asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss future investment in the industry; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be meeting the chairman designate, Mr. Scholey, on 17 March for a general discussion.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the closure of Gartcosh has shaken the confidence of the Scottish people in the commitment of the Government and the Conservative party to the long-term future of the steel industry in Scotland? I welcome last week's announcement of the computerisation of the Dalziel plate mill, but much more investment is required at Dalziel. We are also anxious that an early go-ahead should be given to new coke ovens at Ravenscraig. We also need a new cold-rolling mill facility if Gartcosh is to remain closed. The Secretary of State may be unable to respond positively to all of these points, but will he at least be prepared to meet the Scottish group of Labour Members of Parliament to discuss the issue?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think that there would be much point in my meeting him and his colleagues about the future of Gartcosh, because that has been settled. It would be raising false hopes to discuss that matter again, because there is no prospect of the decision being changed. However, I am always anxious and willing to see the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends about any other matters that they may wish to discuss with me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members, who only a matter of weeks ago were telling us that Dalziel would be closed, should recognise that the investment that is being made in the Scottish steel industry is possible only because of the closure of Gartcosh and because the British Steel Corporation is able to target resources where they are most productive? However, when my right hon. Friend meets the chairman designate of the British Steel Corporation, will he ask him to put every effort into creating jobs in small businesses at the Gartcosh site, as the BSC has done so successfully elsewhere in Scotland?

I shall certainly raise that matter with the chairman designate of the British Steel Corporation. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The House knows that the BSC has recently announced board approval for an investment of £2·5 million at Dalziel. I hope that that news is welcomed by the House.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is great fear in the Motherwell constituency about the closure of Gartcosh, because of the effect on Ravenscraig? Does he recognise that an investment of £90 million in coke ovens is urgently required and desired? Will he further note that £400 million is being spent on steel plants in England and Wales? That means that the people at Ravenscraig feel that unless something sensational happens the Ravenscraig plant will be the next to close. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is not the view of the Government? It has always been conceded that Ravenscraig is a matter upon which the Government will have to take a decision.

I have nothing to add to what the Government have already said about the future of Ravenscraig. The position remains unchanged. I hope that that is of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman has noted that the BSC plans to spend £15 million on coal injection and other projects at Ravenscraig.

In view of the serious consequences that arose from the undercapitalisation of Sheffield Forgemasters, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the resources being put into Phoenix 2 through the BSC will be adequate to meet all future investment that is needed, including the urgent need for new continuous casting facilities at Rotherham?

I hope and think that is so. We shall certainly keep in close touch with the situation.

Looking at the investment in the context of the new EEC regime for steel, were not the Government either naive or inept—or perhaps naive and inept—in agreeing to end direct state aid for steel while failing to do anything at all about indirect aid? Does the Secretary of State realise that the result is that the BSC, which receives £1 a tonne of direct assistance, will have to compete directly with Italian producers, who receive £6 a tonne, and with French and German producers, who receive £8 a tonne? Since concurrently the EEC has ended the minimum pricing regime, does that the not mean that the BSC will have to compete at an enormous disadvantage and find that it is incredibly difficult to finance its future investment needs?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is probably overstating his case. I do not think that that is the position. The Commission is taking a close interest in these problems, and naturally we will encourage it to continue to do so. It will monitor the position. There is every prospect of the BSC meeting the forecasts. That should be a major cause for congratulating the BSC, considering the difficult position that it has faced over the years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with the figure for the same month six years ago.

In the fourth quarter of 1985 the index of production for manufacturing industry stood at 105, based on 1980 equal to 100. This is 5 per cent. lower than for the corresponding period of 1979. However, between 1981 and 1985 manufacturing output rose by 11 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend not find it alarming that the output of manufacturing industry is lower today than it was six years ago? Why does he think that has happened?

Yes, I find it alarming, but my hon. Friend will have heard what happened between 1981 and 1985, when we had great successes in manufacturing industry.

Is the Minister aware that in the same period, when there was a production output drop of 5 per cent., there was a reduction in the work force of 22 per cent. or just short of 1,500,000 people? Should he not now pay tribute to the work force for having achieved such high output and production when wage levels have fallen by 18 per cent. over the same period?

