asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to improve the export marketing of small and medium-sized British firms.

The services offered by the British Overseas Trade Board provide valuable support for companies' export marketing. About three quarters of those using these services are smaller companies employing fewer than 200 people. The British Overseas Trade Board is currently running a series of conferences on export marketing throughout the United Kingdom, which are designed primarily for smaller companies and those new to exporting.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, but will he take it a step further? Bearing in mind that, in the latter half of this year, we shall hold the presidency of the EEC Commission, is it possible to get to grips with a situation in which many firms have to manufacture to different specifications for each European country? As a business man, I know how difficult it is for a small company to do that. What are the prospects of ironing out that problem?

My hon. Friend is right. The essence of the internal market, which consists of 330 million consumers, is that there should be free circulation of goods without artificial impediments. The harmonisation of technical standards is one of the most important of those elements.

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that tiny companies in Italy—often cottage industries—can manufacture knitwear and other textile products which feed into large units and then into exports, but apparently we cannot cope with such a system here?

That simply constitutes a different approach to marketing. If British manufacturers do not adopt that approach, there must be very good reasons for it.

Is it not a fact that about 6,000 firms in this country with turnovers of between £1 million and £10 million a year do not export? Does my hon. Friend agree that this presents just the right target for the BOTB's attention?

It is perfectly true that breaking into export markets can be time-consuming and expensive. Many firms may find it more appropriate to wait for customers to come to them, and thus opportunities are lost. The BOTB's initiatives in this respect are extremely valuable. The board holds a number of conferences which are extremely well attended by business men at which it explains what facilities are available.

Why has there been such little progress in the harmonisation of technical standards in the EEC? Is it not a fact that the Europeans can apparently export goods to this country with impunity, but we cannot export to them?

Order. Is the hon. Member on the right question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is about technical standards.

Is it about export marketing of small and medium-sized firms?

Yes, Sir. The Minister should answer.

rose—

Order. Mr. Couchman.

My hon. Friend may care to know that a strong team from my borough of Gillingham has just visited Japan. The team included the chief executive, the leader of the council and people from the enterprise agency and the chamber of commerce. They made valuable contacts, but they were struck by the difficulties faced by firms, especially small companies, in penetrating that market. Is there not a case for the Department to set up a regular and consistent counselling service for small companies so that they gain expertise in this regard?

The British Overseas Trade Board does have such a service. I would very much like my hon. Friend to ask his delegation to communicate with my Department and report on what it found. I am doing my best to build up a picture of the various difficulties and restrictions faced by British exporters to Japan, and the more material that I can have presented the better.

Will the Minister now kindly answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), which was highly relevant to export marketing and technical standards, which, as the Minister should know, is very much at the heart of our potential export success? If he does not know the answer, will he just say so?

It is far too early for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take this ludicrous and pompous line. He knows perfectly well that if Mr. Speker had wished me to answer that I would have done so. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) was even in the Chamber when I answered the question initially. I said that the harmonisation of technical standards was the most important single element in the completion of the internal market.

In spite of all the help which the Government are at present giving to firms in this country, does my hon. Friend agree that the prime responsibility is for the management of British firms? Firms in my constituency, which export all over the world, do not go to the Government with a begging bowl all the time.

I congratulate the firms in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, I do not think that we are talking about a begging bowl. We are talking about the difficulties that many small firms experience in starting to export on their own account in the first instance. To help them with that, the BOTB is extremely useful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation within the tin mining industry.

The Department has received applications for assistance from Geevor and RTZ. We have already made it clear that we will give urgent consideration to projects designed to make the mines competitive in the new market situation.

Will the Minister constantly bear in mind the importance of the tin industry to an area which already has severe unemployment and a fragile economy? Will the Government give an undertaking to help that area and the tin industry, and not turn their back on it as they have done with most other British industries, are about to do with the shipbuilders, and as the Minister for Trade did on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I know the area. I have visited the tin mines and have been down them. I am more than aware of the implications of those tin mines having to close. That is precisely why we are looking very carefully at the applications that have been put to our Department.

Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for his response to my personal plea that the Government should find some money to enable Geevor's pumps to keep going while the application is being considered? When he considers the application from Geevor and from Carnon Consolidated, will he bear in mind the phrase from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, when it said that it believed that the Cornish tin industry was worth saving, because the whole of Cornwall believes that as well?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the fact that, with the Cornish county council, we have been able to provide a period of some four weeks to look at the development of Geevor tin mine's application. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will bear in mind what the Select Committee said on this important subject.

Does the Minister have any idea how weak his answer to the fundamental question posed appears to those in Cornwall? We recognise that Government decisions sometimes take longer than many of us would desire, but some six and a half months have passed since the crisis started. There have been numerous meetings—I pay homage to the Minister for having the meetings—but no decision has appeared. People in the far south-west are wondering just when the Government expect to reach a conclusion. Can the Minister give us some idea of when he expects the review to be completed?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. He will be aware that RTZ put in its application less than two weeks ago. It is impossible to decide whether an application is viable until we receive it and look at it carefully. He should also be aware, after meetings that I have had with the trade unions, that they would want us to look at those applications very carefully and not rush them.

Nevertheless, it is six months since the Minister saw the crisis emerging. How much more governmental dither and indifference must Cornwall suffer? The Government have taken millions of pounds in regional aid from the south-west in the past few years, and plan to take millions more in the next few years. Is it not time that they put some of that money back?

By the tone of his question, the right hon. Gentleman wants me just to say no without looking very carefully at the viability of the applications. I am looking carefully. I am encouraging the companies to come forward with viable applications. That is what they and the trade unions would want me to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the value of the grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception?

About £997 million.

Does my hon. Friend think that the size and extent of those grants has been sufficiently well publicised in this country? If not, what steps does he propose to take to ensure that the public are aware of the level of assistance that we receive from the fund?

I think that there is awareness among the key clients of that area of expenditure, particularly among local authorities and those who bring forward applications for infrastructure investment. It is the major section of spending under this head of account. Obviously, we would look for methods of improving the publicity, particularly to the private sector applicants, but in the main we are satisfied that the volume of applications is being matched by the funds available.

Does the Minister not agree that, in comparison with the scale of funds given out through the common agricultural policy, the funds given out for regional policy by the Community are very small indeed? What are the Government doing to seek to increase them, to help the regions where unemployment is so high?

I do not think that the amount spent here is ungenerous. I accept the implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, that this area of spending has benefits for the United Kingdom which are greater than usual. I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom's share of the fund in 1985 was £345 million, representing about 26 per cent. of the total budget. In terms of applications, in 1986 the United Kingdom's share is about £376 million, which is about 19 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that applications will be made to the European development fund for the infrastructure that will be needed on this side of the Channel for the Channel tunnel? Is it not a fact that most of the funds seem to be earmarked for infrastructure? Would that not be a good thing?

In the main, the areas that receive assistance from the fund coincide with our domestically identified assisted areas. My hon. Friend raises a particularly interesting point. The best thing to do at this stage is to agree to look at that, given that it is an especially European—I stress European—venture.

Is the Minister not aware that, despite the figures he mentioned, regional aid has been halved under this Government, and is to be halved yet again? Was it the EEC that insisted that access to the assisted areas grant be restricted to 35 per cent. of the working population, or was it the Government who made that decision? Will the Minister consider an urgent review of the assisted areas map? Will he bear in mind that 3 million people are now in areas with unemployment rates of between 15 and 26 per cent., yet those areas receive no regional development grants and no regional selective assistance?

I am grateful for the opportunity to restate the circumstances against which the 35 per cent. area coverage was brought about. During the Government's review of United Kingdom industrial regional aid in 1984, we were given to understand that if we were to seek Commission approval for an assisted area map covering more than 35 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain, the Commission saw little likelihood that it would approve that. Reductions might have been forced upon us to bring the coverage down to 35 per cent., or even less, which was likely. In the circumstances, the Government decided to set the map coverage at 35 per cent., and that was accepted by the Commission.

