asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the change in the volume, value and types of goods and services exported to Japan in 1985, as compared with the previous five years.

Information on volume of trade with individual countries is not available. Between 1980 and 1985 the value of United Kingdom visible exports to Japan rose from £597 million to £1,015 million, with textiles and chemicals preeminent. The latest available estimate of our invisible surplus with Japan is of £720 million for 1982.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. He will be aware, as the rest of us are, that our current trading deficit with Japan is now running annually at over £3,000 million, and that at least part of that is due to the Japanese failing to observe fair reciprocal trading standards. Does he not think that it is high time the Government consulted other countries in a similar trading position and insisted that the Japanese Government took more imports, and that there was a planned reduction in the imbalance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kindness. Certainly I share his anxieties, as I believe do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate his remarks about co-ordinating action with other countries. I had informal discussions with Commissioner De Clercq last week on this subject, and I shall be attending the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg next week, at which this subject will be discussed. The Community will be reviewing its policy towards Japan.

Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his appointment? We know that he is someone who will stand up realistically for British interests in the highest tradition. When he is in Europe, will he tell the Japanese that we are tired of their promises, their hopes and their agreements? Will he explain to them that the nightmare of the Japanese destroying much of Europe's manufacturing base year after year must end, and that if they do not do it we shall do it for them?

Regrettably, many of the inroads to which my hon. Friend refers arise from the uncompetitiveness of European industry. Where it arises out of unfair practices, and where resistance to our import penetration into Japan arises from obstructions that are placed in the way of our trade penetration, there is an urgent need for action. The Japanese have introduced an action programme—

Sold out to the Japanese.

Wait and see.

Read it out.

I have not read anything yet. The action programme, so called, to which my hon. Friend has referred, and which the Japanese claim to be considerable, is the seventh of such promises that they have made. I admit that progress so far is extremely disappointing.

Is the Minister aware that he is already showing signs of having thrown in the towel on the question of trade with Japan? We hear this afternoon the coded language of the Minister for Bongo-bongo land. Is he aware that I cannot congratulate him upon getting this post, because it is like the Prime Minister putting Herod in charge of Mothercare?

I appreciate the special relationship that I always enjoy with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I take it as a compliment that he felt obliged to intervene as early as he did after my appointment, but he was making so much noise that he was incapable of listening to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). When he reads it in Hansard, I hope that he will not be disappointed.

May 1 add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members and say to my hon. Friend that it might assist him in his new task if he held consultations with the Department of Education and Science on the subject of Japanese language teaching. According to a written answer to me, the Government do not know how much Japanese, if any, is being taught in our schools. Only four universities embrace the subject, but the Government do not know how many students are studying Japanese. If, instead of whingeing, we took on the Japanese on their own ground, learnt the language and sent out our entrepreneurs, engineers and technicians to Japan, our balance of trade would be very much better.

That is a very sensible suggestion. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is better directed to those who are concerned with education rather than to my Department. One of the reasons for the overwhelming Japanese advance is that practically all Japanese business men can, when they choose to do so, speak perfect English.

Were our trading problems with the Japanese not resolved by the much publicised visit of the Minister's right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to Tokyo a year or so ago? What went wrong? Why did his visit not succeed?

I understand that Premier Nakasone has to face a general election in the autumn. It is generally recognised that the imminence of a general election inhibits long-term decision making.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the Trades Union Congress; and what matters will be discussed.

I have no immediate plans to do so, but of course I am always prepared to have such a meeting.

When the Secretary of State eventually holds such a meeting, will he bear in mind the worries of many people that for every three jobs that we had in the steel industry when this Government took office, we now have only one? Given that rapid decline, how long will it be before we cease to have an indigenous steel industry and no jobs in steel?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the steel industry. He has raised it many times in the House. However, he overlooks the fact that during the past five years over £4·5 billion has been contributed to the steel industry. It is a little unfair to say that the Government have not tried to help it.

