asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has had any further discussions with British Aerospace about the proposed new Airbus programmes.

Discussions between my Department and British Aerospace about the proposed new Airbus A330 and A340 programmes are continuing. Much work on the market assessment, technical definition and costings of the proposed new programmes is currently being done within Airbus Industrie and the partners. The Airbus Industrie supervisory board will review progress when it next meets in June, and on the basis of the decisions then reached it will be for the board of British Aerospace to make a final decision on participation.

If and when my hon. Friend is called upon to consider launch aid for future Airbus projects, will he bear in mind the $47·5 billion of support which the American aerospace industry has received from American Government agencies over the past 13 years?

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a useful point. It is not often appreciated, or the United States aerospace industry chooses not to draw attention to the fact, that expenditure of the sort that my hon. Friend mentioned, usually channelled through the Department of Defence, is made to the United States aerospace industry.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the figures are available for the new Airbus programmes, both in terms of estimated market share and of costings, as compared with the launch aid that will be applied for by British Aerospace, they will be published, because my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and others in the Bristol area will be more than anxious to look at those figures in detail?

It would be unwise of me to give my hon. Friend a guarantee at this stage that market forecasts that the company may wish to maintain on a confidential basis will be published, but I am sure that both my hon. Friends will be involved in whatever consultations the company chooses to have at that time.

May we take it that those discussions will not be protracted unnecessarily and that we shall have as quickly as possible a decision on whether the Government will assist Airbus?

Indeed, I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that he seeks. I hope that he understood or heard the chronology that I set out in my first answer—that the Airbus Industrie supervisory board has not yet taken a formal decision. The partners are working on the proposal.

Is not a new favourable factor the fact that the Rolls-Royce engine—the five-nation consortium V2500 power plant—could be available for the A-330 and A-340 as it is for the new Airbus A-320, and, as the Government have put launch aid into the V2500, will my hon. Friend seek by his policies to maximise the return on that investment?

That will always be our aim, but the Airbus Industrie consortium will be looking at the engine options as plans are drawn up for those two possible new aeroplanes.

Is the Minister aware that it is widely acknowledged throughout the industry that the project will go forward and that, while the technical and market assessments are proceeding as they are, there is no doubt in the mind of Airbus Industrie that this is a crucial project on which a commitment will be needed, and that by the middle of this year British Aerospace will be required to say not merely that it intends to continue with its part of the project, but that it has the finance available to do it? In that context, will he make it clear to the House today that the Government will consider and back on its merits an application, which is sure to be forthcoming from British Aerospace, and will not exclude it from serious consideration by the Department?

We have already said what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to say, but I am glad to repeat it. Of course we would consider such a proposal. However, I was hoping to give the impression that we are going further than that by not waiting for British Aerospace to put the proposal into us. At this stage we are working with British Aerospace in the development of the assessment and the proposals.

Will my hon. Friend consider the project not only on its own considerable merits but as the best example of European co-operation to withstand industrial competition from the United States of America?

That is one of the bases for the Airbus Industrie consortium and it underpins the marketing of its products.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is currently taking in relation to assistance to Gomba Holdings or any of its linked companies; and if he will make a statement.

I am not at present taking any action in relation to assistance.

Given the fiasco over the ownership of Wembley stadium and the strange circumstances surrounding the move of Gomba-Stonefield from Cumnock to Rochester just before it was declared an enterprise zone, and, above all, given the very strange circumstances of the £21 million loan from Johnson Matthey Bankers to Gomba, should there not be a departmental investigation into Gomba's affairs? Is pressure from the chairman of the Conservative party stopping such an investigation?

I note that the hon. Gentleman wrote to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), about this matter as long ago as 11 March 1985. The hon. Gentleman was then asked to provide my hon. Friend with any information that he thought relevant to an inquiry, but declined to do so.

The Minister has had it.

The House will treat the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question with the contempt that it deserves.

