asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next proposes to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the regulation of financial services.

I am always interested to hear the views of the Confederation of British Industry, but I have no plans for a specific meeting in the near future.

Why did the Financial Services Bill not make it clear that we ought to have statutory bodies independent of the people whom they are supposed to be reviewing? That is successfully done in most of the financial markets in the rest of the Western world. Why cannot we have completely independent statutory bodies?

The independence of the Securities and Investments Board or its successor is unquestioned, but there is a real advantage in having regulatory bodies consisting of people who themselves are practitioners close to the market. That will lead to tighter rather than looser regulation.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us who are keenly interested in the subject of financial services sought to pose a number of questions to the Government in yesterday's debate, but we could not get an answer from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State because he was subjected to a most disgraceful muckraking campaign by the Opposition, with the result that serious points could not be answered? Will he find an opportunity to answer some of those questions in the near future?

I am sure that I or my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will wish to take the opportunity to put on the record the points that my hon. and learned Friend was unable to deal with yesterday. One is always suspicious of circumstances in which a Minister has answers to give but the Opposition seem reluctant to hear them.

The Secretary of State might accept that while the personal reputation of the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is beyond question, it nevertheless remains the fact that Lloyd's is a major issue in the Bill, and to have a member of Lloyd's, of whatever status, pilot the Bill through the House of Commons is bound to be misunderstood—

Order. The question is concerned with the CBI.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the CBI and others are bound to misunderstand that, and that it is bound to undermine the standing of the Bill and, indeed, the probity of the Government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the matter and, if the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe cannot divest himself of his interest in Lloyd's, will he think of giving another colleague—

Order. That has nothing to do with it.

The CBI has made no representations to that effect.

Given that one of the major objects of the Financial Services Bill, with which the CBI and everyone else is concerned, is the avoidance of conflicts of interest in the City, is it not odd that the Minister responsible for the Bill is himself involved in a conflict of interest'? Is the Secretary of State aware—

Order. The same principles apply to the Front Bench. The question must concern meetings with the CBI.

This is a question relating to the regulation of financial services, which is the subject of the question on the Order Paper. Has the Secretary of State had his attention drawn to the Churchill-Butler statement on these issues, which has been endorsed by a line of successive Prime Ministers, the first paragraph of which reads: "It is a principle"—

Order. That does not relate in any way to discussions with the CBI. The shadow Minister must relate his question to that aspect.

Nevertheless, this is a matter with which the CBI and everybody else in the City will be concerned. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if the Minister is unable for any reason to divest himself of the interest which he holds in Lloyd's, he will—

Order. That is quite out of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his intention to bring forward measures for the privatisation of all the publicly owned enterprises listed in the answer of 27 November, Official Report, column 870, within the lifetime of the current Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

No. It is not expected that all the businesses mentioned in the previous answer can be wholly returned to the private sector during the current Parliament.

Before the Secretary of State departs the Front Bench, will the hon. Gentleman ask him whether he is aware that privatisation so far has cost working people in Britain over £1·4 billion as a result of the Government under-pricing the assets that they have sold off, has given the mates of the Secretary of State in City institutions £300 million in fees and expenses, and has resulted in worse services and higher prices to working people?

rose

Order. This is Question Time, not an Adjournment debate.

I can assure the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that I put all those questions, precisely as he would have wished me to do, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. and learned Friend agrees with me that all the hon. Gentleman's propositions are wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that denationalisation has been a good policy for this country? Have those businesses concerned not done better and begun to make profits? Above all, do not 90 per cent. of their employees now own shares in their own companies.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and must emphasise that the vast majority of employees now feel the benefits of privatisation.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have given the British Steel Corporation a mandate to accelerate the company towards privatisation, with special emphasis on the tube-producing section? Will he confirm that that is Government policy?

I can certainly confirm that our policy, and that of the BSC, is directed towards a competitive and profitable industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the EEC-USA steel agreement.