What would the position now be if our share of the domestic motor car industry market was not 34 per cent., but the 90 per cent. that it was 25 years ago? How many more jobs would now be secure at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh?

My hon. Friend makes the point extremely forcefully. Many of our problems would undoubtedly be very much eased if we had more than a 3·9 per cent. share of the European car market.

Will the Secretary of State arrange a meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss the Government's disastrous plan to sell off Leyland Commercial Vehicles, Land Rover and Freight Rover to General Motors, with a loss of research and development and jobs in both Leyland Commercial Vehicles and General Motors? Why are this Government, who used to talk about batting for Britain, now continually batting for American multinationals?

The hon. Gentleman distorts the position. It was made clear to the House on several occasions last week that I am trying very hard to secure a viable future for those parts of British Leyland to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I want to try to ensure that that can be done, and that I shall obtain adequate assurances that will satisfy the House.

Does my right hon. Friend think that it might be possible to persuade members of the TUC that an approach by Leyland Bus to Laird, possibly to take it over, or at least to amalgamate with it, might be more acceptable to the trade unions than the reverse? At the same time, will he consider the possibility of negotiations between Leyland Trucks and a European manufacturer, such as Daf, which may have more in common with Leyland in terms of manufacturing trucks than General Motors has.

As my hon. Friend is aware, at present talks are taking place between British Leyland and the Laird group about the future of Leyland Bus. Obviously the board would consider other proposals on their commercial merits in relation to the company as a whole.

When the Secretary of State eventually meets the TUC, how will he explain that after six so-called leaner, fitter, Tory years, during which world trade in manufactures has risen by 27 per cent., our manufacturing output has fallen, our manufacturing investment has fallen and is still 20 per cent. below the level when the Government came to office, and our manufacturing imports have soared by 45 per cent.?

I must point out that our manufacturing investment rose by 14·5 per cent. in 1984 and by a further 6 per cent. in 1985. Manufacturing exports increased by 8·5 per cent. in 1985, and, in terms of both volume and value, are at a record high.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department is providing to the inquiry that he has set up into Lloyd's; and if he will make a statement.

A small secretariat has been established for the committee of inquiry, headed by a principal in my Department. Accommodation is also being provided within the Department. The committee's need for any further assistance will be kept under review.

If 25 Lloyd's agencies fail the honest, competent, solvent and fit and proper test for registration under the Lloyd's Act 1982, would it not place a question mark over the individuals who work in those agencies? Should not those individuals be barred from joining other agencies, and thereby secure registration?

It is not right for me to comment on individual cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because several cases are the subject of investigations. I hope that the committee will report soon in the summer, and if action is necessary we shall certainly take it.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if evidence emerges, either as a result of the inquiry or from other sources, that the present regulatory regime at Lloyd's is unsatisfactory, he will introduce as a matter of urgency legislation to improve that regulatory regime, recognising that the present Financial Services Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Financial Services Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. He asks a hypothetical question. If the committee were to report in that sense, we should wish to consider its findings as a matter of great urgency, and I should certainly want to establish the most satisfactory regime possible.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the results of his Department's investigation into the Unimar fraud, which spelt doom for Sir Peter Green, a past chairman of Lloyd's, are made available to the inquiry? Will he further ensure that the Bellew Parry and Raven report prepared by Sir Edward Singleton, which is complete, but for some unknown reason has not been published by Lloyd's, will be made available to the inquiry?

I shall ensure that the inquiry has all the relevant information.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Lloyd's Act 1982 had been introduced this year, instead of three years ago, the House would never have accepted the principle of self-regulation? Does he further accept that many Conservative Members and other hon. Members do not accept that self-regulation is appropriate?

I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that we have set up the inquiry, that it will report speedily, and that the House can then consider the appropriate way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of Cornwall's tin mining industry.