Has my hon. Friend made any estimate of the likely impact of the enlargement of the EEC to include Spain and Portugal on the United Kindom's share of the regional development fund? Does he agree that to attempt constantly to move economic resources around arbitrarily where they do not want to go is a futile exercise anyway?

Where possible, these forms of assistance should be coloured by the needs of market forces. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but hon. Members on both sides of the House voted for Portuguese and Spanish accession to the Community, and it was almost inevitable that our share of the budget would fall.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with relevant manufacturers the future of the United Kingdom cable-producing industry.

I would be happy to discuss with the industry any specific points it might wish to raise about its future. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing a delegation to see me yesterday.

The Minister is aware of the closure by Sterling Greengate Cables of a factory in Trafford park in Manchester and the movement of some of that work to Aldermaston, where unemployment is much less of a problem than it is in the north-west. In his discussions with manufacturers, especially multinationals such as the one to which I referred, will the Minister point out, not only that they have social obligations to areas such as the north-west, but that the Government demand that their investment plans should include a recognition of the geographic dispersion of that investment?

As I said to the hon. Gentleman when he raised the matter with me yesterday, regional grants are based on precisely the premise that he has advocated. I remind him that my constituency is about 30 miles down the road from Trafford park, which he represents and where many of his constituents work, so I understand his point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom cable industry enjoys an excellent reputation throughout the world? It has contributed substantially to the United Kingdom export drive, but it is deeply worried about the EEC proposals on product liability, which it perceives to be very damaging, and which could assist non-EEC importers.

I have looked into product liability. I should be happy to be told more about it, but I am assured that it need not be a problem for the industry.

Do the Government have any strategy for the cable manufacturing industry, or do they intend to leave it to market forces? That would mean that the cheapest markets, irrespective of where they are, would take from Britain this industry, which is valuable and strategically important to it.

I agree that the industry is important. That is why, in the aid and trade provision, substantial sums go indirectly, if not directly, to the cable industry. The hon. Gentleman is aware that substantial sums have been spent to attract new cable manufacturers to Britain. Only last week I visited a manufacturer in the north-east who was successfully using the most modern methods of production.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress towards the harmonisation of the provision of financial services throughout the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

My aim is freedom to offer a diversity of services. Progress towards the full achievement of this objective has been disappointingly slow. I hope it will now quicken, given the high priority attached to it by Community Heads of Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest barriers to a true market in financial services throughout the EEC is the restrictive practices that exist in so many of those services in Britain and in other EEC countries? Will he bend his efforts towards persuading individual providers of services to reduce those restrictive practices as much as possible?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have already made progress in unit trusts. Recent judgments in the European Court will make it easier to advance in non-life insurance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to carry forward the mortgage credit proposals that will allow building societies to invest in property outside their territory.

What attention is my hon Friend's Department giving to the unfair protection laws that exist in many Community countries, especially in Germany in respect of its domestic insurance markets?

My hon. Friend has identified a market that is proving to be especially difficult. The matter must be agreed in the Council of Ministers. Perhaps when majority voting is introduced it will be easier to make progress in that area.

Will the Minister bear in mind in any harmonisation exercise our unfortunate experience with the EEC listing particulars directive and ensure that any future harmonisation is attuned to the needs of our financial services industry, which is, after all, the most powerful in Europe?

I shall do my best to advance and nurture the interests of our financial services industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, each Minister will be endeavouring to achieve the best result for his domestic industry and it is that contest which makes these councils sometimes such a labourious business.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department is spending on support for research and development; and if he will give comparable figures for 1979–80.

My Department plans to spend £415 million in 1986–87 on support for research and development. The comparable figure for 1979–80 was £142 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for that informative answer, but does he agree that the Government have an important and continuing role in research and development alongside industry and commerce? What efforts have been made in the Norwich area in that direction?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Under the support for innovation scheme, 11 projects worth over £8 million are being supported in the Norwich travel-to-work area with grants of nearly £1·4 million. The technologies supported include electrical engineering, food machinery and printing. One of the largest recipients of DTI support in the area has been Datron Electronics, which manufactures electronic test and measurement equipment. I plan to vist that company in the near future, and I look forward to seeing the results of my Department's support.

