To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of science parks that have been established since 1979.

Only two science parks existed in 1979; now there are 41.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures speak for themselves, and that this is a great achievement for the Conservative Government? Universities and industry are being utilised and scientific ideas are being converted into new products and processes. Will my hon. Friend give us his ideas about the course of development ahead? Is it likely to be by way of the Link scheme and other audits, so that the science parks which have been so successful in past years can be developed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, 20 more science parks are already planned. I believe that it is a major achievement to have increased the number from just two to 41 in the past 12 years.

We welcome the development of science parks, but will the Minister talk to the occupants and potential occupants of the science parks and ask them whether they would like the business expansion scheme to be replaced by a scheme to encourage investment in high-tech manufacturing industry and high technology development to be set in the context of policies, with access given to finance, tax credits for research and development and regional support? In short, will he ask them whether they would prefer the Opposition's science and technology development policies to those of the Government?

That is extremely unlikely. The success of science parks is that they have been market led. It is true that in the assisted areas the Department of Trade and Industry's English Estates has taken an interest in and has helped with the establishment of science parks. What is important, though, is that the DTI uses its innovation budget—some £100 million —to encourage technology transfer and that it does not seek to pick winners. We tried that policy before and it failed lamentably.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations from business men about the impact on industry of minimum wage levels.

I am aware of the very widespread concern among business men that a national minimum wage would destroy jobs and competitiveness.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chief executive of Sears the retailers has said that if a minimum wage policy were introduced it would be bound to lead to unemployment going over 3 million? Has not the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that the French minimum wage has reduced employment opportunities, particularly for young people with few skills? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Labour to say that it cares about the most disadvantaged people in society when its own policies would deny job prospects to those very same people?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of estimates have been published by business of the damage that would be done by a minimum wage and of the number of jobs that would be destroyed. All of them are very large. Only the Labour party, in the shape of the Opposition spokesman on employment, maintains that there will be no impact on jobs from a minimum wage. Asked by Jonathan Dimbleby:

"is it your view that there is no negative impact on jobs from a minimum wage of any kind?"

"Yes, that is my view."

Is the Secretary of State telling us that he has so little confidence in the ending of the recession that he does not believe that there will be sufficient wealth in the economy to cascade down to those on the very lowest wages, who are asking for just £3·40 per hour, which is barely enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living?

I do not think that one can ever afford to be reckless with jobs in the way that the Opposition plan to be. It is particularly unwise to destroy the jobs of those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. If they can never get on to the first rung of the employment ladder, they can never rise up it. If the Labour party says that a minimum wage of £3·40 would have no impact at all on jobs, why stick at £3·40? Why not set it at £5? Would that have any effect? Or is the Labour party saying that there is some magical higher figure which will influence them but that £3·40 has no impact at all?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that minimum wage legislation will encourage illegal immigration and overstaying? Would it not encourage some employers to employ people in the unrecorded and perhaps ironically called black economy?

My hon. Friend is almost certainly right. It creates a new form of law breaking—namely, giving jobs to people who need them.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Northern Ireland already has a low wage economy and that we still have the highest unemployment? Does he agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that people receive a fair reward for the services that they provide and that they are not exploited? Will he tell the House how many other members of the European Community have a minimum wage strategy?

The one thing that is absolutely certain is that a minimum wage would do great damage in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is also equally certain that in France, where the OECD carried out a study, it has been recognised that the minimum wage has destroyed jobs, particularly among the low paid, the young and the less skilled. I cannot believe that it would be to the benefit of the Province of Ulster that its unemployment problem should be aggravated further by this imposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's share of world trade (a) from 1974 to 1979 and (b) since 1979.

Britain's share of world exports of manufactures by volume declined between 1974 and 1979. The decline continued into the 1980s. Since 1981 our export volume has increased faster than that of any of our major competitors.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that in the first eight months of this year manufactured exports have risen by more than 60 per cent. of the 1979 average? Does not that show, in particular, the dramatic resurgence of the British car industry, which exports an ever-growing number of its products throughout the world? Will my hon. Friend further confirm that, instead of knocking Britain's achievements, as the Labour party does, British industry is out abroad knocking on doors to get business?