I cannot comment on the commercial prospects for Cornwall's tin mining industry until the market reopens and we know the price at which tin will settle. Negotiations to reach a settlement of the tin crisis are in progress and the Government are doing everything they can to ensure the best deal possible to enable orderly trading in tin to resume.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Cornish tin industry contributes £23 million a year to Cornwall's economy and £50 million a year to our balance of payments and employs 2,000 people? The Government have responded generously to the problems of those who deal in tin by offering £50 million. May we have an assurance that those who mine that mineral will receive a similar sum?

I am very much aware of the contribution of the tin industry in Cornwall over the years, not least because the hon. Gentleman and my colleagues have made representations to me and brought delegations to see me. As I have said before to the hon. Gentleman, the best action is to sort out the problems so that we know the price at which tin is trading before looking precisely at the problem relating to Cornwall.

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's efforts, but does he agree that the situation has become urgent? It is almost six months since these problems first arose. Will he assure the House that, once the problems of the International Tin Council are resolved, he will give sympathetic consideration to the needs and requirements of the tin industry in Cornwall?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the urgency of the problem. I have been saying that for some time—no doubt, boring him. As soon as the problem is sorted out, we must look at what is necessary and at what can be done for Cornwall.

Is there not at least a marginal inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's line, in that he cannot decide what help he will give the industry to overcome the crisis until the crisis is over?

With respect, I do not think that there is such an inconsistency. As the right hon. Gentleman is very much aware, many other countries are involved. Until we know precisely the price at which tin settles, it would be incorrect to pre-empt any further discussion.

I appreciate the difficulty in which my hon. Friend finds himself. Nevertheless, will he recognise that time is fast running out and that, if we wait much longer, at least one mine—Geevor in my constituency—will no longer exist? We cannot afford to wait much longer.

I am more than aware of the need to get on with this matter. The fact that negotiations have taken place between the council and its creditors is a significant step forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to attend the National Economic Development Council; and what matters will be discussed.

On 5 March. The agenda for the meeting has not yet been agreed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend discussing the motor industry in general and British Leyland in particular at the meeting?

It is not for me to set the agenda. That is a matter for the National Economic Development Organisation.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at the meeting to discuss with the NEDC the predatory pricing policies of the Japanese, and especially the use of regional grants, and so on, by the Department of Trade and Industry to enable factories such as the Tokyo Electric Co. which has been undercutting W and T. Avery in the supply of electronic scales, to capture British markets and put 500 people out of work? Should not that issue be addressed by my right hon. Friend at the meeting?

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue which deserves discussion. I think that both sides of the House have warmly welcomed inward investment in general. People are anxious to have increased inward investment, although, clearly, not at the expense of the jobs of others.

As the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear when he attends the NEDC meeting that he believes it is essential for the economy that we have a growing, thriving and successful manufacturing sector? Is he aware that that sector has experienced a steady decline since the Conservatives came to office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a need for major efforts to be made to ensure that the manufacturing sector makes to the economy the contribution that it must?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said a few moments ago. I gave the figures for manufacturing output and manufacturing exports. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We need a thriving manufacturing sector and a thriving services sector. The hon. Gentleman does not do manufacturing a service when he denigrates what has been achieved in the past few years.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the NEDC the fall of some 7 per cent. in the cost of raw materials and fuel in the past year? Should that not lead through to lower prices of manufactured goods and increase our ability to compete?

I very much hope that that is the case. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to discuss what steps can be taken to oppose and restrict the European method of energy subsidisation in industrial products, as the British glass industry has suffered as a result of extremely unfair competition from Europe?

That matter has been raised often with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I shall not set the agenda for the meeting with the NEDC next week, but the House has made some interesting suggestions.

When my hon. Friend has these meetings, will he canvass the possibility of floating Land Rover on the Birmingham stock exchange and give us a chance?

What I certainly think should be done, and what I am determined to work towards, with, I am sure, my hon. Friend, is the best future for Land Rover, for those who work in it and for the company's long-term future.

