asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress toward achieving separate and distinct destinies for the various subsidaries of the Rover Group.

Rover Group has successfully concluded negotiations for the sale of Leyland Bus and the majority of Unipart. Negotiations are taking place for the disposal of majority interests of Jaguar-Rover-Australia and of Istel. As I told the House on 2 December 1986, commercial discussions on Leyland Trucks are being taken forward. The best way to develop the other businesses in the group will be considered in the context of the Rover Group's corporate plan, which I am studying.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply, may I remind him that Jaguar, the first company to be liberated from the group, has just announced vacancies for 700 more men, and that last time he spoke in the House about Land Rover's future he looked to the prospect of either a trade buyer or privatisation? Since no trade buyer appears to be in prospect, may we look forward to privatisation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out to the House the enormous success of Jaguar, not just recently but for the past few years, as a splendid example of what can be done in the private sector. My hon. Friend is entirely right to remind me of what I said about Land Rover. The company is to be retained within the Rover Group while preparations are made for its later flotation or trade sale. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's preference for a flotation.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that as each part is sold off the remainder will find it progressively more difficult to become viable?

No, Sir. I do not think that I could agree with that. Many of the separate bodies that have been sold off have been loss-making and therefore will not make the situation worse.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of us accept that some of the privatisation schemes have been good for the future of the British motor industry, not least for Jaguar, and that the continuing entity of Austin Rover is of crucial importance? Does he agree that we must consider the fact that Austin Rover is building up a good export record, has a great future as long as it is given a fair wind, and is not a lame duck but an emergent swan?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said, as I so often do on matters relating to the motor industry. Austin Rover's export record is encouraging, as was its market share last month. I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking forward as eagerly as I am to discussing the corporate plan.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Rover Group, even as now constituted, shows enough interest and involvement in matters of public interest as well as in its own profit, especially in the context of exports, to which he has referred, where Rover parts may be used for exporting things built up from them? If there is a change in the company's structure, can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that aspect is properly safeguarded?

I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, the directors of Rover Group have a fiduciary duty to the company. I shall have to examine in detail what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him about it.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that the proceeds from the sale of those different businesses will be sufficient to make it unnecessary for Austin Rover to ask the taxpayer for further funds?

I wonder whether I can persuade my hon. Friend to curb his natural impatience for news and wait until he hears the result of the Government's study of the corporate plan. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Why will the Secretary of State not admit that Jaguar's success has everything to do with the efforts of its management and work force and nothing to do with its ownership? Why will he not tell Mr. Graham Day to get on with the job of getting Austin Rover's share of the domestic market back to its level of 23 per cent. eight years ago instead of simply accepting the present level of 15 per cent. and declaring more redundancies among the people who work at Austin Rover and its suppliers?

I certainly agree that Jaguar's success has been due to the efforts of its management and work force, but it is quite wrong not to take its corporate structure into account as well. The fact that Jaguar has been privatised has been a major factor in the company's success.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the initiatives he has taken since 1983 to assist industry in the north.

Recognising its problems, we re-designated many parts of the north of England as assisted areas following the 1984 review of regional industrial policy. In total, 30 travel-to-work areas are assisted in my Department's three regions in the north of England, thus benefiting from regional schemes of assistance. These are automatic regional development grants, selective financial assistance and the activities of the English Industrial Estates Corporation. In addition, the efforts of my Departmenet's Invest in Britain Bureau and the three regional development organisations in the north of England have helped to secure nearly 220 separate decisions by foreign companies to invest in the north in the last three years.

The amount that has been done to help the north is impressive, as my hon. Friend has listed. As a fellow northerner, will he remind the House that Liverpool's greatness was built on the entrepeneurial spirit of Liverpudlians, Manchester on the commercial enterprise of Mancunians and Newcastle through the industrial enterprise of Novocastrians, not through Left-wing Socialists in town halls, who have done so much to destroy the reputation of the north for self-help and enterprise.