Does the Minister not realise that this matter needs to be treated a little more seriously? We are talking about a man called Shamji who, on behalf of Gomba companies, went to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and promised to find work for hundreds of people in his area. The Government gave Shamji taxpayers' money to assist in that matter, but he then decided not to do any such thing, pocketed the money and went off to an enterprise zone. Incidentally, he was the first man in Britain to know that an enterprise zone was to be established at Strood, near Rochester. How did he discover that information? This is a scandal of such proportions that it is time the Department had a proper investigation to see what is happening to taxpayers' money.

Any information that merits an inquiry will be taken into account, but not the sort of matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Do not kid us all. Stand up Tebbit's friends!

Order. I will ask hon. Members to stand up.

rose—

Order. Stand up Mr. Alan Clark.

They are not all Tebbit's friends. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is not one.

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.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the outcome of the general agreement on tariffs and trade textiles negotiations at Geneva.

On 11 March the Community agreed on a negotiating mandate for renewal of the MFA. There was a meeting of the GATT textiles committee in Geneva on 3 April. Further meetings will be held with the objective of concluding negotiations before the end of July. I shall continue to keep in close touch with the industry and other interested parties as the negotiations progress.

Why has the EEC agreed a negotiating mandate that allows an increase in imports of between 4 and 6 per cent. when it is anticipated that there will be a mere 1 per cent. increase in domestic growth? Will that not affect jobs in the British textile industry?

I am confident that the negotiating mandate that has been agreed still gives our industry a very considerable measure of protection. In my consultations with the industry, both before and since, I have been satisfied that it is reasonably content with that. But the two percentages that the hon. Gentleman has set against each another are not at all comparable. Consumption is increasing by 1 per cent. The hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of 6 per cent., but quota imports account for only 10 per cent. of consumption.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United States Administration appear to be taking a much more restrictive approach to the negotiations than is the European Community. What assessment has he made that frustrated MFA exports to the United States may be diverted to the much more open Community market, and what action does he believe the Community should take in response?

It remains to be seen whether the posture of the United States Government is translated into action in their attitude to this question. I am satisfied that the Community's position is as restrictive, if that is the word that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as we could have expected and as we could have achieved. It is within those confines that any diversion of imports from the United States would be restricted.

Does the Minister recall that in his article in The House Magazine, which was a little belated—no doubt that was not his fault—he hinted that some sort of trade-off had been done when the mandate was agreed and that we would allow more imports into this country in return for greater access by our exports to other countries? May I remind the Minister again that many tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost in the textile industry and that large numbers are still at risk if we do not get a proper, good and strong multi-fibre arrangement?

Yes, I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I am well aware of the jobs that are at stake in this area. However, I must point out that domestic production, United Kingdom consumption and United Kingdom exports have all increased. It would not be realistic, and it was never envisaged when the multi-fibre arrangement was first set up, that it should be set in its existing form indefinitely. I think that it is useful for us to have the possibility of setting progressive, selective liberalisation of the arrangement against increasing the prospects of British exporters in other markets and other sectors.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his last answer will be very disappointing to those of us who have put a great deal of confidence in his good sense and national interest in the British manufacturing industry? Does he not agree that he has indicated that there has been a sell-out of our textile and clothing industries on the altar of high technology industries? Those high technology industries do not employ the very large numbers of people who are employed in textile and clothing, which are excellent industries. Will he perhaps, even at this late stage, ensure that the interests of a substantial employer are safeguarded in the ultimate MFA agreement?

Naturally I am sad to have disappointed my hon. Friend, whose robust pronouncements, on these topics I always welcome. I caution my hon. Friend that to use the words "sell-out" to describe what I regard as a very satisfactory solution, given the pressures and possibilities that were originally envisaged, is using ammunition that he may well have found more useful and effective under conditions that did not eventuate. It is wrong to attempt, without discrimination, to safeguard industries simply because they are old fashioned, have not modernised or have a high employment content when it is our business to open the possibilities for British exporters in every sense. I would not for one moment accept the inference that the industry is being sold out. My hon. Friend is using language that is not justified by the facts.

As the Minister has just hinted, there will be pressure at the forthcoming lateral trade negotiations to ensure that the regulation of textile trade is brought back within the GATT procedures after the end of MFA 4 in return for an extension of GATT rules to the service sector. Will he make it clear that if such a move were to be made it would be Her Majesty's Government's intention to use article 19 of GATT and to require the renegotiation of article 11 of GATT to be brought into operation in such a way as would protect our most vulnerable sectors?