I certainly pay tribute where there have been significant productivity improvements. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, productivity in manufacturing since 1980 has increased by 29 per cent., which is a great tribute to many people, including the work force.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some aspects of our regional policy have merely transferred jobs in manufacturing from one part of the country to others where there are fewer manufacturing jobs? Will he reconsider the position in my constituency, where two major engineering companies have lost labour to smaller units in south Wales and the north-east? Surely that cannot be practical politics.

I do not know the precise position about the two companies to which my hon. Friend referred, but I assure him that we consider the matter extremely carefully. I hope he will agree that the direction of regional policy to areas of high unemployment is right.

Is the Minister aware that he can help manufacturing industry, especially the textile industry, by ensuring that a good, strong, protective multifibre arrangement mandate is given to those who are negotiating on our behalf?

Yes, I am aware of that, and I have great confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. I am also aware that since 1979 some £7·3 billion has gone into manufacturing as a whole. That confirms the Government's commitment to it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we are all pleased to see that the figures for manufacturing output are increasing, not least in Austin Rover and the Land Rover group? Although he has said that they may not expect any favours, does he agree that they may at least expect fairness, so that Britain can continue with a high manufacturing output for the good of the nation?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have paid tribute to the great strides which have been made throughout the whole of British Leyland.

I congratulate the Minister on having the courage to be one of the few Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and admit that the fall in manufacturing output during the past six or seven years of Conservative government is alarming. What do the Government propose to do to change that alarming position? When will we see manufacturing output rise to the level which the Government inherited all those years ago and all that North sea oil ago?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted me a little out of context, but I am grateful to him for the compliment. I pointed out the figures between 1981 and 1985, which showed a significant improvement. I am sure he will have noticed that there is enormous confidence by international and domestic investors in terms of the stock exchange—[Interruption] That is correct. It is investing in the future of Britain's manufacturing sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet been approached by British Aerospace for financial assistance in the development of the proposed new Airbus project known as A330 and A340.

There have been preliminary discussions between my Department and British Aerospace about the proposed new Airbus programmes. Though British Aerospace has indicated that it would expect in due course to apply for Government launch aid in respect of these programmes, no formal application has yet been received.

If we are to sustain a viable aircraft manufacturing capacity in Britain, is there not a strong argument in favour of responding favourably to such an approach from British Aerospace should it be forthcoming, not least because Germany appears all too eager to take the place of Britain in the Airbus project? As we have already invested a substantial sum in the A320, should we not offer to British and international airlines an opportunity to buy an Airbus product straight across the board, as they can at the moment from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas?

I have not closed my mind to that prospect, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that British Aerospace will have to show that the project will be economically viable, that it will achieve a commercial rate of return, that Government support is essential to supplement its financial resources, and, indeed, that it has tried to obtain private finance.

I assure the Secretary of State that we are all grateful for the fact that preliminary discussions have taken place, but when the submission comes in will he make sure that we have some positive action quickly, because we lost orders on the A320, despite its success, and the A330 and A340 have a high element of British parts?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he cannot expect me to approve an application that has not yet been received.

Does my right hon. Friend know that in a conversation that a number of his colleaues had last week with Franz Josef Strauss, the chairman of the board of Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm, he made it clear that he wanted Britain to be in on the development of the A330 and the A340 and that, if we did not make a decision by the end of the year, he would try to allocate our share to European companies which were interested, and that would be a disaster for the British aviation industry?

Yes, I heard that report. We are only in March, so there is plenty of time. I shall await the application from British Aerospace. If it wants to make one, it will be judged against the criteria that I have outlined.

Why does the Minister need the case proving all over again? Surely it was proved in the case of the A320, which is selling because of its high technology. Is it just a reflection of the fact that he is new to the job?

No. It is a reflection of the fact that no one has made an application to me.

Before my right hon. Friend receives the submission, will he consider the need to get from the Airbus industry proper accounts as to how its business operates, how it disposes of its money and what is the cost of producing its aeroplanes?

Yes. My hon. Friend raises three important points.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we accept that no formal application has yet been made, but he has erected a formidable series of hurdles for British Aerospace to overcome? Will he, in particular, confirm that although some money from private sector finance may be available, Government support will be inevitable if the programme is to get off the ground? Will he make it clear to the House today that he is not in principle opposed to public support for this important programme?