I fully endorse my hon. Friend's wise analysis. As a fellow northerner—one from Yorkshire— I have to comment that a Labour-controlled local authority in south Yorkshire has recently declined to assist a small business because it did not consider that it would be socially useful to do so.

Will the Minister take on board the seriousness of the situation in the north, especially in the Dewsbury, Wakefield and Pontefract travel-to-work area where there is 16 per cent. unemployment? We have a 238-acre industrial site which is privately owned, but nobody will take up the offer to develop it. Will the Minister give the Wakefield area some assistance in veiw of the rising unemployment there, especially among the young?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am aware of the problems in parts of west Yorkshire and I concede that there are problems associated with attracting new industries to areas that have suffered structural decline. The coal industry, for example, has suffered decline. The hon. Gentleman knows that considerable time and effort must be expended to secure an improvement, and we are doing that.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of initiatives, the number of people in work in the northern region has risen by some 40,000 since 1983? Is he further aware that the only threat to industry in Darlington is the prospect of a Labour Government scrapping Trident, cancelling Sizewell and putting up inflation and the cost of of borrowing?

I understand my hon. Friend's comments fully and I can confirm that in my trips to Europe and elsewhere I try to stimulate inward investment. It is the continuation of the Government's policies that firms are most concerned about.

Is the Minister aware that the Department's failure to restore the grants that were so greatly reduced by his predecessors has resulted in a number of non-European companies moving production from west Yorkshire to other parts of the European Community? For example, Case International is transferring a great deal of its tractor manufacturing to France. Will the Minister take some action?

I am aware that there have been significant changes, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the proportion of the working population, especially in northern parts, has been increased by the redevelopment of the map tinder RDG2. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Case works and have written to the chairman to ask for clarification of his intention.

We hear about the north-south divide, but it appears that we now have a north-north divide. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) my hon. Friend the Minister did not refer to Scotland when talking about the north. Does he take account of Scotland, and is he prepared to discuss the restoration of development area status to parts of Scotland? Is he aware that there is high unemployment in my constituency?

I hate to take issue with my hon. Friend on a matter on which he is expert, but as far as I am aware we do not have responsibility for regional policy in Scotland. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Will the Minister confirm that no region has done more to help itself than the northern region, where co-operation between the regional Trades Union Congress, the regional Confederation of British Industry and local authorities is far advanced? What is the Department's view of he Northern Region Development Company, which has been set up by those organisations on a tripartite basis?

I greatly welcome the creation of the Northern Region Development Company. It is an admirable example of local authorities reaching agreement after many years of not doing so, and forming with other local bodies and industry a base for promoting the northern region. I trust that the company will continue to prosper. We wish it well.

Can my hon. Friend tell us a little about the situation in the north which the Government inherited in 1979? Is it not true that under the Labour Government 70 per cent. of manufacturing job losses were lost in the north and that the Labour Government submitted a paper to the European Community in 1978 saying that the situation in the north was disastrous because of the general state of the British economy?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. There has always been a view that there were significant problems which the Labour Government did not address carefully. The regional development policies pursued by the Government play a significant part in improving conditions in the northern region. Some 9 per cent. more money is going into such policies this year.

Will the Minister confirm that during the seven years of Conservative Government manufacturing employment has fallen by 34 per cent. in the north, by 35 per cent. in the north-west, by 36 per cent. in Wales and by more than 30 per cent. in Scotland? Will he confirm that the real value of manufacturing investment in the past seven years has fallen by 31 per cent. in the north-west and by more than 40 per cent. in the northern region? What practical purpose will be served by halving the value of regional development grants yet again? How can he talk of recovery when he is destroying the means of recovery?

There is plenty of room for arguing about the basis of the hon. Gentleman's figures and I shall not confirm any of them. I can confirm, however, that we have spent £419 million in the current year. That is a substantial increase on what was spent in 1979. I can also confirm that we are dedicated to improving conditions in the northern parts of Britain to enable the imbalance of unemployment be eliminated.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the trade deficit in manufactured goods.