I cannot predict the course of the GATT negotiations, in which both concession and advantage will be traded with the interest of the United Kingdom industries at every level in the market.

In balancing our domestic objectives with a desire to help the Third world, does my hon. Friend agree that the purchasing power of our people, of which employment in the textile trade plays a large part, is a factor in our ability to buy products from the Third world? Does he agree that any damage to our employment base would not help the Third world or us?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That was very much at the forefront of our minds in concluding the form in which the mandate has been settled.

Is the Minister not aware that the Government's undue haste in agreeing the negotiating mandate has given rise to extensive suspicions within the industry that it is being sold out? Does he not recognise that the British textile and clothing industries are together our fourth largest manufacturing concern, employing more than half a million men and women, many in areas of high unemployment, and that their export efforts are excellent? Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that the British Government will in no way sacrifice the interests of these very important industries for any other considerations whatsoever?

Again, the hon. Gentleman is using the language of hyperbole, which is not justified by the situation. He says that the industries suspect that they are being sold out. I have been in consultation with them both before and since, and no one has ever used that phrase, or anything like it, to me. Indeed, people have expressed their satisfaction with the form that the mandate has taken.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that within the Community context the British Government represent the interests of the Hong Kong Government? Will he bear in mind that Hong Kong offers an open market to goods from the United Kingdom and in the past has made a considerable sacrifice of quota, which has not in fact given any benefit to undeveloped countries?

Yes, one of the central elements in the mandate has been that exporting countries which have liberal regimes and do not restrict our imports have been treated more generously than those which still retain restrictive barriers.

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the industries' concern arises from what appears to be a virtual abandonment of safeguards, and a permitted quota growth six times higher than the projected market growth in some of the most sensitive sectors? There is also the possibility of the United States taking a very tough line. Does the Minister not realise that the fears are justified, and that the earlier optimism about his personal stand is being eroded day by day as he continues to mouth the viewpoint that he once derided from the Back Benches?

I am amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can speak as he does. If he considers the facts, and considers what actually appears in the mandate—he knows that I cannot disclose the whole of the mandate on the Floor of the House, but I shall be perfectly prepared to discuss it with him—and if he discusses the matter with industries he will find that the mandate has been negotiated on a basis that is relatively restrictive—and much more restrictive than was originally conceived.

While the industry in Leicester looks forward to a sensible new arrangement, is my hon. Friend aware that there are textile manufacturers in my constituency who export to Hong Kong, and does he not agree that no amount of protectionism is a substitute for enterprise?

Yes, that is absolutely true. I drew the attention of the House to the achievements of the industry. When I told my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that it was not our purpose to protect old-fashioned industries, I did not intend to include the textile industry generically. The arrangement is a safeguard within the cover of which the whole industry can modernise. Its achievements in that field are reflected in the very things that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current performance of the steel industry.

I am greatly encouraged by the improvements in performance achieved by the steel industry, which is now among the most efficient in Europe.

Will the Minister accept that there have been about 40 per cent. of job losses in the United Kingdom as compared with the EEC? The new Phoenix 3 in Sheffield has shed 50 per cent. of its jobs. This morning the Sheffield city council reported 24 per cent. unemployment in Sheffield. Is the Minister satisfied with that? Will he assure us that the industry will no longer be subject either to the EEC regime or to the Government's policy?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, if he considers the alternative, I hope that he will commend to the country the enourmous increase in productivity that has taken place in the steel industry. Productivity has increased by nearly 100 per cent. since 1979. That ensures jobs rather than the reverse. That is how we should view the position.

With reference to the latter point, will my hon. Friend contrast the current performance of the steel industry with its performance in 1979?

As my hon. Friend probably knows, in 1979–80 the steel industry lost about £538 million, and today it is in profit. That is a remarkable achievement, for which I pay tribute to the work force and the management.