The House would think it most unreasonable if I gave an answer to an application that I had not yet received. In the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman holding my office, he would do the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his forecast for manufacturing output in 1986.

A new forecast for the increase in manufacturing output between 1985 and 1986 will be published in the Industry Act forecasts at the time of the Budget next week. The recent CBI industrial trends survey suggests that short-term prospects for manufacturing output can be viewed optimistically.

While welcoming that forecast, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that that would give industry its longest sustained period of growth since 1971? Can he give me some idea of the areas of growth?

There is clear evidence that the manufacturing sector is enjoying sustained growth and a trend of increased output. I know that my hon. Friend is a great expert in such matters. Last year, within the growth in manufacturing output, the mechanical engineering sector, which is at the heart of manufacturing, increased its output by 6 per cent. That was a magnificent achievement, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would join us in celebrating that recovery.

Is it true that no amount of projected growth in manufacturing output will make good the devastation caused to the industrial base since 1979, that during the past 10 years Britain has lost for ever one sixth of its industrial base, and that British manufacturing has lost 1·7 million jobs? In the light of those figures, why do the Government have no strategy for the regeneration of British industry?

The hon. Gentleman posed his question in the context of the past 10 years. Therefore, he will agree that it is highly significant that between 1973 and 1979 productivity in the manufacturing sector increased by the appalling figure of only 4 per cent. That was an awful legacy with which to enter the world recession. By contrast, between 1979 and 1985 productivity increased by more than 30 per cent. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's philosophical question, I should say that, as a trading nation, we must manufacture goods to survive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a high proportion of manufacturing output in Bolton and its surrounding areas depends on the textile industry and that jobs and future investment are at risk in the absence of an orderly development of the world textile trade through a strong multi-fibre arrangement?

My hon. Friend will be aware that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has been tackling that problem with great vigour in the Council of Ministers in Europe. In due course he will deliver a regime which safeguards our international requirements for free trade, while looking after the legitimate interests of the British textile industry.

Does the Minister accept that his answers this afternoon reflect the Government's complacent attitude to manufacturing industries? Will he assure the House that the Government will take steps to encourage the growth of our manufacturing industries? Will they also encourage a "Think British" campaign aimed at consumers buying products in the market?

On many occasions I and my colleagues have urged British consumers to take another look at British products. It is interesting that those who complain the most about the performance of British industry search the least to find well-designed British products, which are coming on to the market and which are tackling the inroads that imports have made into our economy. Much of the decision-making process lies legitimately with our consumers, who should do precisely what the hon. Gentleman recommends.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent performance in manufacturing production and the creation of greater confidence in the manufacturing world has released funds from the private sector and from abroad, and that the demand for dependence on Government money, about which we hear so much from the Labour party, is largely brought about from nostalgia, a desire for state power, or a deliberate ignorance of our own success?

Sometimes when I listen to the arguments from the Labour Benches I cannot help but think that those arguments have more to do with an affection for public funding of any description than with anything else. Therefore, their philosophical preoccupations are more important to them than are the practical requirements of industrial policy.

Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend the Minister of State that the fall in manufacturing output under this Government has been alarming?

My hon. Friend and I celebrate the fact that at long last we have a period of growth that has not been funded by inflation or by bogus demand management.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the future of the Cornish tin mining industry.

We are monitoring closely the effects of recent developments on the Cornish tin industry. My Department is in touch with the mining companies in Cornwall. We will be willing to consider carefully assisting viable projects to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.

The Cornwall tin mining industry has drawn some hope from the replies given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), which were echoed by the statement that my hon. Friend has made just now. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable concern about the Government's apparent line that we shall have to wait until the market stabilises before coming to any decision, because that could well mean that we would be too late?

I accept what my hon. Friend says relating to concern about any delay. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have said on several occasions that we would wish to expedite any official proposition from any of the tin mines in Cornwall. I hope that he will agree that the viability test must be properly looked into.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when another precious metal was in difficulty less than a couple of years ago the Government decided to use about £100 million of taxpayers' money to bail it out? I am referring to the gold bullion dealers Johnson Matthey. Why is it that the Government, when it comes to tin miners, unlike bankers, decide that they cannot do anything at all about the problem? Why cannot they use some of the taxpayers' money, not just to bail out, but to take over those tin mines and nationalise them so that jobs can be safeguarded?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, whether nationalised or not—I would be opposed to nationalisation—the future viability of the tin mines will depend upon the cost of production and the market price at which they can sell that production.