My ministerial colleagues and I meet the CBI regularly at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions and a variety of subjects are discussed. I have no plans for a separate meeting on this subject.

When the Minister next meets the CBI through the forum which he has mentioned, the NEDC, will he discuss with it last month's deficit in manufacturing trade of £753 million? Will he discuss with it also the consensus that seems to exist that our trade position will worsen and that next year we shall have a deficit of about £3 billion in our overall balance of payments? Given the deterioration in Britain's manufacturing trade, what proposals does the Minister have for the time, which will shortly arrive, when North sea oil is expended?

Stripped of their doctrinal slant, I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views. I accept that a manufactured import can mean, all too often, a job exported. That is all true, but, in a free society, consumer choice—taking consumers as both firms and individuals—is paramount. The trade gap is the aggregate of the many individual consumer choices and it points in the direction of a preference for the foreign product.

Has my hon. Friend seen the CBI report published today which shows that output and export opportunities for industry are the highest for many years, and perhaps since the war, and that the prospect for British exporters, as a result of beneficial exchange rates and the economic and industrial policies pursued by the government, is the best for many years? Is not the only danger that we shall return to the bad old ways of the policies pursued by the Labour party when it was in Government, should the country be so unfortunate as to have a Labour Government after the next general election?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the opportunities and prospects. The export performance of British industry is strong. There is, however, a trade gap which is accounted for, as I said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), by the aggregate individual preference for foreign imported goods. When British manufacturers are perceived by the domestic consumer as competitive, we shall see the gap being corrected.

When the Minister meets the CBI, will he discuss with it, along with the Secretary of State, the Department's plans to try to persuade Honda to take a large share-owning in Rover, along with the scrapping of the Metro Mini? Would those plans not mean the demise of Rover as a group that can design, engineer and manufacture its own products?

I do not know the basis on which the hon. Gentleman makes his accusations. He has heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State express his confidence in the increasingly creditable performance of Austin Rover and its prospects for the future, a view which has been echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet).

May I confirm my hon. Friend's view by drawing his attention to the report of the speech delivered to the Welsh CBI on this very issue by the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that the next Labour Government would not, within their policies, be able to achieve any increase in manufacturing jobs? Does this not fly in the face of some of the noise, cant and humbug that we hear from the Opposition Benches?

I did not see the announcement. Perhaps it is part of the new image of candour and open speaking cultivated by the Leader of the Opposition. How long that will last remains to be seen.

Will the Minister confirm that the sum of the Government's record in manufactured trade is that they inherited a surplus of £3 billion and have managed to convert it into a deficit of £6 billion? Is the Minister aware that this morning's figures show that the visible trade deficit last year quadrupled to £8·5 billion, yet Conservative Members can only say "So what?" Is he aware that the only other country that manages to combine an oil surplus with a deficit on visible trade is war-torn Iraq? As a well-known British patriot, what possible pride does he take in that parallel?

The hon. Gentleman is a master craftsman in bandying statistics. I know that he has expressed reservations in a most elegant and amusing way about the City of London. He may care to ponder on the fact that the total foreign exchange earnings surplus in the City of London last year was £8·5 billion, which exactly matches the deficit on manufactured account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his Department's current contracts with Electronic Data Systems.

My Department has no current contracts with Electronic Data Systems.

With regard to EDS contracts under discussion, has any Minister had cause to refer matters in relation to Electronic Data Systems and immigration rules to the Director of Public Prosecutions? What would other companies abroad think if major domestic Government contracts, of great value, went to this particular American company and if Plessey and Racal and a number of other British companies were intimately involved in competition?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing certain matters to the attention of Ministers regarding the company's alleged view on how its employees treat our immigration controls. In the first instance, the allegations would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If they were proved, we should need to consider whether that affected any particular EDS bid.

Has it been drawn to the Minister's attention that some of the employees have been encouraged to falsify their work applications? If that is the case, will those forms be called in and examined by the Ministry, and will prosecutions take place?