In view of the tremendous success of the A320 Airbus, which managed to achieve 81 definite orders in the first 10 months of last year and employs about 30,000 people in Britain, is there any chance of some of that £405 million being given as a loan as a launch-aid and research and development aid to the A330 and A340?

The hon. Gentleman is understating the case on the A320, which has already been the subject of launch-aid, because when I checked a few days ago there were about 130 orders with deposits.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has done for research and development, but what plans has he to encourage industry to do more R and D? Does he agree with mergers, for example between companies such as GEC and Plessey, which would then concentrate resources on research and development, to the benefit of the nation in penetrating export markets abroad?

I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to comment on that particular example when it is still the subject of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is obviously advantageous to British industry to have certain centres of excellence within industry, and there can be advantages in some companies coming together to provide a scale that will enable them to compete in international markets. We would expect an increase in research in industry to come from an increase in improved profitability, and at present profitability levels are at their highest since 1973.

Will the Minister confirm, however, that under the important support for innovation scheme funds available have been cut this year and will be cut further next year? Is he aware that the Treasury attitude towards United Kingdom expenditure on research and development in Europe is damaging to British interests? Can he assure the House that United Kingdom contributions to such programmes as EUREKA and ESPRIT in Europe are not being offset by cuts in national United Kingdom programmes in Britain?

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, because we have made it clear that EUREKA and ESPRIT programmes will be funded up to what industry regards as satisfactory levels. There is a planned reduction in the support for innovation scheme, because we have increased the provision on awareness programmes, technology transfer programmes, advisory services and industry education, by 25 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the future of the commercial vehicle industry in Britain.

The future of this industry, as of others, will be determined by market demand and its ability to compete.

What advice would the Minister give to a skilled man from Bathgate who wishes to continue his career somewhere in the British commercial vehicle industry?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am concerned about the position at Bathgate and I have made every possibility—

Answer the question.

I will answer the question.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one way to secure thousands of jobs in our commercial vehicle industry is to get more American investment? To that end, will he confirm that he is constantly reminding General Motors that more investment by that company in this country, especially in Bedfordshire, is not only beneficial for it, but is very beneficial for us?

I can certainly confirm that the Bedford plant in Bedfordshire is very important indeed and that, over a long period, General Motors has invested substantial sums in that plant, which, until recently, has provided a healthy and viable industry and livelihoods for many thousands of employees.

What discussions did the Secretary of State have with Mr. Robert Stempel of General Motors when they met in New York on 4 May? Did they discuss Bedford and Leyland commercial vehicles? If not, what did they discuss, and will the Secretary of State make a statement?

I am assured by my right hon. Friend that they did not meet.

Is my hon. Friend now reconciled to the fact that the future of Land Rover lies independently of Leyland and, one hopes, in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend encourage the new chief executive of Leyland to look at those possibilities?

I am not reconciled to any particular facts about Land Rover, but I wish it every success in an expanding market place.

If there are some doubts about jobs at Bedford, would not it he a good idea to consider the possibility of General Motors' van-making operation, which is losing money, being taken over by the the profit-making Freight Rover?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that he and I visited the Freight Rover plant in his constituency and I hope he recalls that I was impressed by what I saw.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many of us were obliged to the Government for seeing the sense of the argument that Land Rover, as a specialist manufacturer, should stay on its own, but will he also accept that many of us believe that rationalisation of our commercial vehicle industry is important and that most of us who were against the earlier plan would welcome General Motors, through its Bedford subsidiary, having sensible talks with Leyland Truck, so that a viable and prosperous truck industry can survive and thrive in this country?

It is a welcome exception to get a pat on the back from my hon. Friend in this area, and I am most grateful to him. I am also most interested in my hon. Friend's concern for the future of the truck industry, which, as we have been saying constantly throughout this year, is most important indeed and about which difficult decisions will have to be made.