What does the Minister believe a stabilised tin maket looks like?

Something totally different from the present position, when we do not know what the price is.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with United Kingdom firms' access to the German insurance market.

No, Sir. In common with most other member states of the European Community, Germany imposes restrictions on trade in insurance services which we do not consider to be justified. We regard removal of these restrictions as an important element in the Community's programme for the completion of the internal market.

Is it not deplorable that a citizen in a non-United Kingdom Common Market country cannot place an insurance policy in London? Is that not contrary not only to the spirit of the Common Market but to the treaty of Rome?

I agree with my hon. Friend. All Community members, except the Netherlands, impose restrictions on the writing of insurance service business across national frontiers, but the Commission has brought cases in the European Court of Justice against four member states that impose such restrictions. We hope that the judgment of the Court will open the way to the continuing genuine freedom of trade in insurance services, to which we consider member states are entitled under the treaty.

Would a common market in insurance effectively add a 5 per cent. tax to household, car and life premiums in this country? Will my hon. and learned Friend undertake to make the creation of a common insurance market a top priority during the forthcoming British presidency?

We certainly intend to do all that we can to remedy the situation, and to obtain further progress towards the creation of an internal common market to include a common market in insurance services.

Why should we be compelled, week in and week out, to comply with EEC rules which govern a free market in goods from which we often suffer a disadvantage, when our EEC partners, in particular the Germans, have got away with 15 years of foot-dragging in the one area where we might be expected to derive benefit? Is it not time that the Minister and the Government stopped talking and demanded effective action?

The matter is now before the court. When the court's decision is made known we shall take action.

How many of the 320 internal barriers to trade in the Common Market are in the financial services sector? Will my hon. and learned Friend keep a chart on his wall and tick them off one by one?

The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is too many. I shall adopt his suggestion about the chart and try to reduce the number as speedily as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with British Shipbuilders about its Fleet Support King design of fleet support vessels.

The chairman, Graham Day, has kept my right hon. Friend fully informed of the development of the Fleet Support King design, and of its potential on the home and export markets.

Will the Minister applaud the initiative of British Shipbuilders in developing this design, which would be built in merchant yards—the depressed sector of the industry at the moment — and specifically at shipbuilders in Govan and Sunderland,,? The design is excellent and will give an economic solution to certain naval requirements. Will the Minister do something to get a more positive response than we have had so far from the Ministry of Defence, because support from that Ministry would be important in obtaining orders from foreign navies?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about applauding the design originating from British Shipbuilders. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's points about Govan and Sunderland, but it would be for British Shipbuilders to make up its own mind eventually. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said in the other part of his question.

Will the Minister accept that it is not good enough to say that his colleague in the Ministry of Defence will read carefully what my right hon. Friend has to say? We always hear from the Government, and particularly from Trade and Industry Ministers, that the problems in shipbuilding have to do with the world recession. They make every excuse, as long as it has nothing to do with the Government. These orders are directly in the gift of the British Government. Is the Minister aware that the first Stena ship floats out of the Pallion yard in my constituency today, that the second goes out in June, that the crane ship leaves North sands in August, and that after that there are no more orders in Sunderland Shipbuilders' yards? Is the Minister aware that over 2,000 jobs could be saved if the Ministry of Defence gets off its backside and places these orders? Will the Minister have words with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence today and tell them that these jobs are urgently needed in my constituency and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan, (Mr. Millan)?

I am aware, of course, that the difficulties in the shipbuilding market are quite intense. I am also aware that, thanks to the enormous strides that have been made by the management and the work force, British Shipbuilders is far more competitive than hitherto. I am sure that the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me today is one that he put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday. That matter is my right hon. Friend's responsibility.