The manner in which any follow-up inquiries are made will, of course, be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My Department's remit is to consider its contractual arrangements with different suppliers and, of course, to offer some guidance to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the current bid for the major Government data network contract. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said and will ensure that his views find a place in the right quarter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British Steel.

The prospects for the United Kingdom steel industry, and for the British Steel Corporation in particular, are more encouraging today than at any time for at least 10 years. BSC is now operating profitably and the Government intend to return the corporation to the private sector during the course of the next Parliament.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his most encouraging reply. He will be aware that the British Steel Corporation works at Scunthorpe are the jewel in the crown of the BSC. Bearing that in mind, what does my right hon. Friend think about the Labour party policy in relation to imposing a 1 per cent. levy on the total turnover of companies for training purposes? What are his views about Labour party proposals to use the nationalised industries, such as BSC, to recruit persons for social reasons?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that this industry be returned to the private sector at the earliest possible date. My hon. Friend referred to the Labour party's proposals. I am in some difficulty about the 1 per cent. training levy on turnover, because we do not hear about it. I [Interruption.] I notice that Labour Members are sensitive about it. It would cost an additional £30 million to £40 million, which would need to be taken out of the corporation's hard-earned profits. I do not know whether it will be 1, 2 or 3 per cent.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, as this is a technologically advanced industry, it will gain. not lose, from a properly organised training scheme? Is he further aware that, under the management of this Government, the British Steel Corporation has reduced expenditure on research and development by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and has failed to take advantage of funds available from the European Community? Can he give an assurance that a privatised steel industry, if the Government are in a position to secure that result, will maintain manufacture at the five integrated sites?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the assurances given on many occasions about the five integrated steel sites. I have to disagree with him about a training levy on turnover. It would cost an additonal £30 million to £40 million, if that is what is proposed. I wish I could get it straight from the Labour party whether it is proposing this. Some days it says yes, some days it says no, and some days it says double. I notice that no one is leaping up to tell us what the truth is. I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about research.

Is not the best thing for the British Steel Corporation, rather than distracting the management with privatisation, to help it to consolidate its recent success and to open up new markets, particularly in Europe, so that it can build and grow in its present form?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about consolidation and helping the corporation in its efforts to do that. I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the alliance, speaking against the privatisation of BSC. That is a strange posture for the hon. Gentleman to adopt, but, as he has done so, the electors will have to take note of it.

While it would be churlish to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) as to which steelworks are the best, those in my constituency are certainly another jewel in the crown of BSC. None of my constituents will allow the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wriggleworth) to pass unnoticed. They will realise that the alliance is against the privatisation of British Steel, which must and will come about, to the benefit of my constituents.

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's robust support. My hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will, I am sure, play a major part in the privatisation of British Steel.

When the Council of Ministers considers in a few weeks' time the further massive round of capacity cuts that are being worked out between the Commission and the steel makers through Eurofer, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has said many times, that the British steel industry has taken more than its fair share of cuts and should not have any more imposed on it? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the competitiveness of the British steel industry, is he prepared to stand up and defend it against further reductions?

I have always taken a great deal of notice of anything that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has said, and I shall certainly pay attention to what it says on this topic, as on others. I have made it clear that if Eurofer makes formal proposals to the Council of Ministers, the BSC contribution would have to be consistent with the strategy announced in August 1985, to retain the five integrated works for at least the following three years, and must not prejudice decisions of the strategy for the five integrated works thereafter.

Does the Secretary of State realise that that is not enough? Is he aware that if there is the cut envisaged by Brussels of 19 million tonnes, or the smaller, 12 million tonnes cut to which he has already referred, and we took a share in that, eventually that would represent a death threat to one of our major steelworks? Will he give a clear assurance that he is telling Brussels, here, now, and unequivocally, that we will accept no further cuts in our hot rolling capacity?

