face particular difficulties in seeking public sector business, and we shall continue our efforts to reduce these.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one major problem for small firms is obtaining the details of proceedings in tendering for Government contracts? Can he tell us whether he has taken any measures to improve that situation and what he can do to assist those small firms?

Only yesterday I published a new booklet entitled "Tendering for Government Contracts", aimed at helping small firms to sell to Government Departments. The booklet describes the types of goods and services that Government Departments buy, and explains how to apply and whom to approach in the major purchasing Departments. Obviously, I hope that it will be widely used.

Does not the existence of 10 major defence research establishments in the south and south-east of England have a major effect on procurement policy for small high technology companies in the south of England? Does it not put such companies in the south at an advantage? Why cannot we have the same advantages in the north? Why cannot some of those defence establishments be moved to the north of England, bearing in mind all the spin-offs that they have for the information technology industry?

It will probably interest the hon. Gentleman to hear that only this morning I was looking at the number of research establishments in both the public and the private sectors. It will perhaps come as a surprise to him, since he comes from the same region as I do, to discover that we in the north-west have a very fair share of the research establishments available north of Watford.

Although I welcome the booklet and the obvious benefit that it will bring to small businesses, may I ask my hon. Friend what effect it will have on public procurement generally?

The most important development to have arisen out of the Government purchasing lead that we have taken in the Department of Trade and Industry is that it will encourage the use of interdepartmentally approved lists. Certainly it will improve the standarised procedures affecting small firms. I announced last May that tenders for most Government contracts worth less than £10,000 would be exempt from the normal procedures. That should help small businesses to obtain a share of those business opportunities.

The Minister spoke about his researches this morning. Is he aware that the northern region of England has the highest unemployment in mainland Britain and is the only region of mainland Britain without a Government-backed research and development agency? Is it not high time that we had such an agency in the north?

The problems of the northern region were recognised in the legislation on regional policy approved by the House last year. In that we said that we-would concentrate—

Cuts.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) talks of cuts. I had better tell him that his hon. Friend was referring to the northern region and not the north-western region. Some 97 per cent, of the working population in the northern region were assisted before the changes in regional policy, and the same percentage of people are assisted. In the north-west the numbers of people living in assisted areas have increased as a result of the legislation to which I referred. I am aware of the problems identified by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), and recently we have received a report from Newcastle university entitled "The Location of R and D in Great Britain." We shall study that, and it will be taken into account in formulating future policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the United Kingdom's surplus or deficit in manufacturing trade with the European Economic Community and the rest of the world, respectively, in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

In the 12 months ending March 1985 there was a deficit on trade in manufactures with the other members of the Community of just under £8 billion. With the rest of the world there was a surplus of £3·5 billion.

In view of this horrific trade deficit with the Common Market, which is equivalent to a loss of 800,000 British jobs, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need for a full-scale inquiry into why our trade with the Common Market is so appalling and why, according to an answer that my hon. Friend gave me the other day, our share of the Common Market's market for manufactured goods is less than it was the year before we joined?

It is only rarely that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, but this is one of those rare occasions. He was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which examined this matter last year, and the Secretary of State replied to its report a year ago. I must point out that 46 per cent., of British exports went to Community countries.

Answer the question.

I should love to answer the question if I were allowed to.

Order. The hon. Member for Newport:, East (Mr. Hughes) should allow the Minister to answer.

It is essential to look at all the facts affecting our trading position and not take any one area or any one component of the trading figures in isolation.

Perhaps the Minister will come down from the clouds of theory and look at real closures. I refer him to the closure of Philips in Brighouse and the impending closures of Philips establishments in other parts of the country, with the result that manufacturing capacity in washing machines, tumble driers and television sets is being taken back to Italy. What does the Minister intend to do about closures, which take more jobs away from us with every day that passes?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that in the last quarter the volume of our manufacturing exports increased by 12 per cent., which was a great increase, and that our exports are running at extremely good figures. It must be good for British industry to be competitive, and to be able to export competitively and profitably.

Does the Minister accept that the House is intelligent enough to read both sides of the trading account? Bearing in mind that the Minister of State told the House on 1 May that every 1 per cent, increase in import penetration cost the country 250,000 jobs, what connection does the right hon. Gentleman now make between our record trade deficit with the European Community and the record unemployment that we must now endure?

The House must also understand that the United Kingdom is and has been in trade surplus for many years. That was not a factor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."] Opposition Members attack whatever commodity suits them. [Interruption.] We have heard it all before. Many Opposition Members want us to leave it in the North sea. As hon. Members want to talk about manufacturing, let me tell them that Britain sends 39 per cent, of its exports of manufactured goods to the other Community countries, compared with 29 per cent. 15 years ago. That is a massive increase in exports of manufactures, and many thousands of British jobs depend upon it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has raised with the general agreement on tariffs and trade the credit arrangements for the Bosporus bridge contract.

The arrangements for export credit operation involving elements of aid are handled under the consensus and development aid committees of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rather than under the GATT. The Government are currently exploring within those OECD groups the issues raised by the type of credit arrangements offered by Japan for the second Bosporus bridge.