If the Secretary of State discusses the British motor vehicle industry with the NEDC, will he explain to it and the House why the Government have clearly rejected the option of standing four square behind British Leyland, Leyland Bus and Land Rover to preserve an independent British capability?

As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is overstating the case. The House knows very well that the Government have poured £1·2 billion into Leyland over the years, with guarantees of more than £1·8 billion still available. We should now work together for a viable car industry. That is in the general interest.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that, as part of the merger mania, a series of major attacks have been made on Scottish companies such as DCL and Coats Patons? Will he undertake to discuss with the NEDC the development of the Scottish regional economy so that we retain the greatest possible indigenous control of our industry?

The regional economy of Scotland is no doubt a suitable subject for the NEDC. I do not believe that individual takeovers are an appropriate subject, however, although I shall no doubt get advice in due course from the Director General of Fair Trading about the companies to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the profit or loss made by the British Steel Corporation in 1979–80 and in 1984–85, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Excluding the costs of the miners' strike, the corporation made a profit in 1984–85, after interest and before exceptional items, of £40 million. The comparable figure for 1979–80 was a loss of £538 million. This is an impressive recovery, and the strategy announced last August points the way to sustained profitability for the BSC.

I welcome those figures and congratulate the industry on this remarkable turnround. I also congratulate the management on achieving that without confrontation, but with discussion and negotiation. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an early return of the industry to the private sector, where it rightly belongs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's objective is to return the BSC to the private sector as soon as circumstances allow, not least involving the liability of the corporation. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments—we have them very much in mind.

Is the Minister aware that anybody can reduce the losses of any big company simply by shutting down plant? That is how we see it in Scotland. How many jobs do we now have in the BSC as compared with 1979–80?

I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about jobs. As for the core activity and the maintenance of the five integrated steel making plants, it is in the corporation's interests to note market conditions and reduce the amount of subsidy necessary to keep those plants and the downstream plants in operation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decisions taken by the Conservative Government to keep Ravenscraig in production and the results that have been achieved show how wise those decisions were and that all the other decisions taken to close non-productive plants were equally wise, which is why the corporation is now beginning to show profits?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the Ravenscraig plant much in mind. I hope that he will be encouraged by the three-year projections that have now come forward, as approved by the Commission under the steel regime. The plant's future is more assured and it will benefit, for example, from reallocations of quota, not least the reallocation of quota from Alpha steel.

As the Minister apparently could not answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) about the number of jobs lost, will he take it from me that in the process of returning to profitability the BSC has got rid of 120,000 jobs, few of which have been replaced by other employment in the steel-making areas? Will he guess, if nothing else, how much it costs taxpayers to keep 120,000 people out of work?

Considerations about the steel industry are a function of two parameters. One is the need to reduce taxpayers' exposure to continuing losses, and the other is to continue to supply steel to British industry. Important though the steelworkers' constituency is, there is a much bigger constituency to address—the effect on all engineering industries and steel users of the competitiveness of BSC, its improvement and the prices that it charges its customers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the position in 1979 was that the British steel industry was massively overmanned and was producing steel at a cost that exceeded nearly every other competitor? Today, we are producing steel efficiently, effectively and, most important, competitively. The BSC is the lowest-cost producer in Europe. Right hon. and hon. Members must acknowledge that achievement.

I hope the House will celebrate the fact that, as we come to the end of the steel aid regime in Europe, our industry is in the best competitive shape to face true competition. That is a tribute to the BSC's managers and comprehensively vindicates the Government's policy.

In view of the closures that are taking place, will the Minister concede that serious consideration should be given to the social consequences and the loss of human dignity? Will he say what the Government intend to do about Ravenscraig, bearing in mind that they have consistently told us that it is a matter for the Government? What do the Government intend to do to give the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland some hope for the future of the steel industry?