I am happy to confirm that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I join him in paying tribute to the achievements of the British car industry. The achievements of British exporters are a tribute not only to the quality and competitiveness of their products, but to the quality of the Government's policies, which invite inward investment and, through low taxation, encourage productivity and entrepreneurial skills.

Is the Minister aware that since 1979 more than 23,000 jobs have been lost in St. Helens? More than two thirds of those jobs were in the glass industry. A further 750 redundancies have been announced by Pilkington this week. Will the Minister acknowledge that the United Kingdom's share of the glass industry has fallen dramatically since 1979? When will the Department stimulate the economy to assist firms such as Pilkington to start employing people and to stop sacking them?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that to be competitive in export markets—as, indeed, in home markets—it is necessary to use the latest techniques and technology. Sadly, that sometimes means that more glass can be produced by fewer people. Any lay-off is a matter for regret, but I hope that the hon. Member will applaud companies such as Pilkington, which has improved productivity, as has British industry as a whole.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received calling for a Buy British campaign.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has recently announced a partnership sourcing initiative which encourages companies to look carefully at how they buy goods. They should take into account currency fluctuations and distance of travel when considering purchasing. We get several representations on this subject. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is especially keen to promote the purchase of goods from Basildon, and I welcome that.

In the light of the opportunities likely to be provided by the advent of the single market next year, is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday our local European Member of Parliament, Miss Patricia Rawlings, and I will re-launch the "Buy British Goods From Basildon" campaign? Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition parties would do well to follow our lead and talk up British goods and services rather than talking them down, as they so often do?

I am delighted by my hon. Friend's energy and delighted that he supports his local industry so strongly. When he has finished with Basildon, perhaps he could come and support goods from Wokingham, which I am keen to see bought in the markets of the world.

If we are to have a Buy British campaign, may I suggest that Members of Parliament could set an example to begin with? If the Minister goes down to the car park, he will see that most of the cars there are not British but foreign. How many Conservative Members can put their hands up and say that they are dressed in British clothes and buy British cars?

The hon. Gentleman has chosen the wrong Minister. I have a British car and I am proud to own one. It provides extremely good value for money and is a high-quality motor vehicle. Many of my hon. Friends do the same, especially those who represent midlands constituencies, where they strongly support the British motor industry. I hope that the same is true of Opposition Members.

I have a British car in the car park and have never had a non-British car there. Is not the most effective Buy British campaign one that does not play on consumer loyalty but urges manufacturers to outdo imports with the best-designed and best-quality products at the keenest prices?

That is exactly right. We do not say, "Buy British" because goods are British but because—and if—they are extremely good products. I buy many British products and I am usually delighted with the quality and value for money. That is the way to encourage British manufacturing industry.

How does the Minister counter the charge made by some of the workers recently made redundant at the GPT plant at Edge Vale in Liverpool, where 600 redundancies have occurred in the System X production unit, who say that the Government are not encouraging people to buy British technology in the same aggressive way as the French Government encourage people to buy the same sort of product, particularly in the developing world?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all other Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry give full support to all British businesses trying to sell abroad. On purchasing within the United Kingdom and the European Community, we have to live within the rules of article 30 and the public purchasing directives. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that other countries are not playing fair, he should let us have the evidence and we will take the matter up with the Commission, because we believe that all countries should play by the same rules.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom-Japanese trade balance.

Between 1986 and 1990 the value of United Kingdom exports to Japan more than doubled, while imports rose by only a third.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have done more than any other to increase free trade at home and abroad, but that it also has to be fair trade? British exports to Japan have fallen this year and the British visible trade gap with Japan is still running at well over £4 billion per year. Will he ensure that Japan opens its markets to British goods on the same basis as the British market is open to Japanese goods? Will my hon. Friend warn the Japanese that if they fail to do so, they will be subject to retaliation from the EEC?