I have already told the House. Indeed, as I understand it, there are no formal proposals before the Council of Ministers and no decisions have been taken. If any proposals were to come forward they would have to be consistent with what I have just told the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). I repeat the assurances that have been given on many occasions from this Dispatch Box.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received any representations from consumer organisations concerning the level of charges imposed by hotels for the use of telephones by hotel guests.

No, Sir.

Is it not disgraceful that some leading British hotels are applying mark-ups of anything up to 300 per cent. on direct dialled telephone calls? Does my hon. Friend agree that that must act as a deterrent to foreign visitors, not least Americans, since the practice is much less widespread in America? Will he join me in suggesting to visitors that they should ask for a list of the charges before making calls and, if the charges appear to be unreasonable, they should consider using a public telephone box?

Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend. but am glad to say that the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, to which most sizeable hotels belong, recommends that where a charge is made it should be clearly stated in the hotel tariff. In order to ensure that hotel clients are better informed about the level of telephone charges, the hotel industry's voluntary code of booking practice introduced a provision in 1985 requiring hotels that make additional charges on telephone calls to state in writing on a card alongside each telephone the Fact that such charges are made. I shall draw my hon. Friend's other comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that similar mark-ups on telephone charges are made by private hospitals and nursing homes?

It is for the establishment to decide whether that is a deterrent to future customer loyalty.

For consumer choice to operate, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that adequate information should be made available to consumers such as hotel guests? As mark-ups on telephone charges in British hotels seem to be so much higher than in almost every other country, would it not be right to insist, through the introduction of legislation if necessary, that hotels should publish a list of their charges and end a justifiable cause of dissatisfaction?

As I have said, there is a voluntary code of practice that recommends that sort of procedure. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress in current investigations into share dealing in the City.

All the investigations are being pursued as rapidly as possible, but I cannot estimate how soon they will be completed. It would not be desirable to report on progress of investigations before they are completed.

Are all the big firms involved in the Guiness illegal dealings fully co-operating with the Department of Trade and Industry investigations? If not, why do the Government not use their muscle to compel them to co-operate? If they are co-operating, why, when the Minister says that he wants prompt action, is it going to take up to a year, perhaps more, to bring some of the culprits to justice? Is it not the case that the Government just want the scandal to die down and are lightweight in tackling big City fraud?

I reject utterly the hon. Gentleman's last suggestion. The inspectors appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself are independent of the Department of Trade and Industry. They are distinguished professional people. They are making full use of the sweeping powers available to them under the Companies Acts and they will bring the complicated investigations to a conclusion as soon as they can in a manner consistent with full, thorough and effective inquiries.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the serious frauds office proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill is to do its job effectively it must have substantial powers? Is it not extraordinary that at a time when it is protesting strongly about insider dealing and other fraud in the City, the Labour party is doing its best to undermine the serious frauds office by stripping it of its powers?

There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. There is a marked contrast between the attitude taken by Labour Members when it comes to asking for powers to deal with matters such as insider dealing and the attitude taken by their Front Bench spokesmen on the Criminal Justice Bill, where the Labour party seeks to whittle away the powers which the Government would like to give to the serious fraud office to investigate allegations of serious fraud.

Will the Minister confirm that today I have given him privately the name of a licensed security dealer in the City who is trading fraudulently; who at this very moment is trading shares in the City? Does the Minister accept that, if he fails to take action today to close down the activity of that company and people lose money by buying in, he will have acted negligently and people can fairly look to the Government for compensation?

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman was in touch with me earlier today, and I have made urgent inquiries as a result of that conversation. My Department is fully aware of the case to which he refers, and I can assure him that such steps as may be necessary will be taken.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the principal lessons of the events in the City during the past 12 months is that there is a need for a substantial review of the rules governing disclosure of share bargains at the moment they are completed? Without such a review, is it not the case that the takeover panel is not only toothless but is in danger of being blindfolded? Will my hon. and learned Friend take steps to initiate such a review?