One of the more distressing aspects of my job in the Department of Trade and Industry is considering the cases that come through under the ISERBS regime—retraining and the requests for help from various people, which hon. Members bring forward. The Government have maintained an aid regime which helps with training and helps former employees to graft on new skills. That, with the work done by the BSC in closure areas, amounts to living up to the responsibilities that major corporations and Governments have.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will report on the European Economic Community Council of Ministers meeting on 27–28 January to decide the Community's negotiating mandate for renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the most recent negotiations towards a renewed multi-fibre arrangement.

There was a very brief discussion about the multi-fibre arrangement in the Council of Ministers on 27 January. The only decisions taken were to have a substantive discussion at the Council of Ministers meeting on 17–18 February, and to try to agree on a negotiating mandate before the end of February.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, President Reagan has undertaken not to weaken the MFA. When my hon. Friend attends the next meeting, will he impress upon fellow European Ministers the danger that this presents of a large diversion of trade from the United States should the EEC adopt a weaker policy?

It is true that the President of the United States actually instructed that negotiations should be conducted in an aggressive manner. We are still awaiting the completion of the terms of the mandate which goes to the commissioners. My hon. Friend can be certain that a variety of views will be encompassed in the discussions.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some potentially lucrative markets for exporters—one thinks of Taiwan, South Korea and Brazil—are very largely closed because of the policies of their Governments? As those countries are substantial textile and clothing exporters to this country, will my hon. Friend make reciprocity one of his leading objectives in the negotiations that are to take place?

All negotiations depend on a calculated trade-off of advantage and concession. My hon. Friend has pointed out one of the principal considerations affecting those countries from which textile imports originate. The level to which reciprocity would be to our advantage has to be a matter of calculation and assessment.

Has the Minister been receiving the same rather plaintive representations from employers in the textile industry as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been receiving? Is he prepared to meet their desire to protect the very fragile recovery that there has been in the textile industry?

I would not term the representations as plaintive. There have been well argued and carefully considered representations from a wide variety of employers. They will be taken into account, as will the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the debate that we are to have tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency over 2,000 people are employed in the textile and carpet industries? All the shop stewards report to me their serious concern at the liberal attitude taken by the Secretary of State. If the Minister for Trade is to conduct the negotiations, and if he is to take the same liberal attitude as the Secretary of State, what assurances can he give to the workers in my textile and carpet industries that they will be better off, if his attitude prevails, when the MFA has been concluded?

Some hon. Members may regret it, but it is a fact of life that negotiation is no longer possible bilaterally by the United Kingdom. Negotiations have to be conducted through the Community. The preparation of the mandate is going ahead. Certainly the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents will be very much at the forefront of our considerations.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the British textile industry employs more people than the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation added together? Does he agree that for the success of the surviving mills, despite the decline in the industry, he must negotiate a new MFA at the same time as he is conducting talks on GATT, which will take many years, as he knows?

The multi-fibre arrangement negotiations will be completed well before the next round of negotiations on GATT. My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the very large number of people in the United Kingdom who depend for their employment on the textile industry. It is around the half million mark.

My hon. Friend has an exceptional reputation for his interest in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Will he assure the House today that he will ensure a robust renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement so that the manufacturing base of this country is not further eroded? I speak not only on behalf of employers but on behalf of trade unions and the work force in the industry when I say that if he fails to do so tens of thousands of people will be out of work. Will he act accordingly in the national interest?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the compliment that he paid me. It is not fair to make a general accusation that the entire textile industry depends for its existence on the perpetuation of the MFA in its present form. The industry is extremely efficient and it would not wish to take refuge in a blindly protectionist attitude. None the less, I am aware of the concern expressed from wide circles in the industry. The negotiations will be long and complex and many different views will be expressed from within the Community in putting the mandate together. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall take heed of what he says and of the wide variety of representations that I have received on this subject.