In the Minister's discussions with British Shipbuilders about the future work load at Govan and at other yards, what practical initiatives has he considered to secure foreign and merchant orders as well as defence orders to save the 5,000 jobs in British Shipbuilders that are at risk in the coming year?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the management and chairman of British Shipbuilders go overseas to seek the orders which the hon. Gentleman would like, which will ensure that those jobs are preserved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent his Department is encouraging British companies to make better use of Britain's design talent.

All the Department's design activities, incorporating the promoting of awareness of the importance of design in industry and in the education system, and specific measures to help designers, are aimed in some way at making better use of Britain's great wealth of design talent. The extent of the Department's commitment is illustrated by the fact that we have trebled expenditure on design from £ 4 million in 1982–83 to £12 million in the current year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in producing consumer goods in particular, British manufacturers should use designers to greater effect, in view of the fact that there are so many imported goods on the shelves in our shops?

A phenomenon which concerns many people is that so many of our goods, especially consumer goods, are of foreign manufacture. I am delighted to say that out industrialists have woken up to the fact that, by using British design talent, which is the best in the world, they can tackle the huge growth in the range of consumer goods. Currently many British companies do not even begin to address that issue.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office uses British design talent in a different design area —to design its British industry stamp? What is the good of asking British design talent to design a British industry stamp for Industry Year when the Government have tried to sell British Leyland to the Americans, and when Government directors on BP's board connived in the selling of the BP tanker fleet to the Bahamas?

The design story is as applicable to the making of stamps as it is to the making of cars. Although I commend the design practice that designed those stamps —I visited that company—I also commend BL's design policy. BL made large investments in a huge computer aided design facility. The evidence, now on the roads, shows that its design policy is beginning to pay off.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policies for the regeneration of industries in inner city areas.

My Department fully supports and participates in the Government's initiatives in the inner cities, such as the city action teams and the new initiative in the eight inner city areas led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General. We are keen to ensure that the inner cities obtain the maximum possible benefit from a number of national and regional schemes in support of industry and commerce operated by my Department.

How can the hon. Gentleman sound so complacent about the problem when the male adult unemployment rate in and around my constituency is 60 per cent.? Perhaps I should have asked about policies for the reincarnation, rather than the regeneration, of industries. In view of the Government's policy, there is now an industrial desert in our inner city areas. What will the Government do to ensure that there is either public sector or private sector investment in those areas to mop up that great pool of unemployment?

The Government cannot be accused of complacency on inner city programmes. Those programmes are operated by a number of Government Departments. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework a little better, he would have known that, since the launch of city action teams — they are the main weapon of regional selective assistance—115 companies have been visited by CAT officers in his area with the objective of stimulating RSA applications.

How many jobs?

To date, 24 applications have been approved and assistance totalling £1,815,000 has been offered. To answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question, that will create 504 jobs and safeguard 21 more.

Does my hon. Friend not understand how deeply disappointing his answer is to those who hear him encouraging central and local government to spend more money? Would it not be better if my hon. Friend emphasised that lower expenditure in the inner city areas will lead to lower taxes, lower rates and thus lower costs, which may help a few manufacturing industries to survive?

Two policies are relevant in answering my hon. Friend's question. First, there is no point in Governments getting involved in inner city programmes if the cities are politically dominated by those who continue to impose massive rate increases. That would be self-defeating. Secondly, it is surely right that, if the Department of Trade and Industry brings its policies into this initiative, it should ensure that the projects it backs are viable, commercial and geared to promoting employment in jobs with a future. To that extent, that level of public expenditure is working with the grain of market forces and not against it.

Is the Minister aware that one of the last major employers in the inner city area of Manchester, Central—GEC Switchgear—has announced that it will make 300 people redundant and that, in addition, the area has lost 19,000 jobs since the early 1970s? One of the reasons for that is that our industry cannot compete with foreign competitors, which receive advantageous credit and subsidies from their Governments. When will the Government do something for British industry?

If the hon. Gentleman examines the Government's support for that type of major contract business, certainly in terms of export support, he will find that we have a good record. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was speaking about another GEC company, but I am sure he will have noticed that GEC Traction at Trafford Park has secured an order worth £35 million to provide 31 high-speed locomotives. That is an example of enlightened public purchasing working towards objectives which the hon. Gentleman should share.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made towards removing the barriers to trade in goods and services within the European Community?