The new EC-USA steel arrangement, ratified by the Council of Ministers on 10 December, is generally acceptable to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom delayed ratification for several weeks, during which assurances were obtained from the United States authorities on adequate access for BSC exports of semi-finished steel to Tuscaloosa Steel of Alabama under an existing long-term contract.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving what appears to be a satisfactory settlement to a very thorny problem. Does he accept that that was done through painstaking negotiation?

I assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations were long, complicated and difficult. However, it was essential for the steel corporation that we hung out for what we obtained.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the level of exports of slabs to the United States, permitted by the United States, is nowhere near adequate to maintain Ravenscraig without Gartcosh?

I do not acknowledge that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, by and large the deal that we obtained, with the exception of that part relating to Tuscaloosa, was based on current exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the financial and other support given to exporters by his Department.

I am confident that support given to exporters by my Department is effective, but I am, of course, always looking for ways to improve it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are extremely grateful to him for his work concerning exports? However, is he further aware of the criticisms of exporters and companies in various constituencies about the ECGD? They think of it as an umbrella available when the sun is shining, rather than when the need arises.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that in this context the opportunities available to our exporters in Turkey are valuable, and will he pay particular attention to those opportunities?

Of course I shall. I take note of my hon. Friend's view about opportunities in Turkey.

Does the Minister recall negotiations with a couple of firms which are trying to sell refuse collection vehicles to Ecuador but which are running into some trouble?—[Laughter.]— I know that this is different from normal practice, but that is what the game is about. Is the Minister aware that his Department has been holding up arranging export credit guarantees which would enable workers to build the refuse collection vehicles in the midlands and north-east Derbyshire? Is he further aware that more than 50 jobs are on the line? Why is the Minister causing all these difficulties by stopping the export credit guarantee arrangement? Will he deal with the matter, because if it is not finalised this week the jobs will go and the balance of payments will be the loser?

I shall, of course, look at the matter. Ecuador has been a recipient of the DX facility from the ECGD. I do not know about the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it is likely that it involves a case for which I have just agreed there should be export credits.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of exporting is to make us wealthier, rather than poorer?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister prepared to consider whether the financial duties requiring ECGD to break even are too tight and so defeat the purpose of existing exports?

I shall certainly look at that, but I should be surprised if any rational man could come to that conclusion. The ECGD's cash flow problems are well known and serious. That is not surprising in a period of great economic difficulties throughout the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is currently taking to seek to persuade car manufacturers based in the United Kingdom to increase the United Kingdom content of their cars sold in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. and learned Friend, I and officials meet senior management of the United Kingdom car manufacturers regularly to discuss this and similar matters, with encouraging results. For example, after a recent meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend, Vauxhall's chairman and managing director announced the company's plan to increase the United Kingdom content of the vehicles that it builds here from about 50 per cent. in the past year to about 60 per cent. by the end of this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Concern is caused when individuals are encouraged to buy British and some manufacturers, although based in this country, use a large imported content in their vehicles. Does my hon. Friend agree that good component manufacturers operate in Britain and that they should be encouraged by further purchases from firms such as Vauxhall?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said in my original answer, my right hon. Friend and I, and others in the Department, do everything that we possibly can to encourage purchases from home-based component manufacturers.

Is the Minister aware that one of the steps that he can take is to ensure that we have a continuing supply of competitively priced and efficiently produced engineering steel in Britain? Will the Minister do everything in his power, if the United Engineering Steels company wishes, to ensure that a concast is installed at Brymbo steelworks?

The hon. Gentleman makes a particular and specific point. I agree that the component parts are important. I am happy to take his point on board and to look at the matter carefully. I can say no more than that at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a contrast between our open attitude in ensuring as free a market as possible for the manufacture of cars in Britain and the attitude of other countries, notably Spain, which is conducting a blockade of our components?

Yes, but as my hon. Friend will be aware, negotiations are proceeding. We hope that they will be brought to a successful conclusion.

As nearly all the increased import penetration in the car market since the late 1920s has arisen from the tied imports of Ford and Vauxhall—of course, we welcome the recent modest announcement—does the Minister agree that Vauxhall., with its massive trade deficit on vehicles, must make a far more substantial investment in major components, such as engines and transmissions, made in Britain, and possibly restore a design capability? Have not the Government made such investment more difficult with their record of five years of abnormally high interest rates? Interest rates are almost double what firms would have to pay if they went to Germany.