Since, as the Minister well knows, from August 1984 until earlier this year the Government had a strategy to dispose of our commercial vehicles industry, or large sections of it, to American interests and that has now collapsed in a shambles, what is the Government's present strategy for the industry? Can the Minister tell us whether any talks are going on or are planned with any foreign interests to acquire any part of the British motor vehicle industry?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been told on several occasions that the Government's strategy is to rationalise, where that is necessary, to ensure that there is a healthy and viable commercial vehicle industry. No talks are taking place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the competitiveness of British industry.

I welcome the increase in our share of world trade in manufactures last year, and the continuing improvement in our manufacturing productivity, but I cannot be satisfied as long as unit labour costs in manufacturing industry are rising faster in the United Kingdom than in our main competitor countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the profit-sharing proposals in the Budget should be of particular benefit to manufacturing and other companies which have to compete in world markets?

Yes, I hope that they will have some effect. I hope that those proposals, which I warmly welcome, will receive a good welcome from both sides of the House.

Does the Secretary of State ackowledge that the competitiveness of British industry would be greatly improved if it were operating on the same basic standards as those of our EEC competitors? Will the Secretary of State answer the question which his hon Friend the Minister for Trade could not or would not answer, as to why has there been so little progress over the harmonisation of technical standards in the EEC and why it is that EEC countries can export to this country, although we cannot, apparently, export to them?

I should like to look at a specific example, because the situation varies from industry to industry. In general terms, I believe that quite a lot of progress is being made on the harmonisation of technical standards. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it should proceed faster I agree entirely with him, but, alas, that is not entirely within our gift.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that competitiveness depends crucially upon new products and that that in itself depends upon the birth of new and smaller businesses, which, under this Government, have never enjoyed a better environment? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that, to be truly competitive, our products must be designed properly, built with quality, delivered on time and given adequate after-sales service? Again, does he accept that under this Government the environment has never been better for encouraging competitiveness, particularly because of our firm exchange rate?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the factors he has cited are crucial if British industry is to be more competitive. Immense strides have been made, but I remain worried about unit labour costs, which are extremely important and a major factor.

When will the Secretary of State and the Government wake up to the fact that we cannot possibly compete against other nations of the world, which receive heavy financial assistance from their Governments? When will this Government stop industry floundering around and collapsing right across the nation? When will they wake up and do something about it?

Most uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his case. In fact, the prospects for British industry are extremely good. The forecast for the economy is also extremely good. I look forward with confidence to the progress of British industry during the next few months.

Will my right hon. Friend note that, however competitive the furniture industry may be, it is impossible for it now to compete with the flood of furniture that is being imported from the Eastern bloc? It is undermining a very old and well-established industry in this country. If the Government do not take action, the industry will suffer a serious decline.

If there is evidence of dumping in the furniture industry, I shall be very glad to receive it and to take appropriate action.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the most widely used index of competitiveness, the IMF index of relative normalised unit labour costs, shows a loss of competitiveness since this Government took office of no less than 30 per cent.`? Will he therefore have a word with his right hon. Friends about this? His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is the latest culprit, after his appearance on television last Sunday. All those Ministers constantly, and Wrongly, assert that competitiveness has improved under this Government. Will he give the facts to them so that they cease making false and misleading statements?

We are doing well on productivity and we are doing well in industry. The forecast for the economy is good, GDP is now entering its sixth successive year of growth and investment is at a record high. The Labour party's attempts to diminish these achievements are very misleading and undesirable.

Does the Minister recognise that real interest rates in Britain are still higher than in competitor nations? Is he aware that our inflation rate is still the second highest in Europe—ahead only of Italy—and that wage rates here are much higher than in competitor countries? Does he accept that unless he does something more effective—for instance, by joining the European monetary system and imposing more effective wage restraint—[Interruption.]—those three factors will continue to undermine the competitiveness of British industry?