There are powers now available to deal with such matters. Of course, we shall be ready to learn the lessons, which no doubt will have to be learnt, as a result of recent events.

As the Minister resisted Labour amendments to put the takeover panel on a statutory basis, is he satisfied with its performance during the Guinness bid last spring? If so, can he explain how it was that the takeover panel found nothing suspicious about £500 million chasing about one third of the Guinness stock? After that fiasco, how can he leave the supervision of takeovers to a voluntary self-regulating body with no serious powers of investigation and no statutory powers of discipline? Why does he not now accept that the public interest must be protected by an independent public watchdog?

The takeover panel has hitherto performed effectively. We shall seek, as I said a moment ago, to draw any lessons that are to be learnt from recent events at the appropriate time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have something to say about the takeover panel during the debate later this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet completed his consideration of the new information supplied to him by Lonrho plc in December 1986 about the circumstances in which House of Fraser's purchase by the Al Fayed family was approved; and if he will make a statement.

No. The material submitted on behalf of Lonrho plc concerning the purchase of House of Fraser by the Fayed family is voluminous and is still receiving careful consideration.

While I understand that it will take some time for my right hon. Friend to consider the startling new information provided by Lonrho, will he say in general whether he or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has any power whatsoever to direct the unscrambling or the alteration of a takeover or merger if information that was provided at the time of approval proves to be inaccurate or misleading?

If it appears to me that material facts are brought to my notice or made public that were not disclosed at the time, I have a discretion whether to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the commission makes an adverse finding, I have discretion to remedy or prevent the adverse effects identified by the commission through the normal powers available to me, including, in appropriate cases, the power of divestment. I make it clear that I make no comment about this particular case.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Harrods, under the former management, paid roughly £20 million per year in corporation tax to the Treasury? Is he further aware that, since the takeover by the Al Fayeds and the registration of the company in Liechtenstein, they no longer pay taxes to the British Government because they choose to offset their liability against borrowings to borrow for the purchase of Harrods? Is that not a disgrace? Did the Secretary of State not know, when the original decision was taken, that that was likely to happen, and in taking that decision did he not, in effect, write of £20 million worth of revenue to the Exchequer annually—inflation proofed?

I think that I would be far wiser not to comment on what the hon. Gentleman says today. I am considering all the information supplied to me by Lonrho in December 1986. I shall consider carefully everything that is said in the House and that is supplied by Lonrho.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Al Fayed family was greatly assisted in acquiring the House of Fraser and Harrods because Lonrho sold it a 30 per cent. stake in the House of Fraser?

My hon. Friend makes another important point, but, again, I would prefer not to comment on the details of the case until I am in a position to consider the whole problem carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department gives to small businesses seeking to sell their goods abroad.

A comprehensive range of help for exporters is available through the British Overseas Trade Board. The board's objective is to stimulate more small firms to export successfully and many of its services are designed to meet the particular needs of the small business.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many small businesses in my constituency of Basildon wish to take advantage of the strategic importance of the town in selling their goods and services abroad? However, they feel that his Department mainly helps larger firms. Will he please say what he is doing to try to dispel that impression?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. I am sorry to hear what he tells me about small firms in his constituency, because, in fact, some 70 per cent. of the clients of the British Overseas Trade Board are drawn from the category of firms with a turnover in the range of £1 million to £10 million. In fact, the BOTB established a small firms committee in 1985. The co-chairmen are both board members, and the committee commissioned a report to identify the export potential of firms in that range.

Does the Minister accept that one of the real problems for the smallest businesses is the inability of key members of the company to spend long periods abroad? What liaison is there between his Department and the Foreign Office to enable companies to secure adequate and effective agents abroad so that they can sell their products?

There is an arrangement whereby, for a minimal fee, small firms can have a full range of advisory and representational services arranged by post in the country where they intend to operate. We have just adjusted the scale of fees in that service to comply more realistically with the different degrees of importance and complications of the markets involved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a small and, dare I say, distinguished group of hon. Members are discussing with the BOTB methods of setting up pilot schemes to help small firms on a pro-active basis? Will he ensure that those pilot schemes receive full publicity to make sure that they are given every opportunity to help smaller businesses?

Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends in the group who are pushing that idea, to which we attach much importance. In principle, we are willing to help found, on a pilot basis, a small number of export enterprise centres away from the main regional offices of the BOTB. At present we are looking at a scheme in Chelmsford, with Essex county council, but, of course, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is dependent to some ex tent on getting a certain level of private participation as well.

Is the Minister aware that in surveys conducted by the Bradford chamber of commerce business leaders have blamed the Government's interest rate and exchange rate policies as the major constraints on their businesses? Does he agree that the best thing that he could do to help businesses would be to modify those policies and introduce policies of investment-led economic expansion rather than the minimal measures that he has been discussing so far?

The hon. Gentleman may be a little behind the times. As he knows, or as the Bradford chamber of commerce will tell him if he were to ask, the exchange rate policy—if that word applies—or at least, the results of exchange rate fluctuations, have been an effective devaluation of the pound which has been a great help to British exporters. It varies from 18 to 40 per cent. against the deutschmark, and that is the subject of particular attention in the CBI quarterly report to which reference was made earlier this afternoon.

As I represent many small businesses in Leicester, I thank my hon. Friend for the help that his Department has given to those businesses. Does he agree that the major problem that has been highlighted in Bradford is high rates, which, in cities such as Leicester, kill jobs? That causes particular problems for small textile firms that are exporting. These firms would welcome putting "Made in Leicester, England" on their labels, but as a result of new regulations they may not be able to signify the country of origin. These companies are proud, as I am, to have goods made in Leicester.

I am glad of the opportunity to dispel immediately the mistaken idea that it is no longer legal to put an origin mark on products. Although we are no longer allowed as a Government to require manufacturers to include that mark, it is highly desirable that all manufacturers should put that mark on, because that will allow the consumer to make the appropriate choice and reinforce the consumers' understandable preferences in that area.

As the Minister is presumably aware of the major cuts that have been made in the number of staff and the budget available to support exports, especially for small firms, and, in particular, the suspension of the market entry guarantee scheme, the reduction in the number of overseas trade fairs supported by the Government and the reduction in the number of outward missions supported, can he tell the House what possible sense it makes for a country with Britain's appalling trade deficit in manufactured goods to withdraw support for small firms seeking to exploit export markets?

Very understandably, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not quote the figures. He simply uttered the concepts. The budget has been increased and will be increased by £1·5 million next year. The number of firms helped in their attendance at trade fairs over the past year was 7,000. The market entry guarantee scheme is neither appropriate to, nor utilised by, small firms.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress of efforts to resolve the current trade dispute between the European Community and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

Further negotiations have taken place between the Community and the US Administration during the last few days. On 26 January the Council agreed, with the full support of the United Kingdom Government, that these should continue with the aim of securing early settlement of the dispute.

Does the Minister agree that unless the grain dispute between Spain and America is settled satisfactorily in the short term it could cost European taxpayers up to £300 million in compensation, and that the Americans in turn could impose a levy of 200 per cent. on some of our exports from the EEC?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to remind the House that the possibilities of escalation are very serious. However, conversations continue and I under-stand that there will be further contact between Commissioner de Clercq and the United States trade representative Mr. Yeutter this afternoon. I suggest to the House that it is not especially desirable to discuss the details of various negotiating ploys at this stage.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the "Buy American" provision in some of the protectionist legislation is having a seriously adverse effect on the machine tool industry in my constituency and elsewhere. Does he appreciate that many sectors of British industry are fed up and have the impression that Britain plays fair and other countries do not? Will he express in the strongest possible terms to the United States Administration our anger at their growing unfair protectionism and to the EEC Commission the regret of British industry at the Commission's lack of action?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I frequently express our indignation at this in our meetings with representatives of the United States Government. Although my hon. Friend's remarks are not strictly relevant to the EEC-United States dispute, and the United States is entitled under GATT to compensation for loss of trade, there is no doubt that the manner in which the negotiations were opened by the Americans illustrates their increasing propensity for taking unilateral action in trade, irrespective of their obligations under GATT. There have been several examples of this, of which the "Buy American" provision in respect of machine tools is one. The super fund, the customer user fee, tax discrimination in respect of light aircraft and the semiconductor arrangement with Japan, in their different ways illustrate the unilateral exercise of United States muscle. They are undesirable and the subject of legitimate protest.