Is it not unacceptable that the Japanese Government should put my right hon. Friend in the position of losing a major contract to the Japanese for bridge building although we produced the lowest contract price? Because of the use of subsidised export credits and trade in aid-type arrangements, the Japanese have won this major contract and, thus, are able to penetrate a market that was previously dominated by the British, with a consequent loss of jobs for the United Kingdom. Yet, the Japanese refuse to accept proper trade terms for the entry of our goods. Is it not essential that my right hon. Friend negotiates a watertight arrangement to put our manufacturers and exporters on the same basis as Japanese business men?

I well understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. As I said the last time when I answered questions on this matter, it does not appear that the Japanese broke any undertakings and agreements on aid. However— [Interruption.] If the House is finished, I shall continue. However, what I find—[Interruption.]

Order. I seldom see the Secretary of State lost for words. Let him continue.

I am not lost for words, but I have no intention of shouting above this bear garden, and the sooner hon. Members stop shouting, the sooner we shall get on. [Interruption.]

Order. Perhaps I should not have said that.

Of course you should have said that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is always right.

In the light of the predatory policies being pursued by the Japanese, and in the light of what the Secretary of State has just said, does he accept that this is hardly the time to contemplate unilateral disarmament in trade of the sort with which the Government seem to be flirting in the wake of the Byatt report? Will he listen to the views of the National Economic Development Office, published today, and of his Department's overseas projects board, and ensure that British firms which seek major contracts abroad are not left defenceless against the Japanese and other foreign competitors?

It is not my habit to flirt. When I get started, I get on with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from British exporters about non-tariff barriers in Japan.

My Department receives a number of representations from British exporters about non-tariff barriers in Japan.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to export to Japan is often attributable not to non-tariff barriers but to weaknesses in British companies? None the less, last year, the Japanese exported to us £40 million worth of telecommunications equipment, and in return we exported to them only 1 per cent, of that figure. Does he accept that that occurred because we have liberalised our telecommunications market and thrown it open to imports from abroad, while the Japanese have no such policy and close their doors to overseas telecommunications products?

My hon. Friend raises a fair point which, coupled with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in answer to the previous question, is an example of some of the practices of the Japanese Government that are getting the world trading system into a dangerous position. During his visit to Tokyo my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised my hon. Friend's specific point, and we shall continue to press the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further progress has been made in talks with Japan on the liberalisation of trade.

On 9 April, Prime Minister Nakasone announced a market-opening package of measures designed to bring about an increase in Japan's imports of manufactured goods, further liberalisation of internal financial markets and the internationalisation of the yen. We and our Community partners will be looking closely for evidence of practical steps to implement those intentions.

Is the Minister aware that the country is becoming increasingly angry about the courteous claptrap that we have heard from the Japanese in such matters during the past 20 years, and about the fact that no progress has been made? Does he accept that the House will give unqualified support if the Government take retaliatory action against the Japanese?

The feelings of the House are abundantly clear. However, it would be much more satisfactory and in the interests of Japan and the United Kingdom if the measures which the Japanese Prime Minister promised in July prove, in effect, to open the Japanese market to our exports. That would be a happier solution than having to take retaliatory measures, which would help neither the United Kingdom nor Japan in the long run. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, there is a grave risk of the world trading system falling into serious trouble and of retaliatory measures being taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution he envisages tourism makes to regional policy, and vice versa.

Tourism can make a positive contribution to employment in assisted areas, and tourism projects in those areas may also qualify in certain circumstances for regional assistance.

As flourishing regional airports are fundamental to an effective regional policy and to the growth of regional tourism, will my hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that he will do all that he can to encourage the growth of traffic at regional airports outwith the south-east of England?

I recall that my hon. Friend led previous opposition to Maplin and Stansted on regional policy grounds. In view of the statement that may be made in two minutes' time, this is a case of my not venturing where angels fear to tread.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the tourism industry in 1985.

In the first quarter of 1985 the number of visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents was 10 per cent, higher than a year earlier, at a new record level for a first quarter. I am optimistic about the prospects for the rest of the year.

Is it not true that a record number of jobs are being created in tourism, and that this service industry is one of the most promising areas for growth in employment? What was the value of tourism to Britain last year, and how many people were employed in the industry?

Over 1 million people are currently employed in the industry. What my hon. Friend says about the prospects for growth in employment is correct. He may have noticed that we are now publishing, quarter by quarter, the growth in jobs in the tourist-related sectors. I hope that that will highlight the point that he is making.

Does the Minister agree that while it is good to encourage tourism to underdeveloped areas such as Merseyside, it would be better if the Government concentrated on rebuilding industry in such areas in order to get the thousands and thousands of workers who are unemployed there back to work? Otherwise, we shall become a national museum.

The hon. Gentleman has previously urged me to do more for tourism on Merseyside. We need to do things to help manufacturing and services, but we must face the fact that one of the best prospects for growth in employment lies in the services sector, and that includes tourism.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The House is aware that the Prime Minister, who has fortunately just joined us, has told the nation that she has changed her style.

Oh, no!

Order. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too have noticed that the Prime Minister now has more voices than Janet Brown. Today, at Question Time, we have heard from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and he has been nearly as quiet as a tailor's dummy, but, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I ain't changing.