We shall all want to study with care what the hon. Gentleman said in the last part of his question, which did not seem to meet with universal approval. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on wage rates and wage restraint. I hope that we shall soon have good news about inflation. The news on inflation is becoming better and better, and long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 14 years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve the further competitiveness of British industry is to remove the penal rating which many Labour authorities throughout the country are levying on British industry? According to the Birmingham chamber of commerce and industry, £55 million extra is being spent by industry and 10,000 jobs have been lost. Is it not time that we did something about the rate system?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw our attention to the fact that high and excessive rates imposed by Labour councils can cause damage to industry throughout the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the aims and the objectives of the national educational resources information service.

The national educational resources information service is a computer-based service for schools. It will provide information on educational resource material directly relevant to the school curriculum and is designed to assist teachers. It is interactive and can be accessed by means of a local telephone call.

I thank my hon. Friend for spelling out the detail on that service, which I am sure will be welcomed by all teachers. To ensure that there is wide usage, can my hon. Friend ensure that individual teachers are told clearly how they can gain access to the information database?

There is a considerable degree of marketing of the scheme. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the training of young people and in maximising their chances of finding employment. Provided that schools have a modem attached to their existing or new micro-computers they can gain access to the central database very easily, for the cost of a local telephone call.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the future of British Leyland's truck and bus divisions.

A number of possible offers for Leyland Bus are being considered by the BL board and my right hon. Friend expects to receive a recommendation shortly. The position regarding Leyland Trucks is as he announced in his statement on 25 March.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will this weekend be celebrating the 90th anniversary reunion of the company's activities? What message can I give to them about the uncertainties facing the bus and truck industry so that their future may be resolved and so that I shall be present at their celebration of 100 years?

If I was not aware as little as five years ago, I have been made perfectly aware by my hon. Friend of the importance of Leyland truck and bus divisions to his constituency. He will appreciate that both bus and truck industries are in difficulties. Difficult decisions will have to be taken. If they are taken correctly, a viable bus and truck industry will be ensured.

Will the Leyland National bus plant at Workington survive?

That depends on what recommendation the BL board makes to my right hon. Friend. I am more than aware from the hon. Member how important an industrial unit is the bus plant in Workington.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind repercussions far afield from the plant at Leyland? Does he realise that an important, modern and small construction engineering plant in my constituency will be gravely at risk if the Workington plant closes? Will he do all that he can, under whatever ownership, to ensure that that plant and others continue satisfactorily into the future?

I can assure my hon. Friend that when any decisions are made about any part of the vehicle sector, the component suppliers and the implications for their future are taken carefully into account.

Does the Minister accept that the continuing uncertainty created in British Leyland by the examination and re-examination of the corporate plan must be overcome as quickly as possible? Is there not now to be another examination under the new chairman, who not only has to pass an opinion on the corporate plan, but first has to inform himself about the industry?

On the latter point, I have every confidence in what Mr. Graham Day will do as chairman and chief executive of BL. I understand the hon. Gentleman's former point. However, he will know and appreciate that during the period of uncertainty the percentage share of the market for trucks actually went up.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1970 the BL truck division was the largest manufacturer of trucks in the world? Is he further aware that, despite recent advances, it has since declined to become the smallest of the major truck manufacturers in Europe? Therefore, is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the opposition to the Bedford-Land Rover—Leyland merger was opportunist, anachronistic and wholly ill-informed?

My hon. Friend has put his finger somewhere near the button. I would call it political pot-stirring of the highest order.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding competition policy.

I receive regular representations on competition policy from hon. Members and others.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the growing practice of companies which are the subject of competing takeover bids to collaborate, on a rather cosy basis, with the management's preferred suitor to plan a programme of asset disposals, the sole purpose of which is avoidance of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

. I am aware of that, and also of the public comment about it. My concern has been to make references primarily on competition grounds. That has been the case since 1984 when my right hon. Friend. now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, announced the results of his review. I think that, in general, it is working well, but I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.

Is not British industry's state of collapse because of its failure to compete due to Government policy? British Shipbuilding is in such a dilemma. Is it not true that money on a grand scale is going from this country into the coffers of our competitors? When the Japanese Government see an aspect of their industry in trouble, do not massive subventions of cash go into that industry to corner the market and flood the world with goods? This Government sit still and let our industry reach a state of collapse.