A large number of directives concerned with the removal of technical barriers to trade in goods and services have been adopted. Steps have also been taken to simplify the movement of goods between member states.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable that there has been so little progress towards a common market within the European Community? Although, this weekend, our eyes will be on France and Spain, where we hope the voice of the sensible Right will prevail, will my hon. Friend cast his mind forward to the end of June, when Britain assumes the presidency of the Commission? What steps is he taking to smooth the transition and therefore make a proper common market more likely?

Certainly progress so far has been disappointing. That is natural in a Council where there are varying interests and opinions. We have agreed an action programme with the Dutch presidency. I shall be chairing the Council — [Interruption.] — for the remaining six months of the year. I hope that, in conjunction with my Dutch colleagues, and the Belgian presidency which follows, we will be able to make more rapid progress in freeing the internal market—an objective that is shared by all member states.

Does it not worry the Minister that British Steel has saddled itself with quotas that have led to a two thirds reduction in manpower in the British steel industry since the Government took office? Does it not worry the Minister that men are being made redundant by British Steel while markets are being flooded, especially by the Italians, who seem to pay scant regard to the quotas which this Government are meeting with great enthusiasm?

The internal market is not really concerned with quotas, but with barriers to the freer movement of trade, the harmonisation of technical standards, a free internal market in financial services and such matters as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry digressed on regarding insurance. With regard to steel quotas, I understand that an extremely good deal was reached before Christmas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that—[Interruption] It is only a matter of time before I move up a little. Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be a better movement of goods and services in Europe if all countries obeyed the same rules? Does he agree that we should take a robust stance on the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement? As it is so important for employment in the European Community, does he not agree that the Community, including the United Kingdom, is likely to be happy to work together in greater cooperation in that regard?

There is a lot in what my hon. Friend says, but the mandate for negotiating the MFA has been agreed on the basis of unanimity. There was nothing particularly contentious in that regard, hut that could have been traded off. I agree that several barriers remain, especially in financial services and insurance. It is in the interests of all member states, including the United Kingdom, that they should be removed as quickly as possible.

Does the Minister recall describing as inconsistent nonsense the origin of the report that will be before him when he takes the chair of the committee that is to meet shortly? What will his feelings be when that item comes up?

I do not recall that phrase, but I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. and hon. Members, who have been very merciful in not reminding me of some of the more intemperate comments that I made before becoming a Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance the Government are providing to the electronics industry for capital investment and product development in the current financial year.

The Department of Trade and Industry's support for research, development and production in the United Kingdom electronics industry during the financial year to date is about £130 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have the balance right? Is he aware that it is rumoured that some £500 million of support is being asked for for the development of the wing of the new European airbus, but that the electronics industry, which is vital to a far wider range of businesses, is lagging behind? Will he consider a spread of support to industries in technology so that we can be certain to be at the forefront of the electronics industry?

There are two separate heads of account for examining launch aid for projects in the aerospace industry, and the support for innovation account is the most relevant to this question. I am content that we have the balance right in terms of DTI spend when we bear in mind that support for innovation was running at roughly £90 million in 1979 and that it is running at roughly £230 million now.

How do the Government think that the British electronics industry will benefit from the American strategic defence initiative research'? Before my Consolidated Fund Bill debate at 2.30 on Friday morning, may we know from the DTI whether it was consulted about the visit from the United States of Mr. Clarence Robinson?

On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave yesterday in the House. As for SDI, there are enabling technologies, which it is right that we should be involved in. The hon. Gentleman will know of one technology which is close to his area of interest at Heriot-Watt university—light-powered computers. As this is leading edge developmental work, it is right that we should consider the options available to us.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both of the electronics companies in my constituency welcome any subsidy, but it is not helpful to them if business rates are now to rise by 80 per cent.? Is there any way in which the subsidies can be reconsidered and pressure put on local authorities to stop slamming the businesses that are providing jobs in the electronics industry in Leicester?

Local authorities which argue that they want a boost in new technologies should give companies a welcome if it is inward investment, or support them on the ground by doing their best, in the interests of job creation and preservation, to keep rate increases down to the absolute minimum.