Does the Minister accept that during the lifetime of the existing MFA more than 2,000 jobs in the British textile and clothing industries have been lost, and that that vividly illustrates the need for a strong and effective renewed MFA? Does he also accept that there are important investment decisions riding on the outcome of the MFA negotiations? If he will not accept that from me, will he accept it from the chief executive of Vantona Viyella, who said recently that his company had invested £50 million in the past two years and was prepared to spend more, but that the decision rested on the outcome of the MFA renegotiations? Will he also understand that what he has said will be seen as extremely disturbing throughout many constituencies, represented in some cases by the Minister's hon. Friends, and that if the British textile and clothing industries—[Interruption]—sold out by—[Interruption.]—

Order. It is very unfair to ask such a long question, which denies other hon. Members a chance to speak.

I think that the House showed its impatience with the hon. Member's question by making three quarters of it inaudible. Every job loss is regrettable, but if he really regards the loss of 2,000 jobs out of a work force of 500,000 as being significant—

Two thousand a month.

The fact is that the industry is efficient and its exports to certain markets, for example, Japan, have increased at a fast rate. It is not correct to regard the whole industry as requiring perpetual protection under the mechanism of the MFA. Our business is to ensure that when the MFA is renewed, it is done on the basis of hardheaded negotiation, first in the Community and then in the countries concerned, to the mutual advantage of both.

In view of the Minister's replies, does he agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government took a hard line in the negotiations in the EEC on trade arrangements, as the softly softly approach will hinder or damage the MFA, which will mean a further loss of jobs? Is not the price of the softly softly approach too great for the textile industry?

I reject the idea that negotiations can be conducted on either hard line or softly softly terms. They are a matter of balance, and what has to be weighed is reciprocal merit of advantage and concessions.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and size of the current deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Within the overall surplus on the current account of £3·5 billion in 1985, there was a deficit on manufactures of £3·1 million.

I represent a Sheffield constituency which is famous for its manufactured goods, and we view with concern this continuing deficit. Is this what the Government call economic progress? Will the Minister make it clear that the Government's present policy is not taking us down the road of economic recovery with prosperity round the corner, but is running our manufacturing industry into the ground and making sure that many of our workers are living shorter lives, through worry and depression? The decent thing for the Minister to do is to get out of office and so give us a chance to stop being a country with nothing more than a chain of American-owned hamburger stalls.

The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates. Manufacturing industrial output is well into its fifth year of growth. Continuing growth is indicated by recent forecasts. Fixed investment in manufacturing for the first three quarters of 1985 is 8 per cent. higher than a year ago and, as I said, manufacturing exports, for example, are at record levels in volume and value.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that manufacturing investment is up, productivity is up, output is up and exports are up? Does he not find great encouragement from those facts, and will he therefore condemn the constant pessimism from the Opposition and reaffirm the optimism that we have in the manufacturing sector?

My hon. Friend is right on all those points. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not believe him because he does not want to believe the facts.

Of course I do not. They do not believe in the right hon. Gentleman outside.

The Opposition want to have only a gloomy story. They do not like good news, and my hon. Friend has told us what the good news is.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the facts point out that the Government inherited a substantial surplus in the balance of trade of manufactured goods and now we have a huge deficit? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that has occurred under the Government's economic management and what they intend to do to put it right? Will he please answer both parts of the question?

The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that manufacturing output is up and has been up for 1984 and 1985. It is well up on its trough in 1981. Manufacturing investment is substantially up, non-oil export volume is substantially up, the real rate of return for manufacturing companies is up and manufacturing productivity is also substantially up. Let us stop all the moaning that we hear from the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to facilitate a decision by the board of Westland plc about the future structure and ownership of the company; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's aim throughout has been to enable the Westland's board to decide what reconstruction of the company to recommend to shareholders based on a choice between viable alternative proposals and in which the shareholders could take the final decision.

What is the Government's reaction to today's developments at the meeting?

I understand that a motion to adjourn the extraordinary general meeting of the company has been proposed and defeated and that the meeting is still going on. My understanding is that the result of the substantive motion will not be known until later this afternoon.

Has the Minister learnt any lessons from the Westland affair?