Does the Minister recall that during the long Phoenix 2 negotiations some engineering companies, which then had two choices of supplier, said that they would probably have to look overseas for second sourcing if a United Kingdom monopoly were established? Now that this has happened in the form of United Engineering Steels Ltd, will his Department monitor the position to establish whether there is any loss of orders to overseas companies?

I gladly concede the hon. Gentleman's point. Equally, I hope he will accept that it is important that United Engineering Steels Ltd. is as competitive as possible so that the dilemma which may be faced does not arise.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the labour force at Ravenscraig steel works has continued to carry out its work efficiently and effectively in the light of the loss of Gartcosh? Will he assure the labour force at Ravenscraig of the Government's confidence and of their guarantee that the steel works will continue to exist beyond the two years which the British Steel Corporation has guaranteed?

I accept what my hon. Friend said about the labour force at Ravenscraig. As he knows, the future of the Ravenscraig works is secured unitl 1988. That is the present position.

Obviously, the Opposition welcome the improvement in the steel industry. The Minister has just said that the industry must be as competitive as possible. How does he reconcile that objective with the fact that the Government have endorsed the new EEC steel regime, under which the British Steel Corporation loses its direct state assistance, but Continental countries will continue their indirect subsidy? As the BSC gets only £1 for every £6 received by the Italian steelmakers, and for every £8 received by the French and the Germans, he must accept that that makes the corporation immediately less competitive. At the same time, the Minister has agreed to the removal of minimum pricing, so removing the safety net. On the eve of Brussels pressing for even more cuts in steel capacity, what are the prospects for British Steel as a result of his action?

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's question, not least because the British Steel Corporation would tell him that the deal which was secured in Europe was successful and satisfactory to the corporation. Having said that, I agree with him that it is important to ensure—the Commission agrees with this—that there is fair trading.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the Government's takeover and merger policy in the wake of the recent spate of large-scale takeover and merger attempts by British and foreign companies in the United Kingdom.

Our policy on takeovers and mergers is that references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be made primarily on competition grounds. This has been our consistent policy since it was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State in July 1984 following a review of mergers policy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. With the recent spate of takeovers, notwithstanding considerations of size, keeping jobs, expanding jobs and the percentage concentrations of products, does he agree that there is a need for further clarification, if possible? Is there not all the difference in the world between genuine takeovers and mergers that are undertaken for reasons of improved management, building up assets, genuine investment and increasing employment and those large-scale financial takeovers that appear to be undertaken only for financial reasons, asset-stripping, or City rapaciousness of one sort or another? Does that not give the whole business a bad name? Conglomerates are getting bigger for its own sake—for reasons of empire-building. Will my right hon. Friend try to guide the House towards providing a more coherent policy?

I think that the policy is coherent. We had a review of this in 1984, and I think that it is right. The policy that has been consistently followed is that references to the commission should be made primarily on competition grounds and not inevitably, but nearly always, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. That is the policy that I have followed, as have my two predecessors.

Will the Secretary of State consider referring Mr. Rupert Murdoch's empire for examination under the criterion of competition? Mr. Murdoch owns nearly 30 per cent. of British newspapers, The Sun, News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times. He has acquired American citizenship since he bought those papers to permit him to make a further acquisition in the United States. He then sacked 6,000 print workers, who had made him a profit of £50 million in the previous year. He is able to rely upon hordes of policemen, paid for by the taxpayer, every night to enforce his will, and increase his profits, which he is then able to export abroad. Is that not a case for further investigation?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's views, but he will not expect me to share them. I have no plans for such an investigation.

Is it not a fact that competition policy has evolved in recent weeks so that companies are now given several bites of the cherry over the prospect of reference to the MMC? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how companies should react to this new situation, because previously the competition authorities were dealing with merger references in a different way?

My hon. Friend has great experience in this matter, but I have to disagree with him. It has always been possible to obtain confidential guidance from the Director General of Fair Trading, in appropriate cases, and, just as when he was dealing with this matter, the decision whether to refer a case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is nearly always taken in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, and is almost always, if not always, to do with reasons of competition. Nothing has changed in that regard since my hon. Friend played such a part in this area.