Is the Minister aware that he is appallingly complacent about the level of Government support for the microelectronics support industry? Is he further aware that since 1981 our level of support has increased only very marginally and that we now have a situation in which France is spending five times as much and Germany nearly twice as much as we are by way of Government support for the microelectronics industry? Does he not find this situation, in which we have a large and growing deficit on information technology, very alarming?

The British information technology industry has a number of key strengths, which this Government are anxious to support. Regarding the level of support, we have not been tardy in coming forward with these programmes. It is significant that this is the first Administration to have created the post of Minister for Information Technology. It is this Administration who have shifted their support towards the new technologies, not only in proportionate terms, but in cash terms.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current position of Leyland Vehicles Ltd.

As I told the House on 5 March, proposals relating to Leyland Trucks and to Land Rover, Range Rover and Freight Rover are being appraised by the BL board. Discussions in relation to Leyland Bus are taking place over a slightly different time scale from those concerning the other Land Rover-Leyland businesses.

My right hon. Friend will be aware, because I have written to him, that there is some concern about property of a community nature rather than of an industrial or manufacturing nature in the town of Leyland, which is owned jointly by Leyland Bus and Leyland Trucks. Will he recognise that this community property plays a very great part in the community and that if it is not looked at carefully in the course of these negotiations this would generate hostility to any deal, which would be a pity? Will he look at this as a matter of urgency?

I shall ensure that this is looked at. It is primarily a matter for discussion by British Leyland with the interested parties, but I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says and will ensure that the matter is carefully studied.

Does the Minister recall that before Westland was taken over by the Americans the Prime Minister and other Ministers repeatedly said that the workers' wishes must be respected? Can he give the same assurance in respect of the future of Land Rover, that before any irrevocable decision is taken there will be a secret ballot of those workers?

What the hon. Gentleman is saying about Westland is not exactly accurate, and I think that is within the recollection of the House. Of course the companies concerned are keeping the work force closely in touch, and I hope that all the usual prcedures will be followed.

Will my right hon. Friend, in his negotiations with whatever interested parties there are for parts of the Leyland empire, pay particularly close attention to the future of an inner city company which is operating at a profit and providing 2,000 jobs for the local community? I refer to Freight Rover, at Washwood Heath in Birmingham. We place a great deal of emphasis on inner city developments and the creation of new businesses. We must ensure that we hang on to what we have and is trading profitably.

I know of my hon. Friend's very deep concern on that point. That is something that we shall naturally be considering.

Was the Secretary of State consulted by the chairman of the Conservative party before he made his extraordinary statements to Jonathan Dimbleby on the weekend television programme and compared the possible Leyland buy-out by American interests with the position of the tractor industry in Britain, which he said was 100 per cent. owned by Americans and no one cared?

I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend and will draw the hon. Member's remarks to his attention.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the merchant bankers representing Her Majesty's Government in this proposed deal are not restricting the amount of information coming from the team representing the management buy-out for Land Rover that is made available to the House, which could be very serious? Will he do his best to make sure that no such restrictions are placed on the representatives of the buy-out team?

I am assured by my advisers that that is not the case. However, in view of my hon. Friend's concern I shall have the matter re-examined.

May I have an assurance that Mr. Graham Day, the new chairman of BL, who is also a non-executive director of Lairds, will not be involved when the decision is taken whether Lairds should be allowed to take over Leyland Bus?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the time scale for Leyland Bus is different from that for the other parts of Land Rover-Leyland. I am trying to proceed with that with reasonable expedition—

May I have an answer to my question?

If I am allowed to answer the question, I did say to the House the other day that Mr. Day will take over as chairman when these deals have been concluded.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the consideration of Leyland's future he will not deviate, in spite of the pressure brought to bear on him from xenophobic sources, from his determination to ensure that future commercial health and the jobs involved in Leyland are put at the forefront of his consideration?

We are determined that that should be the paramount consideration in the Government's mind. I am sure that that will be the paramount concern of all those who are involved in the negotiations.

The Secretary of State will have seen from the latest figures that Leyland Trucks came top of the league sales in the year just ended. The prospects for the company are very good. Why should we sell the company to its American competitors?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously wrong in his forecast of the future of the truck industry in this country and in Europe. There is massive overcapacity and there are serious worries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to the work force or any of those involved in the industry by trying to minimise the difficulties or play them down.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will initiate an inquiry into the reasons for the level of the deficit in manufacturing trade with the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

The causes of the deficit, which are many and complex, were examined in a report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in June 1984.