I would not describe the recent announcement as modest. It represents a significant increase. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more our domestic component manufacturers sell, the better. His wider question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

While recognising my right hon. and hon. Friends' considerable efforts in increasing the United Kingdom content of cars made in the United Kingdom, may I also ask that they recognise the tremendous contribution made by United Kingdom car component manufacturers to the content of cars made abroad? Will they encourage foreign buyers to buy even more components from the United Kingdom?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The more that United Kingdom car manufacturers buy domestically, the more it will encourage foreign manufacturers to buy products made by British component manufacturers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in preparing for the negotiations for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current position regarding negotiations concerned with renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The Council of Ministers will be considering the Community's negotiating mandate at its meeting on 27 and 28 January. I announced the policy of the Government in the House on 9 May last year. I am meeting representatives of the industry and other interested parties next week.

Is the Minister aware of the anxiety felt in all parts of the industry at the strong and persistent report that, despite his stated commitment to the effective renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, British officials are in the van of those in Brussels who are pressing for a weakening of the import regime? Does he recognise that a substantial dilution of the MFA will cause immense damage to the British industry, and will he assure the House that henceforth his officials will work religiously towards the achievement of an effective renewal?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British officials in the negotiations are working under instructions from me and are following the Government's policy. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience in this area, should imagine anything else.

There is some anxiety and confusion in the industry about whether the Government believe that this should be the last such arrangement. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

We have never said that this should be the last MFA. A new MFA is likely to last for four or five years. The longer-term future of the MFA should be decided in the context of the proposed new GATT round of international trading talks.

Is the Minister aware that the textile industry in Bradford has suffered for many years because of the importation of goods produced by competitors who use cheap labour? Is he further aware that if the multi-fibre arrangement is not renewed, or if it is weakened, it will create chaos in the woollen textile industry in Bradford and bring more unemployment to an area which already has above national average unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the Government's policy that the MFA should be renewed. He will be pleased to know that during the first 10 months of 1985 wool textile exports increased by 14 per cent. to a record £518 million.

Is it not true that many companies have coped and will cope with the diminution in the MFA, and that even within companies, some sections—for instance, spinning—will benefit from imports, whereas other sections, such as finished products, will suffer? Will the Minister remember that in any renegotiation we must be aware of that distinction and assist British companies to cope with the genuine free market at which they are aiming rather than protect them artificially?

In general I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am meeting representatives of the industry next week, and no doubt all those points will be considered in great detail.

In the discussions, will my right hon. Friend take particular account of the views of the Hong Kong Government? Is he aware that although the present agreement is supposed to benefit underdeveloped countries the benefit has been very small and it has been to the disadvantage of Hong Kong? Will he ensure that the future agreement, if it does not help Hong Kong, at least does not penalise it?

It is not for the British Government alone to decide the contents of the agreement, but we certainly take the view that it should give favourable treatment to the poorest developing countries and to developing countries with very low barriers to British exports, which includes Hong Kong.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that import penetration in textiles is six times what it was 10 years ago and that unemployment is again increasing in the north-west, including my constituency, which still depends heavily on the textile industry? Will he check again with his civil servants on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), because authoritative sources on the employers' side suggest that British civil servants are taking a leading part in pressing for a much more liberal multi-fibre arrangement?

I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assured his hon. Friend, that the civil servants negotiating in Brussels do so with my express authority, and I keep a close control on and watch every detail of the negotiations. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct to a certain extent. That is one reason why we are seeking a renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, which I believe met with the general agreement of the House last May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that workers in the textile industry suspect that Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry are more interested in protecting their own political careers than in protecting the British textile industry? Does he accept that although there is no doubt that the Government are committed to renewal of the MFA, there is considerable doubt as to the extent to which the Government want a major relaxation of the controls? Will he now give a firm undertaking that the British Government do not favour or support any major relaxation of the MFA controls?