Does the Secretary of State agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the spate of takeovers and mergers that is going on at the moment is offensive to many people and has no logic or justification in terms of benefit to consumers or to those working in the enterprises? Will he consider a change in competition policy to make the machinery much more streamlined than it is, placing the burden of proof for the justification for the merger on those proposing it, and giving individuals and companies the right to take anti-competitive practices to the courts?

There is a case for a general review of competition policy that might cover mergers policy as well. I do not accept what the hon. Member says about the recent spate of merger activity. By following the policy that I have outlined, the Government have been consistent and have not, as has been alleged, acted arbitrarily in any way. There has been a consistent policy, which in the long term has been in the interests of all concerned.

Regarding a possible takeover of parts of BL, can my right hon. Friend explain what vital national interest is at stake in keeping Land Rover in British ownership?

There is another question on the Order Paper about that specific subject. My hon. Friend referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If there were to be a relevant sale of Land Rover, that would have to be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading, and I would have to consider his advice.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that the public are puzzled at the Government's lax and complacent view as merger mania proceeds apace? Is it not a marked characteristic of the present state of affairs that companies are driven to go for short-term profits, rather than for long-term investment, so as to fob off predators who are after them? As these are mainly takeovers rather than mergers, would not a much tougher takeover policy assist not only wider choice in this country but a much stronger industrial strategy, bearing in mind that the Government do not have one?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me to agree with that. His case would be stronger were it not for the fact that the volume of total fixed investment in this country has risen to an all-time high. Last year it was a record £60 billion. That included non-oil business investment which rose also by 7·5 per cent. last year to reach an all-time high. So there is no evidence whatsoever that there is insufficient fixed investment in this country.

We are making very slow progress. May I ask for brief questions and briefer answers?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any new proposals to assist industrial development in the Alnwick and Amble area.

At present, no, Sir.

How long are these communities to suffer rates of unemployment higher than in many assisted areas while not gaining the benefits available to assisted areas? Now that the vice-chairman of the Conservative party has joined the chorus of those who believe that it was a mistake to exclude the areas from benefit, will the Minister realise that this is a special case and consider it again?

The hon. Gentleman has pushed the case of Alnwick and Amble very sincerely over a long period. I am aware of the position. I am aware also that the level of unemployment has risen in that part of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next proposes to meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss industrial development.

I and other Ministers of my Department meet representatives of the TUC at meetings of the National Economic Development Council, where such questions arise regularly.

Will the Government take positive steps with the TUC to encourage industrial growth and get people back to work, recognising the importance of manufacturing industry to the economy and recognising that many people feel that the TUC and the Labour party have better policies than the Government to deal with the problem?

There are not many of those.

What about Fulham?

We shall see. I shall resist the right hon. and learned Gentleman's provocation and answer the question. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who referred to manufacturing industry, will be pleased to know that manufacturing investment has risen considerably, as have manufacturing output, manufacturing productivity and manufacturing exports. The pospects for growth in the economy are very good.

When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he go out of his way to point out that low inflation and stable prices will do more for industry than anything else? Will he remind the TUC of the effect of high inflation at 20 per cent. plus when the Labour party was in power and of the consequent problems for British industry?

Yes, Sir. If there were to be a Labour Government, which God forbid, there would be rising inflation, worse competitiveness, increased taxation, fewer incentives, less profitability, more state intervention, more burdens and less enterprise.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether manufacturing investment or manufacturing production has yet reached the level that his party inherited when it came to office?

I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I have told him before, that since the depth of the recession, manufacturing productivity is up 34 per cent., exports are at a new record, output is up and investment is up. All that good news is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues hate to hear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to encourage Japan to increase imports of manufactured goods and processed agricultural products.

Both the Government and the European Community, the latter with our encouragement and full support, have welcomed recent Japanese measures to increase their imports, but are pressing for more urgent implementation of these measures and for a forecast of their impact.

Now that the Government have accepted the principle of reciprocity in financial services, will my hon. Friend consider extending that principle to other areas, such as telecommunications?