The hon. Gentleman is not expressing the facts about British industry. As I said earlier, its prospects are extremely good. That is generally recognised both inside and outside the House.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the competitive position of Austin Rover, which during the first four months of this year saw its home market share drop to a disastrous 16 per cent.? Therefore, is it not time to re-open talks with Ford of Great Britain?

No, Sir, I have no plans to do that. However, I understand my hon. Friend's understandable concern about the competitive position of Austin Rover. It has good products coming along and it has made great strides, especially in Europe. I hope that hon. Members have noted the increase in percentages there. I am sure that under Mr. Graham Day and his board every effort will be made to improve the company's position still further.

This question is about competition policy. Is the Minister really satisfied with the unsatisfactory state of affairs in a number of recent hostile takeover bids? Does he not appreciate that there is complete uncertainty about the attitude of the Director General of Fair Trading as to what bids are or are not referred? The system seems to follow no logical principle to protect the public interest. Was not the most glaring recent example the Distillers-Argyll-Guiness battle, which has baffled experts on both sides?

I make no comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On his general point, I do not think that there is uncertainty in the market. As I have tried to explain to the House—I think that this is well understood outside—references are made primarily on competition grounds. That has been my practice during my short period in office as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and that was the practice of my predecessors from 1984.

In the context of competition policy, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is desirable that we should have a decreasing number of major joint stock banks? Does he consider it to be in the interests of borrowers, depositors and the public at large that the number should be decreasing and that such major takeovers as are currently proposed—for example, Standard Chartered Bank and Lloyds—should be allowed to go ahead in an untrammelled way?

I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that he will expect me to make a comment on a specific case at present, as it is a matter that I may be called upon to decide. I take note, however, of what he says.

Does the Secretary of State agree that many of the mergers that have taken place in recent times have been little to the benefit of the work force, customers or the public interest, and have been based largely on the self-aggrandisement of those who own the companies or those making the bids? Does that not illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Government's competition policy? Will he consider changing the basis of it so that those making bids have to prove the benefits that might flow from them?

I should be reluctant to make that change. I do not agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said in his supplementary question, but I believe that there is a need for certainty and consistent policy. This is an area of policy which is difficult and needs study, and I am considering all aspects of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what benefits he hopes to accrue to the United Kingdom from the EUREKA initiative.

EUREKA is benefiting us both by increasing the opportunities for British firms to collaborate with European partners in developing new technology, and by focusing attention on the need for action to open up and integrate the European market.

In spite of the unfortunate name, may I congratulate the Government on adapting the initiative to British requirements by turning it into a market-led programme, which should create new and real jobs? Will he do all that he can to ensure that small firms, especially those in Norfolk, are able to benefit from the programme?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The flexibility of the EUREKA framework allows projects of differing sizes, and small firms with specialist skills are well placed to participate. I am encouraged by the extent to which they have shown interest.

Was it not concern about the future of the EUREKA project that partly prompted the gravest doubts on the part of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), which were overcome only when on Thursday 5 December at 9 am he, along with the Secretary of State for Defence, were summoned separately to No. 10 Downing street to be told that if those doubts were not overcome they could like it, lump it or go? Was that not the truth of the situation?

I have not the faintest idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

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

In the first quarter of this year there was a deficit of £1·4 billion.

How can the Government claim that their economic policies are a success when they have been responsible for the worst manufacturing trade deficit in British history? Bearing in mind that the deficit has existed continuously since the 1983 general election, will the Minister admit that we shall probably never see a manufacturing trade surplus again until this incompetent Tory Government are replaced at the next general election by a Labour Government who are committed to industrial regeneration and the growth of exports?

I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see a manufacturing trade surplus. The wealth of a nation is measured by its gross domestic product, which is composed of many different elements. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does less than service to our manufacturers, whose exports in 1985, both by volume and by value, were higher than ever before.