The first part of the question says more about the hon. Gentleman than about Ministers at the Department. Any renewed MFA is bound to be more liberal than the present arrangement. I think that that is generally understood. As I have said, it should provide favourable treatment for the poorest developing countries and those with low barriers to British exports, and it should also help in relation to children's clothing. I am anxious to see a more liberal MFA, but one which does not damage the textile and clothing industry. The industry understands that very well, and I shall be discussing the matter in great detail with the industry next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount of trade between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom for the year 1985.

The full year's figures are not yet available, but the total amount of trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union in the first 11 months of 1985 was £1,150 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as relationships between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world improve, so do opportunities for trade? Is he further aware that the United States has already sent major trade delegations to the Soviet Union to try to build up the United States' share of that trade? What help is the Department giving businesses in this country to do likewise? In particular, what special financial help is available to get contracts under way initially?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Following Mr. Gorbachev's visit to this country, I believe that there are considerable prospects for increasing trade between Britain and the Soviet Union. In the short term that increase has not yet materialised, but at the annual meeting of the British-Russian Joint Trade Commission on 6 and 7 February we shall be making a major effort to increase trade. Very good facilities are available for business men to trade with the Soviet Union, and they receive normal help from the Department. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific case in mind, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

Is it conceivable that some of our industrial technology is being sold to the Soviet Union and may be used in the further development of Soviet star wars plans, nuclear weapons or, indeed, any type of weapon?

I hope that that is not possible. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are controls under the COCOM arrangements to stop such exports.

Is the Minister aware that the Gartcosh plant exports considerable orders to the Soviet Union as well as to other countries? Can he say when his Department will respond to the overwhelming recommendation of the Scottish Select Committee? If not, can he whisper to his right hon. and learned Friend and give the House the information?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but that is not a matter with which I have been dealing. However, my right hon. and learned Friend has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in regional grant aid has been made available to the northern region since 1979.

A total of £913 million in regional grant aid has been made available to the northern region during the period I May 1979 to 30 November 1985.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm his personal commitment to beneficial regional aid? Does he agree that his answer gives the lie to those who claim maliciously that the Government have ignored and not helped the northern region? Will he confirm that the Government have given more than £1 billion to the northern region, including inner city aid?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The northern region benefits more than any other part of the country from our regional policy, and rightly so. Some 97 per cent. of the working population are covered. My hon. Friend's sentiments are correct, whatever anyone else might say.

Does the Minister agree that, since 1979, 125,000 industrial jobs have been lost in the northern region and that the level of unemployment on Tyneside is among the highest in the country? Can he at least give us the assurance that aid from his Department to the northern region will not be reduced in the next three years?

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant), the difficulties that the northern region is passing through are onerous, burdensome and personally unappetising to many families and people. That is why our regional policy is directed more towards the northern region than to any other part of Great Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an the 1970s the northern region suffered from indiscriminate regional aid? Can he confirm that the new policy is working well and providing more jobs with the money used?

I agree. When my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State announced the new regional policy, it was directed towards job creation. That has to be the right way in which to target considerable sums of money.

Will the Minister confirm that in real terms there has been a reduction in regional assistance to the northern region since 1979, although there has been an explosion in unemployment? Will he answer the question yes or no? We do not want a flannel answer?

I shall answer yes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to qualify my answer to the extent that the money, which is still considerable, is now being targeted much more towards job creation.

Did the Minister note the remarks of the retiring regional director of his own Department on unemployment? He expressed disquiet over the point that, in London, it seemed that if there were no riots in an area, there were no problems. Did the Minister agree with the emphasis that the regional director put on the need for public sector spending in the north-east? Does he fear that if something is not done we shall merely store up trouble for the future?

I did not see Mr. Atkinson's remarks, but I do not agree with them precisely, as presented by the hon. Gentleman. The northern region gets more regional aid than other parts of the country, in some of which there have been riots.

In view of the failure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to locate Cleveland on the map, and in view of the failure of the Department of the Environment to decide how big the county of Cleveland is, and despite the Government's generosity so far in the northern region, will my hon. Friend confirm that, as the question relates to the availability of money, if any schemes from Cleveland are put forward the Government will not be ungenerous but will consider them sympathetically?