I think that all of us are in a position to learn about any affair.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the events of this morning at the extraordinary general meeting made it clear, as never before, that some people seem to be interested only in wrecking a solution to the Westland crisis? Will he do all that he can to appeal to all those involved, particularly competitors, to do all in their power to ensure that Westland recovers well, prospers and goes from strength to strength?

The final part of my hon. Friend's question is exactly what we would wish Westland to achieve. I think that all of us in the House believe that the sooner the Westland company can get on with the reconstruction and the business of building helicopters, the better it will be.

Does the Minister think that it is appropriate that the future of such an important company, in terms of its industrial and defence consequences, should be decided by a series of doubtful financial wheelings and dealings and, in the event, by anonymous Swiss bank nominees?

I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's construction. None of the dealings are anonymous. As he well knows, powers exist for a company to ascertain the names of those who own shares. There is no reason why the extraordinary general meeting should not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from Sterling Metals of Nuneaton and its existing customers about the consequences of the closure of its iron foundry on imports of components currently supplied by Sterling Metals.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry has been notified about the impending closure of the Sterling Metals iron foundry. No representations have been received either from the company or its customers about consequential effects upon the import of components, although I have had a letter from the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

Is the Minister aware that the major reason for the closure is unfair competition from Spain and Brazil? If so, what action has he taken?

I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I have heard such allegations and my Department, through the Commission, would take up that point if it could be substantiated.

Will my hon. Friend instigate an investigation into the allegations, especially as they are not only of recent date? Would it not be worth pursuing the matter at a departmental level? The possible threat is not only to this company, but to other British foundries.

I am quite happy to do what my hon. Friend has suggested, and will investigate the matter again. He will appreciate that now that Spain has joined the European Community, the position has changed radically.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the effects on the recording industry of home taping; and if he will make a statement.

The record industry has made many representations expressing its concerns about the effects of home taping. It submitted a formal response to the 1985 Green Paper "The Recording and Rental of Audio and Video Copyright Material"—Cmnd. 9445—and has reiterated its concerns since then.

Is my hon. Friend aware that every day millions of people in this country copy music from records, pre-recorded tapes and the radio? Is he further aware that nine of every 10 tapes sold are used for that purpose? Is that not a breach of copyright? Is it not disgraceful that authors, composers and artists receive no benefit from that activity? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a royalty levy on the sale of blank tapes?

It is precisely the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and others that are being weighed carefully in the preparation of the Government's White Paper on this subject.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the industry makes an enormous contribution to the British economy and, indeed, is the most successful of its kind in the world? When will he make an announcement on this matter?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment about the importance of the industry to the United Kingdom. The White Paper will be published in the near future, perhaps shortly after Easter.

Is it not true that certain continental countries were faced with exactly the same problem, but overcame it by the introduction of a levy on blank tapes?

My hon. Friend is correct.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not only a matter of levy, but involves the whole question of copyright? When will his Department tackle that minefield, which so badly needs tackling, not only in this respect, but in many other areas?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a White Paper on the whole subject of intellectual property, innovation and copyright is in an advanced state of preparation.

Could not the recording industry do much to combat the problem of home taping by not allowing its music to be broadcast? Is it not the case, however, that it benefits from free advertising? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the concern in many quarters, especially among those providing talking newspapers for the blind, about the possible outcome of a levy on blank tapes on the valuable service that they provide?

The interests of the blind will be most carefully considered and safeguarded should any proposals be put forward along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the registration as trade marks of commonly used national emblems.

The Government have no intention of introducing legislation to amend the law on that subject.

Is the Minister aware that that answer will be greeted with great disappointment north of the border? Is he aware that The Scotch House has recently acquired the exclusive patent rights to the use of the lion rampant, which is an insignia that has been used for many years by a wide range of knitwear manufacturers in Scotland? Will he reconsider the decision and try to restore the lion rampant to the public domain?