The figures that I have just given show that British exporters are succeeding extremely well in the Japanese market, which is not so difficult a market as some people think. In the current year, British exporters are holding their share of the market while all our EEC competitors have been losing their market share. There are a few barriers still in the Japanese market, such as high tariffs on finished leather products, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers will continue to work to remove those obstacles so as to open the Japanese market fully in the same way as we have successfully opened many other markets.

Will the Minister confirm that the loss of an order for Rolls-Royce Trent engines to Japan Airlines followed directly from the refusal by British Airways to buy a similar engine for its British fleet? Will the Minister also confirm that he has done nothing about that, proposes to do nothing about it, and that the laissez-fairies are in full control in his Department?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the largest ever single export orders to Japan was won recently by British Aerospace. The order was worth £445 million and was to provide search and rescue aircraft to the Japanese self-defence force.

Further to that supplementary, is my hon. Friend aware that Japan is the world's second biggest domestic market for civil aircraft? Is he also aware that the Japanese aerospace industry is only 20 per cent. civil and that in the short term there are tremendous opportunities for British exporters of civil aircraft to Japan, particularly the regional jet? Also, in the long term Japan would like to enter into collaborative ventures with British aerospace companies in order to develop its own aerospace industry.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are considerable opportunities for the aerospace industry in the Japanese market. The successful contract to which I referred is evidence that British Aerospace and its suppliers are beginning to get into that market, which has hitherto traditionally been supplied by the United States.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on support for the traditional industries of the east midlands.

The traditional industries of the east midlands are well placed to take advantage of recovery.

Has the Minister no conception of the disastrous decline in traditional industries in the east midlands and Leicester? Does he not realise that the Chancellor's claim that manufacturing industry is improving and the recession is over is total rubbish? Do the Government intend to offer any practical help to those industries—employers, employees and all who depend on them for their livelihood?

The hon. and learned Gentleman and I share this —we both represent the east midlands, but he enjoys talking down the east midlands whereas I shall do some talking up. He did not tell us, for instance, that retail sales of footwear and clothing are doing better than almost any other retail sales, that exports of clothing are up 14 per cent. in value compared with last year or that the east midlands has a record second to none in inward investment. He did not mention Toyota, Phoenix Electrical, Toray or Nippon Seiko in his constituency.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the traditional industries of the east midlands, including Leicestershire, as well as the non-traditional ones, have greatly welcomed the reduction in interest rates that has taken place in recent months and are looking forward to another one pretty soon?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. While we are on the subject of Labour allegations, I happened to look at the Labour party political broadcast. The SundayTimes did a truth test on it. Labour claims that British industry could not compete abroad and that exports have shrunk. As The Sunday Times told us,

"Fact: Manufactured exports have increased by nearly 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979."

Does the Minister agree that one way in which we could help the traditional industries in the east midlands is to provide local education establishments with resources for education and training? Will he therefore support an application by Southfields further education college in Leicester for a £50,000 footwear fashion design computer which will greatly help the local footwear industry in Leicester and the east midlands?

I am grateful for that constructive question. We shall certainly look into that, and I will take it up with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

May I beseech my hon. Friend not to support traditional industries in the east midlands such as lace making, pork pie manufacture and arrowhead production and instead to recognise the increasing contribution of modern industries not only to the British but to the European economy? I refer in particular to Toyota in my constituency, which will soon be making the finest cars in the world.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That investment by Toyota is worth no less than £700 million and will create 3,000 jobs. Investment by another modern industry in the region is that of Phoenix Electrical in Coalville. That is a £14 million investment. Toray industries is investing £50 million. Nippon Seiko is setting up a brand new research centre worth £10 million. My hon. Friend is right. The east midlands is attracting the industries of tomorrow.

Given the long list of successes in the east midlands to which the Minister referred, why was it necessary for the Prime Minister to intervene to take the Toyota plant away from Wales, which had worked hard to get it and had higher unemployment than the east midlands? Was the Department part of that conspiracy which was described in the book written by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)?

Not a penny of Government assistance went to Toyota. Derbyshire won that contract on its merits because of the skills of the local work force and the hard work put in by the local Member of Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of science parks that have been established since 1979.