Regardless of what my hon. Friend says about Cleveland, he can rest assured that the county of Cleveland is well put on the map, by himself, constantly. The level of money given out depends on the number of applications. I shall be delighted to consider as many applications as I can.

The Minister has not been in the Department for very long, so he may not be fully briefed. Does he not appreciate that the origin of the trouble is that in 1979 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Trade abolished the special development area status of Blyth Valley, which includes Blyth and Cramlington. so wrongly earmarking regional aid? Consequently unemployment in Blyth Valley has risen astronomically as a direct result of the asinine regional policy of the Conservative Government.

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman puts forward the case of his constituents assiduously. I know Cramlington, Blyth and Blyth Valley. Unless I am gravely mistaken—and the hon. Gentleman will correct me immediately if I am—he will be aware that his part of the country gets regional aid to the greatest extent that is still possible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the recent review of regional policy his constituency was included in the map for selective assistance and mine was excluded—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the north?

Yes. Can my hon. Friend tell me what advantage might accrue from increasing unemployment in my constituency so as to reduce it in his own?

I am aware of the situation that my hon. Friend mentions because he and I have constituencies at either end of Cheshire. As he will be aware, the decisions were taken quite a substantial time before I became Minister of State.

Does the Minister agree that the year to year figures for regional aid prove that the real value of regional aid has not just been cut in the northern region since 1979 but has been halved, as it has in every other depressed region? When will the Minister of State bring to the House the review proposals on regional aid that were promised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? When will the Government start increasing regional aid instead of continuing over the next three years their policy of making cuts?

As I have said to other hon. Members, regional aid policy is now directed specifically towards job creation. As to when the review will be brought to the House, the answer is that it will be conducted during the year. The policy has been in existence for only 12 months. I cannot tell the hon. Member precisely when the review results will be ready. I hope that it will be towards the end of the year, but I cannot be held to that at this stage.

As the figure given by the Minister earlier contains a concealed dramatic decline in support for the northern region during the Government's term of office at a time when there has been an equally dramatic increase in unemployment, and as the number of grants depends upon the number of applications, can the Minister tell us what his Department proposes to do to increase the number of applications from the northern region and to increase the number of new businesses created there?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made a particular issue of regional aid. He has made it abundantly clear to all and sundry that he is keen that there should be as many applications as possible. That is the message that has gone out to all regional offices, including the northern region.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to curtail overseas piracy of books published in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

The Government take every opportunity they can to press upon countries where piracy of British books is permitted to flourish the need for comprehensive and enforceable copyright law. We are in contact with several such countries on this issue at the present time and the European Community is in the process of detailed consideration of the link between intellectual property and trade policy as part of the Community's preparation for a new GATT round.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. The Governments of South Korea and Signapore are at present actively considering fresh copyright legislation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that such legislation adequately protects the interests of British publishers?

We have recently written to the Government of Singapore suggesting some modifications to the first draft of the new copyright law that authorities have produced in that country. We are monitoring developments in South Korea and we shall make representations if it seems that that will be useful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the prospects for exports of semifinished steel products; and if he will make a statement.

United Kingdom steel producers export semi-finished products to many countries, and prospects in most of them remain broadly unchanged. However, I am pleased to say that exports to the United States should increase substantially under the British Steel Corporation's contract with the Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation of Alabama.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, arising out of the minutes that have just been placed in the Library of a meeting with Sir Raymond Lygo, it is a matter of first importance, as my right and learned Friend the Secretary of State is reported as having said, to ensure that in relations with the United States, especially when dealing with semi-finished steel products, we avoid anti-British protection sentiments in the United States of America?

As I said in reply to an earlier question, when I think my hon. Friend was in his place, the negotiations on the deal with the United States Government over the Tuscaloosa Steel Corporation were extremely difficult. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a protectionist wave that is evident throughout the United States. All such negotiations have to be handled carefully. Anti-American sentiments can endanger them.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the most recent annual return and accounts of Johnson Matthey Bankers Limited were received at Companies House.