The position is not as the hon. Gentleman describes. The Scotch House has registered a lion as its trade mark, but it is not, as has been suggested in some quarters, the lion of Scotland. The lion of Scotland is a national emblem and cannot be registered as a trade mark. The Scotch House has simply registered a lion as a trade mark. Many lions exist in different forms. I happen to have here many examples of different lions. It is open to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the companies involved to submit other designs—

Other lions.

Provided that the test of distinctiveness can be satisfied, that mark would also be registered.

Would it not be a good idea if cars assembled within the United Kingdom were stamped with the Union Jack? Would that not help the general public, who are desperately keen to buy British cars?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be noted in the appropriate quarters.

Is the Minister aware that while he is sitting on his backside in the Department, many products carrying the Union Jack mark are being dumped on our shores and they are not even made here? I want to know what he is going to do about it.

I do not believe that that arises out a question about the lion of Scotland, but it is an important issue and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will table a question about the matter next time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Negotiations in the GATT on renewal of the MFA are still at an early stage, and discussions in the Community on a mandate for the negotiations are continuing. It is too early to say whether we are likely to achieve our objectives as described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 May 1985, but the Community has agreed that an extension of the MFA is needed.

Is the Minister aware that close on £2 billion has been invested by the industry during the past 10 years and that, compared with foreign competitors, it has kept prices at a reasonable level? Is that not enough to suggest to the Minister that he should go out with all guns blazing and come back to the House with a strengthened multi-fibre arrangement?

The hon. Gentleman heard what my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade had to say earlier. My hon. Friend is a good negotiator. He will be balancing the advantages and taking serious account of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that even efficient clothing producers, such as Dewhurst in my constituency, which supplies Marks and Spencers, believe that it is vital for their continued prosperity that the MFA should be renewed on the same basis as the present arrangement?

I am aware of the efficiency of Dewhurst in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I will take account of what he has said.

On a recent visit to Leeds the Minister said that he would give proper protection to the Leeds clothing industry against the importation of men's cheap suits. What did he mean by proper protection?

I believe that it was men's trousers. In consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, I have been considering the whole matter with the British Clothing Industries Association. If action must be taken, it will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to privatise the Land Rover division of British Leyland; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry. These talks cover Leyland Trucks, Land Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas companies.

As Jaguar has flourished in the private sector, why has my hon. Friend not pursued a similar course with Land Rover? What can Land Rover gain from General Motors that could not be achieved by privatisation in a British market?

Obviously my right hon. Friend and I and the whole of the BL board must carefully take into account the prospects for the future of Land Rover when it goes into the hands of the private sector. The board believes that the prospects for Land Rover and Range Rover will be greatly enhanced if, subject to the conditions that my right hon. Friend announced in the House last week, they team up with General Motors.

As no one in the senior management of British Leyland will admit to being involved in the discussions, will the Minister name the members of the BL board who are involved in trying to sell off the British motor industry?

I am amazed at that question. I do not know the names of all the people involved. There have been negotiations at many levels—technical, commercial and industrial. Several people have been involved in the negotiations across the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about negotiations taking place between General Motors and Leyland Truck and the involvement of Land Rover.

Discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry.

As my hon. Friend is considering the options, will he include among them a management buyout and accept the importance of a significant involvement of employees of the company in that scheme?

That will initially be a matter for the BL board. Certainly as regards the future of Land Rover and Range Rover, it is important that any deal that they come to is a deal that they and the Government consider to be the best for enhancing their prospects and the prospects of my hon. Friend's constituency and the thousands of his constituents who work there.

Has General Motors made the inclusion of the Land Rover division of British Leyland a condition of its acquisition of that division? If not, why will the hon. Gentleman not listen to the views of the management and unions at Land Rover and to the view of both sides of the House and consider a future for Land Rover outside the deal with General Motors?

At this stage, General Motors has not put forward any formal proposition. It would be fair to say that General Motors is looking at the three constituent parts about which I have already told the House.