Only two university science parks existed in 1979; there are now 41 and a further 20 are planned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that possibly the largest science park is the one attached to Nottingham university, which provides 48 units of advanced accommodation? What bothers me most—I wonder whether my hon. Friend will address this point —is how the possible taxation policies of the Opposition may affect the staff who are employed in those parks, which are the seed-corn of our country's future. Although the employees may not be the highest paid, is it not the case that the kind of salaries necessary to keep science parks running would be precisely the kind of salaries that would be almost taxed out of existence by a Labour Government? Once again we would see the brain drain that we thought we had brought to an end 12 years ago.

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the successful science park of Highfields in his constituency. It is an example of the type of high technology and investment that we in the Department of Trade and Industry encourage. We have more and better science parks than any other country in Europe. You may not be surprised to hear, Mr. Speaker, that I did some research into my hon. Friend's point. I found that a senior research scientist earning more than £30,000 a year would be required under Labour's taxation plans to pay £5,000 a year extra tax and £2,600 a year national insurance. In other words, the Labour party would impose £150 a week on our senior research scientists. These men and women have highly developed skills and they are extremely marketable internationally. If Labour was ever to get close to Downing street, there would be a queue to flee to America. The only science parks to be set up would be, not in Cambridge, but in Cambridge, USA.

I welcome the Minister's announcement and the development of the science parks. In particular, I pay tribute to the one in Antrim in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister have conversations with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to encourage the speedy provision of the proposed science park in south Belfast, which could utilise the provisions of the excellent university there?

Of course, I shall.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the north-east regional Confederation of British Industry to discuss industrial policy.

I visited the north-east in August and again in September 1991 when I met a wide cross-section of business people. I expect to meet CBI representatives from all regions when I attend their national conference.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in this first year of office of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister business failures in the north have risen by 50 per cent. and mortgage repossessions by 60 per cent., and that unemployment is now running at 200,000? When the only major political initiative—pardon the pun—in the region has been taken within the region by the trade unions, local authorities and the CBI in setting up the Northern Development company, how can the Secretary of State convince the CBI that business as usual at No. 10 is good for business in the north?

The north-east is doing much better than it has done previously at this stage of the economic cycle, although Members like the hon. Gentleman talk it down and ignore the progress made even in their own constituencies. He did not mention the Newcastle business park, which by the end of this year is creating 5,000 jobs in his constituency, or the Vickers order, which will go to the Vickers Defence Systems tank factory in his constituency, or British Airways taking 700 jobs by 1994 to his constituency, or the Gateshead Metrocentre, which is the largest in Europe and has created 6,500 jobs in his constituency.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he has just said proves why the north-east is doing so well and has been able to weather the recession better than most regions? If a Labour Government ever took office, they would impose a devolved assembly with higher taxes and more bureaucracy, which would drive industry from the region. It is about time Labour Members spoke up for the north-east instead of running it down.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During my visits to the north-east, not a single business man has expressed the least desire for the sort of regional assembly to which he refers. A reason why the region is doing particularly well is that it has been outstandingly successful in attracting inward investment, notably from Japan. The threat to that posed by the TUC motion condemning Japanese investment as alien would be even more damaging to the north-east than to the rest of the British economy. People there are well aware of that and are appalled that no Labour Front-Bench spokesman has been prepared to disown it.

When the Secretary of State visited the north-east was not he condemned by the very business men he visited in Gateshead? Does he now accept that, despite the complacency that he exhibits, those in the north-east and elsewhere expect that another 90,000 jobs will go in engineering, another 40,000 jobs will go in the car industry and that another 100,000 jobs are still to go in the construction industry? What does the Secretary of State say to the 40,000 businesses that are going under in the north-east this year? What does he say to manufacturers who, having faced an 18 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment this year, will, according to the CBI, face another 9 per cent. fall in 1992? If the Secretary of State is so proud of his record, as he told the Conservative conference, why does he not put his record and that of the Government to the electorate?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is no, they do not, he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. On the second part of his question, I note that the hon. Gentleman failed to take the opportunity to dissociate the Labour party from the TUC motion that condemned Japanese investment. That investment has been one of the most important sources of jobs, new investment and higher incomes in the north-east. The hon. Gentleman discredits the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discuss merger policy.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 16 July. The next meeting has not yet been arranged.