Accounts for the period ending 30 June 1985 were delivered to the registrar on 20 December 1985, and an annual return for 1985 was delivered on 31 December 1985.

Following the experience of the Johnson Matthey affair, what have Trade Ministers learnt about the operational efficiency of the supervisory authority?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a review of banking supervision, which it is hoped will remedy the deficiencies that were revealed by the events at Johnson Matthey.

Is the Minister happy about the developments that are taking place in the Johnson Matthey business that relate to the accounts? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the accounts are in a much healthier state, by dealing with people such as Mr. Sipra, who is in India and who owes Johnson Matthey about £70 million? Will he be brought back to this country so that he can repay some of that money? What steps are the Government taking? If they took steps to bring Mr. Sipra and others back to Britain, they might recover some of the money.

The House will be aware that the Johnson Matthey matters are under investigation by the police. The fraud investigation group has been established. As for compliance with the law on the submission of accounts, there has been a substantial improvement over the position in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the regulation of Lloyd's.

My hon. and learned Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs, and I dealt with this matter yesterday during the debate on the Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill. I have nothing to add now.

In the context of the inquiry that the Secretary of State established last week, will he assure the House that the inquiry will be completed before the Financial Services Bill completes its passage through the House? If any recommendations are made by those who carry out the inquiry, will the Committee that considers the Financial Services Bill, or the House, have sufficient time to act upon them and to implement them if necessary?

I cannot give that assurance. That is a matter for Sir Patrick Neill. He has suggested that he would hope to complete the inquiry in the summer. My hon. and learned Friend has said clearly that we do not think that it is at all likely that the Financial Services Bill would be a proper vehicle for statutory intervention, even if Sir Patrick came to the conclusion that further statutory intervention would be appropriate.

As the Minister responsible for the Financial Services Bill and for the decision whether Lloyd's should be included within it—the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—is involved in a clear conflict of interest in this respect, may I ask whether the Secretary of State's attention has been drawn to the Churchill-Butler statement on these matters—a statement of principle that has been endorsed by a long line of Prime Ministers—which reads as follows:

"It is a principle of public life that Ministers must"—

Order. The hon. Member must paraphrase, not quote.

Very well, I will paraphrase the statement of principle, to the effect that where there is a conflict between a Minister's private interests and public responsibilities he must divest himself of those private interests. Given that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is able to divest himself of his membership of Lloyd's, as I am advised, will the Secretary of State ensure that he either does that or passes the responsibility for the Bill to another Minister?

We have looked into this matter and explained it, and I am perfectly satisfied that my hon. arid learned Friend is well able to discharge his responsibilities with complete propriety.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning Ravenscraig steelworks; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I have received a number of written and oral representations about Ravenscraig steelworks in the context of BSC's decision to close the Gartcosh works. Earlier today I replied on behalf of the Government, to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs relating to Gartcosh. In that reply I stated that, having examined closely the recommendations and evidence, I remained of the opinion that the Government should not interfere with BSC's decision to close Gartcosh.

Will the Minister accept, as the overwhelming majority of Scottish opinion accepts, that the future of Ravenscraig is inextricably bound up with that of Gartcosh, and that any long-term guarantee to Ravenscraig would be meaningful and worthwhile only if it were extended to the Gartcosh plant? Notwithstanding the reply that he gave to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs this morning, may I ask him to look at the figures now produced by the Scottish Trades Union Congress on recent trends and figures for markets for the steel produced there and to reconsider his decision, which is very damaging to Scotland and its industry, in the light of this new evidence?

I can, of course, appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. There is very significant feeling in Scotland about Gartcosh and Ravenscraig. That is why we looked carefully indeed at all the evidence put to us. Having done so, we came to the conclusion that the decision of the British Steel Corporation on its future strategy, which was endorsed by the Government in August, should not be undermined.

How can the Minister honestly say that he has considered all the evidence and has come to the conclusion that he has reached when the evidence is all against his determination to bring about the closure of Gartcosh? How can the Minister condone a situation where the Government are prepared to spend nearly £10 million a year to keep Scottish workers unemployed when they could be investing that kind of money in the steel industry, not only of Scotland, but of the whole of the United Kingdom?