Yes; my hon. Friend's suggestion is useful. Each case has to be considered on its merits and we have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Japanese overseas trade missions apparently have instructions to encourage imports into Japan? Can my hon. Friend suggest any reason why, in contrast to the aggressive success of their export drives, those who are charged with responsibility for encouraging imports from western European countries into Japan seem to have such little success?

There are two obstructions. There are social factors and the attitude of importers in Japan, and there are obstructions of a tariff and non-tariff kind. There is a rather slower approach to what can be done about the former compared to what can be done about the latter. It is the latter to which we are directing our attention.

Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress, if any, has been made about removing discrimination against Scotch whisky in the Japanese market?

Very little.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he proposes to take to improve industrial development in the regions.

The best prospects for industrial development in the regions lie in the Government's economic policies, which are creating conditions for sustainable growth in jobs and output. In addition, many parts of the regions are eligible for regional assistance in recognition of their specific difficulties.

As a result of the economic policies of the Government and the cuts in regional grants, the northern region has the highest level of unemployment in Great Britain. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State ensure that the newly formed Northern Development Company will have adequate resources and positive ministerial support to get on with the job?

I do not agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As my hon. Friend said a few moments ago, the combination of a low rate of inflation and increased growth provide the best base for the economic prospects of the country. It is too early to comment about the Northern Development Company, but I shall certainly study what the hon. Gentleman said about that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the worst proposition for the northern region would be any kind of enhanced role for local government, whose record has been one of high rates, poor quality housing, haphazard commercial development and a general lack of interest in any kind of enterprise economy?

That is a helpful contribution and I shall study it carefully.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in regions such as the northern region, where there is a successful employment agency, it is either best left alone or given further encouragement by the Government? Is he aware that the Department of the Environment is proposing to abolish the three new town corporations in the north-east? They have an excellent record and have produced thousands of new jobs in the last six or seven years. Will he consult his colleagues and use his influence to stop this nonsense of abolition?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend and I shall discuss it with him in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The progress made by the Government's regional development policy surely cannot be challenged, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the emphasis in the regions must be on inward investment and that the nation does not benefit by the movement of investment away from constituencies such as mine in Shrewsbury to development areas. That certainly does not help the national economy.

I understand my hon. Friend's views about that. As he says, it is important for us to try to encourage inward investment. I am glad to say that in the north-east there are one or two cases which I hope will be significant.

Why will the Minister not give funds to the Northern Development Company when even the Institute of Directors is now supporting Labour's policy of a northern development agency? Are not the Minister's bland reassurances about the economy contradicted by today's unemployment figures, which show that unemployment is rising twice as fast in the depressed areas as in the rest of the country? Will the Minister explain to the House how a 20 per cent. cut in regional aid this year and a 40 per cent. cut in the next two years will do anything to assist the regions, which are not enjoying economic revitalisation, but are suffering from social disintegration?

I have not said that I will not give any money to the Northern Development Company. I said that I would consider it, as the House and the hon. Gentleman would expect. Any effective organisation for the promotion of industrial development in the regions is to be welomed, and I shall study any application that comes to me. That is a perfectly reasonable stance for me to take. It is perfectly reasonable for me to examine such applications, and that is what I propose to do. I do not agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The economic policies followed by the Government are most likely to increase prosperity throughout the country as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons work in the telecommunications division of his Department; and what are their responsibilities.

Responsibility for all aspects of my department's work with the telecommunications industry and the Post Office rests with the telecommunications and posts division. This numbers 52 people in all.

Should not one of the responsibilities of the employees who work for my hon. Friend be to pick up the telephone to contact the Director General of British Telecom and tell him to stop the children's line chat show in Greater Manchester, which encourages youngsters, unknown to their parents, to run up large and unaffordable phone bills? Is that service not totally unnecessary, and will my hon. Friend do something to stop it?

As my hon. Friend has already indicated, the content of British Telecom's services is a matter for that company. But I share my hon. Friend's concern for parents in my part of the country whose children, unknown to them, are likely to incur large telephone bills. I understand that British Telecom has put into operation an automatic cut-off after 10 minutes on all such teenage talkabout calls. The Director General of Telecommunications is already discussing this with British Telecom, and I hope that he can arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Will the Minister go further and condemn the practice of using the telephone lines for this ridiculous service? Will he take account of the fact that at least three of my constituents are saddled with bills of at least £500 because of the avarice of British Telecom? That is not on, and the Minister should condemn it.