Will my hon. Friend ask the chairman of the MMC to lend his support to his beleaguered counterpart in Brussels, Sir Leon Brittan, whose powers are under threat a week today because he has had the temerity to reject the takeover of the Canadian company De Havilland by the French company Aerospatiale and its Italian partners, Alenia? Does not the reaction of senior French politicians demonstrate that however much our continental neighbours may profess themselves consenting federasts in public, in private they put their own national interest numero uno every time?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right in his assessment of French actions on this particular transaction. The British Government are determined that the Commission should exercise its jurisdiction independently without fear of political interference. To do so we believe that the Competition Commissioner himself should have a particularly important role because he and his staff are the people who have seen all the evidence and listened to all those making their submissions. Therefore, the Commissioner should be the one who brings it all together. There should not then be a political shenanigan to settle the issue; it should be settled on the facts of the case in accordance with European law.

Will the Minister ask the chairman of the MMC to look urgently at the issue posed by the present operations in the electricity supply industry? I suggest that that issue should be addressed urgently because high-energy-using industries now face the devastating effects of the pricing and patterns of pricing for electricity to the point that a hitherto extremely successful company, Rotherham Engineering Steels, is now facing serious cuts in production simply as a result of the operation of the electricity supply industry. That should be investigated immediately.

A competitive structure has been introduced into the industry for the first time. If the hon. Gentleman has a reasonable complaint he should send it to my Department or to the Director General of Fair Trading and, of course, it will be examined closely to see whether any further action is needed. I would need more information about the specifics than the hon. Gentleman's general allegation gives me.

Further to the De Havilland issue, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss the matter with his French opposite number? Will he tell her in unambiguous terms that this extraordinary fuss belies French claims to be good Europeans and undermines the confidence of their partners in French intentions to support competition which is at the heart of the movement towards a single market?

I intend to raise the general issue of Community competence and the exercise of its jurisdiction in the Single Market Council meeting when I next go to Brussels for that meeting. I may well get the chance to discuss various matters with my colleague, the French Minister. I hope that she will be interested in what I have to say, although it might not be in exactly the terms of my hon. Friend's remarks. This matter raises general issues that the Community as a whole must face.

Does the Minister agree, and will he tell the chairman of the MMC when he next sees him, that a credible mergers and monopolies policy must involve a reference to the Commission of British Gas in the light of its threat to renege on its recent price schedule agreed with Ofgas? Will he include in such a reference the recommendation that the pipeline network should be demerged from British Gas into other hands?

We are not sure what British Gas will do. The matter is being watched closely by the gas regulator and the Director General of Fair Trading. I shall ensure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments are forwarded to both those bodies, because they are important. I cannot give him all the guarantees that he wishes. In a recent speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out some strong measures which will promote more competition in the gas industry. The Government intend to see those through and they will do the job that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the number of new contracts that have been won in Kuwait by British companies since the end of the Gulf war.

I know of more than 80 companies that have obtained contracts worth £470 million in connection with Kuwait reconstruction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that British companies are leading the reconstruction of Kuwait because the Government give the best organised support? Has he any plans to extend the success of Kuwait elsewhere in the world where disaster strikes and reconstruction is required? Is he entirely happy with the Export Credits Guarantee Department cover provided for such work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is a successful effort, with industry and Government working together, to ensure that British industry plays as leading a role in the reconstruction of Kuwait as we did in its liberation. We can learn and have learnt lessons from that and we have put them into practice elsewhere. I have just led a joint operation—business and Government again working together—in Venezuela. In Caracas we set up a task force of nine business men supported by two Government officials. The task force will stay there for several months and we believe that it will make a major impact on the Venezuelan market, which will benefit a wide range of companies in this country.