It is not for me to publish my reply' to the Select Committee in which I gave the reasons for the Government's decision not to intervene in this particular matter, although I am sure that the hon. Member will understand them when he sees it. I perfectly understand that there is very strong feeling in Scotland about Gartcosh, but the hon. Member will be aware that there is overcapacity in the kinds of products made by Gartcosh. He will also be aware of the argument which says that Gartcosh and Ravenscraig are not inextricably connected.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in its attempts to survive, the British Steel Corporation, for the past three or four years, has had to take very difficult decisions involving the redundancy of many thousands of men? Now, when the corporation is profitable, excess capacity is being removed and, for the first time for many years, the corporation finds itself the most competitive steel producer in Europe, is it fair that the steel workers in Scotland should be exempted from some of the very difficult decisions that have had to be taken throughout the country, including in my own constituency, where 11,000 men have lost their jobs in two years?

I certainly agree that enormous progress has been made by BSC management and the trade unions within the corporation to make it into the most efficient steel corporation in Europe. I differ a little from my hon. Friend. I fully appreciated the fact that, in the short term at least, closure brings a bleak future for the 800 or so employees at Gartcosh and their families. It was in that context that I took my decision. I do not welcome taking such decisions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lobby in the House of Commons today, representative of all walks of life in Scotland, to meet representatives from all parties in the House? Is he further aware that that lobby is clearly saying that the future of Gartcosh is crucial to the future of Ravenscraig, and that the future of Ravenscraig is vital to Scotland's future as an industrial nation? Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that Gartcosh is Scotland's industrial El Alamein and that it must stay open, even if that means driving every Tory out of Scotland?

Of course I realise that there is a lobby in the House today. Of course I realise also that there has been a consistent campaign. I am aware also that several representatives of the work force walked the whole way from Gartcosh to London. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the very same representatives have had an opportunity to see me, which they requested, since the middle of October. That invitation has been extended, further extended and further extended again, and they did not decide to put their case. I wonder why.

Did the hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister to see the delegation that had walked all the way from Gartcosh? Why did she snub those representatives by refusing even to meet them when the request was put? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been few issues in recent times on which majority opinion has been rallied more successfully than in the campaign to save Gartcosh? Why do the Government intervene in the Ravenscraig matter on an explicit political basis and claim credit for it, yet seem totally unable to intervene in the Gartcosh matter?

I made it quite clear to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that my door was open to see the representatives of the work force, as it had been for more than three months. It seemed unusual, to put it mildly, that they did not take advantage of that. My door remained open. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of the fundamental difference between Gartcosh and Ravenscraig—[Interruption]—in terms of BSC's strategy.

Order. I fully understand and appreciate that there is an important debate to follow Question Time, but Question Time is important to those hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further progress has been made in opening up the internal market of the European Community.

During the last six months the Council has agreed a number of measures which should facilitate the free movement of goods and services within the Community. The Internal Market Council of 12 December endorsed a detailed programme of action for the Netherlands and United Kingdom Presidencies with the aim of securing the adoption of a large number of further measures in 1986. A copy of this programme is in the Library of the House.

In what respects does my hon. Friend think that the most progress will be made to the benefit of the United Kingdom, especially with respect to small businesses, which still find that some of the obstacles put in their way when exporting to Europe are difficult to overcome?

The Council has adopted a directive liberalising the marketing of unit trusts, co-ordinating national customs, computer developments and reducing clearance times at internal frontiers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken an initiative that will ensure that all new proposals emanating from the Commission will be scrutinised with respect to the burdens that they will place on small businesses.

Does the opening of the internal market of the European Community include consortiums for the production of helicopters? If so, will the hon. Gentleman advise workers at Westland not to accept job guarantees from the leaders of such a consortium, especially as Lord Weinstock, the leader of GEC, axed 1,000 jobs in Coventry, South-East just before Christmas? Will the hon. Gentleman advise them that they cannot believe the truth of such a spokesman for a European consortium?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that defence procurement measures, which are largely what are involved in the Westland case, do not come within the purview of the Commission.