As the current deficit, which is almost £9 million, is equivalent to the loss to Britain of almost 1 million jobs, does my hon. Friend not feel that this is a matter into which the Government should inquire ex,tremely carefully, especially in view of the effect that this could have on us when oil revenues diminish or cease? Will my hon. Friend be willing to examine the abuses of Britain's trade and the consequential loss of jobs that stem from the operation by Germany of the inner German trade,,_ agreement, which is desperately unfair to Britain and British jobs?

I know of my hon. Friend's special concern on matters of German trade, and I have written him a letter on various aspects of it. He is right in saying that there is a problem with inner German trade, and it is something to which we should be giving our attention. The outward processing aspect has already been considered in the course of arranging the mandate for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, and I think that he will be pleased with the results of that.

Does the Minister agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), and others who are critical of our balance of trade position with other member states of the European Community, that one of the major reasons for our unfavourable position is the cut of nearly 20 per cent. in manufacturing investment in Britain since the Government came to office?

I do not know whether a cut in manufacturing investment has anything to do with it. However, I am certain that the lack of competitiveness of British goods. which allows such easy penetration of our domestic markets in so many sectors by the products of other member states, is probably at the root of the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the current level of exchange rates, the prospects of increasing our exports to the EEC are better than ever before?

Yes, I would hope so. However, it is dangerous to rely solely on the volatility of exchange rates. A lasting improvement will be made only when British goods and services are competitive with the best that Europe offers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

In the context of an overall surplus of £3 billion, there was a deficit on trade in manufactures of £3 billion in 1985.

Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth? Over the past three years there has been an annual average manufacturing deficit of over £3 billion, the worst record in the history of British industry. As it is only North sea oil that is keeping this sinking Government temporarily afloat, is it not about time that the Minister's job description was changed to the "Minister for trade deficits which have arisen from the butchering of British industry"?

The deficit in 1984 was £3·9 billion. I said as candidly as the question demanded, I should have thought, that the deficit in 1985 was £3 billion. The future trend in that set of figures will be addressed when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his projections in a few days on the future level of output. Within the figures there is another very encouraging figure, that is an 8 per cent. incease in the volume of exported manufactures in 1985.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to increase the research and development budget of his Department.

My Department's research and development budget is forecast to increase from £415 million in 1986–87 to £438 million in 1988–89.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that good news. Does he agree that if we are to compete seriously with the Japanese and the Germans we willll have to spend a great deal more money on research and development? May I suggest that for a start he plunders the Ministry of Defence, which has sums of money beyond the dreams of avarice to spend on research and development?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. A major increase is already planned in the proportion of my Department's budget for research and development, which will go from 27 per cent. in 1984–85 to 46 per cent. in 1988–89. With increasing company profitability. I hope that the private sector will match that increase.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the increasing habit among Ministers of deflecting questions by referring to statements in Hansard and to previous answers which in no way cover the question which was asked? May I draw your attention to columns 793 and 799 in yesterday's Hansard? Answers by the Defence Secretary on the visit of a senior American official—

Order. I do not think that arises out of questions today. The hon. Gentleman correctly drew attention to his good fortune in having drawn the subject for debate under the Consolidated Fund. I think that we should wait until then to hear the answer.

It is the habit of Ministers, by sleight of ministerial hand, to avoid answering legitimate questions. I asked for a very simple answer to a question—

Order. What is the point of order for me in that? I cannot be responsible for what Ministers say or how they answer questions.

The point of order has nothing to do with the substance of the particular issue. A legitimate question was asked as to whether the Department knew about the visit—

Order. That is not a matter for me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has a legitimate grievance—

Order. I must say to the shadow Leader of the House that, although his hon. Friend may have a legitimate grievance, it is not a grievance with me. I cannot be responsible for answers which are given from the Front Bench.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a matter in it for you. If Ministers fail to answer questions quickly and precisely by saying yes or no, and reel out long evasive statements which refer to other matters, they take up time which could be used by other people.

Order. This is taking time out of an important Opposition day.