Is the Minister aware that since the Gulf war the United States has sold $18 billion worth of arms to Kuwait and other middle east countries, and that a new high-tech, smart bombs arms race is roaring ahead in spite of what the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister have said? As it is now clear, from what the United. Nations Commission has said, that the British arms embargo on Iraq was as full of holes as a string vest, what will the Minister do to stop the sale of arms to unstable countries that are threatening world peace? How quickly will those British companies that have broken the law be prosecuted?

On the question of sales to Kuwait, our record is second to none in promoting British industry. As for the embargo on arms, in the course of the summer I published details of every licence given for the sale of sensitive items to Iraq. If the UN team has any further information, we shall look into it thoroughly. Moreover, the Customs and Excise, which is responsible for enforcement and prosecution, will look into any evidence of law breaking. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there have already been some prosecutions and charges.

My right hon. Friend will know that one of the groups of companies experiencing difficulty in getting into Kuwait consists of companies that have been blacklisted by the Americans because of allegations that they have wrongly traded with Iraq. In the case of companies about which the Americans now say that they have no firm evidence but would like to ask more questions, although, when invited to do so, they do not send them, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will keep up the pressure on the Americans to come clean about the allegations or take the companies off the list?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall pursue any such issues. Indeed, I have already pursued those concerning a firm in his constituency. In respect of an earlier question by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), there is ECGD cover for Kuwait and I believe that that will be adequate.

Does the Minister accept that the activities of the Government and his Department in Kuwait exhibit a lack of judgment and, in some cases, a lack of competence? He has told us how many contracts have been awarded; will he now say how many have been lost because of the criteria used by his Department? If the Minister is so interested in the future of oil as one of the major commodities, when will his Department take action on the possible prosecution of those involved in dummy trading in the Fox market, where oil is an important aspect?

I do not think that the last part of the hon. Lady's question has a great deal to do with Kuwait. It is typical of those on the Labour Front Bench that when British industry is doing outstandingly well and our share of the market has risen several fold compared with what it was before the war, the hon. Lady should want a list of the contracts that we have not won. We have not won 100 per cent. of the contracts, but we have done a great deal better than any Opposition Member would have expected or would have achieved had they been in office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's support for industrial reconstruction of Kuwait.

As I said, I am aware of 80 companies which have obtained contracts, worth in total, more than £470 million in connection with Kuwait reconstruction.

Without wishing to make a yah-boo point, with 1 million barrels of oil a day every day for nine months spewing up carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and creating graver pollution than any other anti-pollution activities in the rest of the world—that is the view of the Financial Times—how, in all seriousness, can a Secretary of State come to the House and say that we are making as great an effort to put out oil fires and reconstruct Kuwait as we did to liberate Kuwait? We are not making anything like the effort that we put into Operation Desert Storm.

We helped in the establishment of a Kuwaiti-British group, which I am happy to say has a contract for extinguishing fires and, more importantly, ensuring that the infrastructure in the Sabriyah field is operational again. There are now only 30 fires left to extinguish in that field, and there are several hundred staff working on that operation who began work as soon as they were given the contract by the Kuwaiti Government. It may have escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that Kuwait is a sovereign country which gives contracts to us. We do not have the right to take over its oil fields and extinguish fires off our own bat.

The Secretary of State presents a rosy picture of British industrial activity in Kuwait, especially in relation to the Kuwaiti oil field fires. How many contracts have been sold to American operators because British companies cannot cope with the work load? If the Secretary of State cannot give that information, will he undertake to contact the gentleman, whose card I have in my hand and will pass to him, in order to obtain the information that the right hon. Gentleman should have close to hand anyway?

I shall, of course, follow up any questions that the hon. Gentleman poses on the part of his constituents or others. It is deplorable that Opposition Members should knock the successful effort made by British companies. One of the distinguishing features of the operation in Kuwait was that British companies joined the task force not just to represent themselves but to work on behalf of their whole sector including companies here. Those companies co-operated and worked together for Britain, and did not expect to be knocked by the Labour party as soon as they achieved success.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature —

Order. Mr. Haynes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action he expects to take to eliminate malpractice in the timeshare business.