Does the Department recognise that for Londoners and the whole British economy the most important aspect of this process is the achievement of a fully integrated European market for capital over the whole range of financial services, with London playing its proper pre-eminent part?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the conduct of the liquidator of W. G. Allen (Tipton) Ltd.

I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to W. G. Allen & Sons (Tipton) plc. which is in receivership, not in liquidation. My hon. Friend has drawn my attention in the last few days to a number of points. I am considering them to see whether exercise of my Department's investigative powers is warranted.

In thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that reply and noting that he is to look into the matter, may I ask him to pay due attention to shareholder concern about inaccuracies in letters from the stock exchange, and the fact that a statement of affairs is still awaited? This company failed within three months of having a clean auditor's report. There seems to be some conflict of interest. Will my hon. and learned Friend bear those things in mind?

I shall take all those matters into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on trading prospects with China.

There are good prospects for steady growth in our trade with China, which has substantially increased in the last two years.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that China will be able to benefit from the substantial increases in the soft loan facilities which the Secretary of State should be able to announce? When does he expect that such loans will become available for China?

We have already told the Chinese Government that in principle we are prepared to offer soft loans for project business. We had preliminary talks with them, and it will not be long before some of them come to fruition.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being make in his talks on liberalising international trade in services.

The GATT contracting parties agreed at their meeting in November to set up the preparatory process for a new round in which the British Government think it essential that all relevant topics, including trade in services, should be included. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom continues to press for completion of the Community's internal market in services as in goods.

I had always understood that one of the main objectives of the European Community was freedom of trade by the removal of restrictive trade practices. Will my right hon. Friend give me some idea of when the current dispute over the German insurance market might be resolved and the possible prospects for the British insurance market when that has occurred?

It will, of course, depend upon the decision of the court. I hope that the court decision in the German case will be made in the not too distant future, and that it will be in favour of the position that we have adopted. Before long that would lead to substantial progress being made in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of trade in cash terms was conducted with South Africa in 1983, 1984 and 1985, respectively (a) in imports and (b) in exports.

The value of United Kingdom imports from South Africa were £765 million in 1983, £726 million in 1984 and £914 million in the first 11 months of 1985. The corresponding figures for exports were £1,111 million £1,204 million and £933 million respectively.

Is that not a comment on the political efforts of this Government at a time when apartheid in South Africa is grinding the whole of southern Africa into confusion? People are being shot down daily — [Interruption.]—murdered all over the place, because they are asking for some kind of equality. Why do we not take a leaf out of the American book and exert some pressure on that Government and make it clear to them that we are not willing to flourish while people are held in such miserable subjection in that country?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of events. No one dislikes apartheid more than do my hon. Friends and myself. One of the major forces for reform in South Africa has been the activities of industry, and in particular British industry, in improving conditions for black workers in South Africa and protecting jobs both here and there over the past few years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more publicity should be given to the number of jobs that rely on South African trade—in particular, the work that we do in the port of Southampton—and to the fact that many workers take the realistic view that South African trade provides their livelihood? Is it not the case that any way in which we can expand trade with South Africa would be good for this country's work force?

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. There are probably hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country that depend upon trade with South Africa, and many thousands of jobs—including many among the black workers—in South Africa.

rose—

rose—

Order. I shall take points of order arising directly out of questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising directly out of questions?

Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect on your ruling about question 1 today. It involved the CBI and the regulation of financial services. You will recollect that you asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and other hon. Members who wanted to ask questions about Lloyd's to desist. If your ruling stands, it would seem that in future you are prepared to accept questions about Lloyd's only if the question refers to Lloyd's, such as question 14. As it is an important matter, I ask whether you would reflect on the matter and give the House your advice.

Order. I can say to the hon. Member straight away that I reflected when the question was first put. I knew perfectly well that question 14 on the Order Paper was the question on which these matters should properly be raised.

On a point of order arising out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider later today expressing your sympathy, on behalf of the Opposition, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for the fact that, following his loss of his memory yesterday, he has lost his voice this afternoon? He answered only two questions.

Order. I have lost my voice as well.