I would not be very keen on any member of my family, of any age, running up a large telephone bill. It is easy to condemn practices of that sort, but the important thing is that British Telecom should get a service in place that is not open to this kind of abuse. That is what we want to see.

Is it any part of the duties of personnel employed by this division to persuade British Telecom to purchase System X, which is manufactured by GEC and Plessey, in preference to equipment that is made by Swedish companies?

It is not part of their responsibility to try to persuade British Telecom one way or the other. It is their responsibility to discuss with British Telecom the implications of any purchasing decisions that it may be about to make.

Will the Minister ask his officials to explain to him how British Telecom has loaded its price increases on to domestic rental and local call rates—both of which actions work to the extreme disadvantage of the elderly, the lonely, those in rural areas and the disabled—while at the same time it has reduced its commercial tariffs? Does the Minister not recognise that the new competition from Mercury for the premium commercial market will mean that BT will be able to sustain its profit levels only by further loading price increases on to the unprotected domestic consumer?

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. He will recall that the Director General of Telecommunications issued a statement when the recent price increase took place indicating that he would lake a close, harsh and unsympathetic view of similar price increases loaded in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. That will take place.

Will the Minister ask his officials to look at the operation of the Board of Approval for British Telecom? The outrageous length of time that it is now taking to approve and certify equipment for use in BT systems is costing small, high technology companies a considerable amount of money and a loss of orders.

I am aware of the concern being expressed in various industrial circles about the delays in the approvals system of BABT. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Birtwistle committee is at present examining this matter urgently and it is about to report. I shall look for some revised proposals at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of investment in manufacturing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of investment in manufacturing industry.

Investment in manufacturing rose by more than 6 per cent. in 1985 and was 22 per cent. higher than in 1983. The underlying reasons behind manufacturing investment—sustained growth in the economy, buoyant profits improved profitability and a low rate of inflation—remain favourable.

As I am from the engineering industry may I draw to the Minister's attention the plight of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry? If he examines Lloyd's Mercantile Register, he will discover that we are no longer even in the top 10 for shipbuilding, but are about 17th. That means that places such as Poland and China are higher in the league than we are, and that more than 50 per cent. of all shipping tonnage is now being built in Japan. What will the Minister do about Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is not giving sufficient credit to what British Shipbuilders has achieved. Equally, he will be aware that there is a slump in shipbuilding at present in Korea, Japan and whatever other part of the world one considers.

Did the Minister see the "Money Programme" last Sunday? Does he agree with the owner of Amstrad that the European Community tariff structure on electronics, especially the import duty on semiconductors, is a further disincentive to creating jobs and procuring investment in our computer industry? What does he intend to do about it?

As I did not see the "Money Programme" last Sunday, it is difficult to comment precisely. I accept that it is important that one should have a fair trading basis.

Will my hon. Friend encourage his regional office in Leeds to give grants to firms in my constituency to retain jobs and create new ones, rather than encourage them to relocate in Darlington?

My hon. Friend calls into question our regional aid policy, which is directed at job creation in those parts where the level of unemployment is high, relatively speaking.

Is the Minister aware that such a famous firm as GEC Switchgear in my constituency is shedding 300 jobs before the end of the year? Is he aware that that will occur in an area with 40 per cent. male unemployment and where we have lost 19,000 jobs? When will he do something for British industry, as foreign Governments do for their industries?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government and a company such as GEC work closely together to win orders, which, indeed, they succeed in doing.

Can my hon. Friend comment on the investment record of foreign-owned companies in this country? Can he confirm that their investment per employee is double that of British-owned manufacturing companies? Is that record not relevant in view of the recent "Little Englanderism" that we have seen from the Opposition Benches?