Does my hon. Friend share my alarm at the fact that the deficit in trade with the EEC in the first quarter of the year, at £2·8 billion, was the highest ever recorded and is equivalent to almost 1 million job losses? Why do we find it so difficult to make good trading arrangements with the Common Market as compared with the rest of the world?

My understanding is that the exceptionally high deficit in the first quarter of this year reflects trade in the more erratic items.

When will the Government realise that we shall never solve the country's financial problems until we get our trade in manufactured goods back into surplus? When will they realise that people in the north-west, who depend heavily on manufacturing industries, will never be got back to work unless the Government change direction and get our manufacturing industries back into surplus?

Trade in manufactures is but one element in the overall picture of trade. The overall surplus reflects revenues from oil, a surplus in services and the money from increasing manufactured goods and exports. We spend on imports of intermediate goods to fuel growth. on capital goods to invest for the future and on consumer goods to enhance freedom of choice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that his original answer was somewhat disappointing to those of us on the Tory side of the House who feel that genuine wealth is created by manufacturing industry and that it is upon manufacturing industry that service industries depend? In view of the somewhat unsatisfactory results in the by-elections and local government elections last week, will my hon. Friend prevail on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and on Treasury Ministers to give manufacturing the emphasis and priority which it deserves, to stand up for British manufacturing industry in the arenas of the world and to provide fair rather than unfair competition?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is a principal objective of the Government and this Department to ensure fair conditions of trading. In fair conditions, I am confident that, provided British manufactures are competitive—much of their decline, it must be admitted, rests in that they have lost competitive quality in several respects—they will advance. As I told the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), manufacturing exports increased by 5·5 per cent. last year.

Is the Minister aware how serious it is that, in the first quarter of 1986, we have had a balance of trade deficit on manufactured goods as high as £1·4 billion? What do the Government intend to do to reduce our balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods, bearing in mind that, as the oil balance deteriorates, it will become a much more serious problem? Why, if the so-called erratic items were so important, was no reference made to them when the trade figures were published, or is this the hon. Gentleman taking a semi-detached view of the matter?

I do not think that it was thought necessary to make any special reference to what were only exceptional figures for one quarter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's Support for Marketing initiative.

This new advisory service will be introduced by the Department later this year. It is intended to assist and encourage small and medium-sized firms to develop or improve their marketing strategies by offering financial assistance for up to 15 man days' expert consultancy in this important area of their operations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the old adage which runs, "If you don't tell you don't sell"? What reassurances can he and the Government give that the new initiative will not suffer from the shortage of funds which has unfortunately affected the business and technical advisory service?

Some of Britain's critics have sometimes said that, although we might be excellent at developing products, we are perhaps not so good at marketing them. The scheme is a response to those who requested an enhancement of training and consultancy, especially small and medium-sized companies. I understand that success has caused the problem of queues in the business and technical advisory service, especially as we have multiplied by five times the amount of money that is spent on that general scheme during the past four years. I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall act to ensure that the queues are shortened.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation that would require companies to ballot their shareholders on whether a political fund should be established to make political donations.

No, Sir.

As the Government were so insistent that trade unions should have to ballot their members every 10 years about whether a political fund should be established or maintained, why should the same not apply to companies? Is the Minister aware that a recent MORI poll found that 82 per cent. of the people surveyed believe that companies should be treated in the same way as trade unions? Did the Minister say no simply because the bulk of the money goes from companies to the Tory party and its front organisations?

No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are completely different factors relating to trade unions and companies. Shareholders have complete freedom of choice to invest their money, but many trade union members have no choice, and, even now, are forced to join a union to get a job. Moreover, we all know how misleading the trade union campaign was on political fund ballots. The two matters are not in any way analogues, and it would be wrong to legislate.

Is it not a fact that every company must have an annual general meeting, and that at that meeting the shareholders can accept or reject the donations? The fact that they rarely, if ever, do, proves that British industry and shareholders want a Conservative Government returned at the general election because they know that if the Opposition were returned it would be a disaster.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am glad that British industry shows that common sense.