Is the Minister aware that he would have the support of the entire House if he did not allow the negotiations to prevent his Department from providing speedy support for the A330 and A340 Airbus? Is he aware that his Department's support of the A320 Airbus, which preserved that high technology, is likely to be repaid in the very near future?

Yes, Sir. The two subjects are not easily taken together, but I endorse and support everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He is right to say that the A320 has been an outstandingly successful aircraft. There is no doubt that its encroachment on a market that has hitherto been dominated by the United States is giving rise to much heart-searching among Americans in an attempt to stifle it.

Trade wars have a habit of escalating. Can my hon. Friend confirm that with the west midlands and the midlands generally poised to start the export of the Rover Sterling and Range Rover cars in the next few weeks, the prospect of a trade war extending to cars would place the future of the British car industry in jeopardy?

I understand why my hon. Friend makes the point, but we are still a long way from escalating the war out of agriculture. Our objectives are, naturally, to reach a compromise and to prevent another round of escalatory measures, even within the confines of agriculture.

While allowing for the loss of United States exports to the European Community following the accession of Spain and Portugal, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the underlying pressures for protection in the United States are aggravated by increasing imports into the United States from American companies abroad? Will he urge the United States authorities to restrain the punitive protection that they are imposing on individual United Kingdom companies, such as Burroughs, and in sectors such as gin?

The United States economy is already in such disarray that it would not he appropriate for me to urge measures or sanctions upon its representatives during our negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he hopes to complete his review of Her Majesty's Government's merger and competition policy.

My Department is still receiving evidence, and it will be some time before the review is completed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper way to proceed in this matter is to take account of all the representations that are received before reaching any conclusions and not to make snap judgments merely to satisfy the bleating Opposition? However, does he accept that there is a need for clear and unequivocal guidelines so that companies know where they stand and are not subject to decisions made at random or on an unpredictable basis?

My hon. Friend's latter point is entirely right. Recently, I met representatives of the CBI to discuss the matter and they urged on me the need for as much predictability as possible and for consistency in the application of policy. I am determined to achieve that. I also agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. On these very important issues, it is essential to take considered decisions and not to be rushed into action.

May I impress upon the Minister the great urgency for reconsideration of monopolies and mergers policy? I draw to his attention the activities of a company in the north-west called Valuedale which are causing great concern to the Simon Engineering Organisation and a great deal of loss of confidence, which will affect its investment policies for the future. Is it not about time that successful companies should not have to suffer the pressures that they encounter with the parasites that have climbed on to their backs?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this case. It is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) and others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his point of view well known in his part of the world. I am sure that those responsible for deciding—the shareholders—will take very much into account what he has said. It is for the shareholders to decide. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do what he can to influence them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that competition in retail and marketing benefits consumers by lower shop prices? Therefore, in his review, will he exercise great care when he receives complaints about dumping from manufacturers and retailers who are less efficient than most?

I do not think that this issue has much to do with dumping, but I shall certainly examine the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Is the Secretary of State aware that widespread dissatisfaction and uncertainty over the Government's monopolies and mergers policy are caused partly as a result of recent events, but also because of the general history of the monopolies and mergers policy? Therefore, will he bring forward the results of his review as quickly as possible?

I do not accept that there is all that much uncertainty. The decisions have been consistent. In 1984 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced that references would be made primarily on the ground of competition. That has remained the policy, and it is well understood.