I can certainly confirm that the investment from foreign-owned companies is substantial. I agree that we discuss foreign investment in the way that it has been at our peril, because we are in danger of driving it away from the United Kingdom, and that is not good for jobs.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have an industrial strategy, and if so what it is?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that our strategy is to create the right climate for industry to prosper, and my original answer proves that that is precisely what is happening.

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

None.

What steps have the Government taken to encourage greater stability in international exchange rates? When do they intend Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

General comments on exchange rate matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend has a question tabled to him for answer tomorrow, he will not have long to wait.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has had discussions with United States Government officials concerning proposed changes in United States law as it applies to liability risks; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend hopes to have an opportunity to raise this subject during his visit to Washington later this month.

In view of the concern felt by many British companies exporting to the United States because of the high product liability awards that have been the hallmark of some American courts, and as the American Administration seem ready to introduce new legislation with a view to minimising the effect of product liability awards in the American courts, will the Minister take every opportunity to support the American Administration in that direction so as to encourage the continuing export of goods and services by British companies?

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be reinforcing the concern expressed by my hon. Friend on this matter when he has talks with the United States Government later in the month.

Question No. 18, Mr. McWilliam.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to advance knowledge and experience of computers in schools.

My Department, through a number of support schemes, has provided over £17 million of financial support to schools to promote the use of computers and related activity. Most recently we have made available £1·5 million, enough to supply each secondary and middle school in the country with a modem. Further support for computer software is being provided in the next two financial years and we continue to keep the situation under review.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong answer."]

Order. I think that the confusion might be mine, because I did not hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) call his question number. Question No. 19, Mr. Nicholas Brown. Will the Minister please answer question No. 19?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of privatisation of the warship yards.

British Shipbuilders deserves the congratulations of the House on its success in completing the return of all the warship yards to the private sector by the 31 March target. Gross proceeds exceed £120 million, with further payments conditional on the future performance of some of the privatised yards.

Does the Minister accept that the mechanism outlined in the question provides an avenue for supporting both warship building and merchant shipbuilding, which the Government are ignoring?

I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and he would not expect me to do so.

Mr. Galley, Question No. 20. We will have that answer again.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to advance knowledge and experience of computers in schools.

My Department, through a number of support schemes, has provided over £17 million of financial support to schools to promote the use of computers and related activity. Most recently we have made available f1·5 million, enough to supply each secondary and middle school in the country with a modem. Further support for computer software is being provided in the next two financial years and we continue to keep the situation under review.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply—for both replies—and heartily congratulate the Department on the vigorous way in which it is fostering knowledge of computers in our schools. Can he say what level of support is given to schools in the Calderdale area of West Yorkshire?

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in Calderdale all secondary schools have received microcomputers under the micros in schools scheme. In addition, 101 out of 105 eligible primary schools have received computers under the primary schools scheme, and each secondary and middle school in Calderdale will receive a modem under that scheme, a total of 24. Support has also been given to Calderdale schools to purchase software under the software support scheme.

Will not the choice of computers for schools be limited by the fact that Amstrad is now taking over Sinclair? Is the Minister aware that that will give one-man control over 75 per cent. of the personal computer market in the United Kingdom? Should not that matter have been referred by the Director General of Fair Trading to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

The question is about the supply of computers to schools. The Government are interested in ensuring that the best products, particularly British-produced products, get into British schools. That is what we are doing.

Welcome as the computer programme is in our schools, does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of having computers in schools is not to understand computers, but to understand the subjects that are being studied by means of those computers, and that the real problem lies in the software?

That is precisely why we have put quite a lot of effort into improving the software programmes and into the training of teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from British industry about United States attempts to scrutinise classified work being done by British firms as parts of the strategic defence initiative programme.

I have not received any such representations.

Is the Minister aware of the visit by Mr. Clarence Robinson to various firms in the United Kingdom which might be involved in the strategic defence initiative contracts? Has any apology been received from the American State Department with regard to any conditions that might be imposed on United Kingdom firms which are involved in these contracts?

No. There is no question of any apologies, because Mr. Clarence Robinson did not come here on an official mission.

Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• 1. Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Order Confirmation Act 1986
• 2. Swansea City Council (Tawe Barrage) Act 1986