I have asked the Commission of the European Communities to prepare a directive to regulate the selling of timeshare properties. The Commission has indicated that it hopes to bring forward a proposal shortly. In addition, we propose to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to tighten controls on statements about services and to bring timeshare award schemes within the Act's powers.

The Minister is bone idle. He sits in the ivory tower down at the Department of Trade and Industry while people in our constituencies suffer because of timeshare crooks. What is the Minister going to do about it? While he is at it, he should look to see how many timeshare crooks have contributed to Conservative party funds.

The hon. Gentleman's manner is so reassuring that he would not get me into a timeshare award scheme in a million years. It is not true to say that the Government have been slow to act. Only yesterday I spoke to Commissioner Van Miert in Brussels about this issue. As soon as I could I approached him to get the Commission to act, and progress is being made. We hope that before Christmas the Commission will issue a draft directive. Moreover, we spent the last year in a review of the Trade Descriptions Act and we hope to bring in legislation, when time permits, to bring award schemes within the remit of the Act. We could not be doing more.

While I endorse the call to eliminate malpractices to which the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has just referred, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to draw to the attention of the House and the country the fact that there is nothing wrong with the principles of timeshare and that what we seek to eliminate are the malpractices and excesses through which timeshare is sold? Will he further agree that over the past 20 or 30 years many thousands of our constituents have enjoyed considerable happiness as a result of purchasing a timeshare?

My hon. Friend is quite right. All the evidence shows that the problem is not with timeshare: it is with its marketing. That is why we believe it essential that we insist that those considering taking up timeshare offers be given a written prospectus, that they have a cooling off period and that deposit moneys be protected.

The Minister knows that many people—including many Conservative Members—are being duped by bogus timeshare advertisements. He also knows that he made the same statement that he has just made to the House in a press release dated 18 February in which he also promised action. Nothing has been done since then. The Advertising Standards Authority, the Office of Fair Trading and the Consumers Association have begged the Minister to take action for the past 16 months, so why is he prepared to sit back and leave the matter to Europe, knowing full well that no protection will come into force before 1 January 1993 at the earliest?

As 80 per cent. of timeshare properties are situated abroad, it makes sense for Europe to act in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has failed to tell the House that we have just finished an exhaustive review of the Trade Descriptions Act. He is so intent on making petty party-political points that he ignores the fact that we have had to consult hundreds of trade associations. The Trade Descriptions Act affects every buying and selling operation in this country. We have finished the review and we shall bring in legislation. What more could we do?

Will my hon. Friend's actions cover misleading advertising sent from abroad? Will they also cover the cooling-off periods, which are so short that they are over by the time people return from their overseas holidays?

The whole point of asking for a Commission directive is that it would cover a cooling-off period. Insisting on amending the Trade Descriptions Act is necessary to bring award schemes into the ambit of that Act and to ensure that they are properly enacted. I am afraid that we cannot act on letters sent from abroad, but I urge people to consider such letters carefully. We have issued 750,000 leaflets entitled "Your place in the sun" advising people not to go to these award schemes and to beware of timeshare operators.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received from the textile and clothing industry.

My right hon. Friend has received representations on a number of issues from representatives of the textile industries.

The recent survey of the clothing and textiles industry by the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance shows that more than 500 jobs a week are being lost in the industry and that output is more than 10 per cent. lower this year than last. In the light of that, what hope can the Minister offer for the future of British manufacturing industry in general, when skills are being destroyed on this sort of scale?

I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's regret at lay-offs, but he will be aware from his knowledge of the industry of the great strides that it has made in improving its productivity. He will also be aware that the improvement in productivity often means that one operative can do the work that used to be done by a large number of operatives. I hope that he will also be aware of the industry's success in exporting no less than £4·6 billion worth of textiles and clothing last year. That is a tribute to the industry's success in improving its productivity and international competitive-ness.

I am actively involved in promoting the textile and clothing industry and have benefited from some of the quality and expertise of that industry. Does my hon. Friend accept that the industry faces very unfair competition? In the last few months alone 4,000 jobs have been lost in the north-west and 25 mills and factories have closed. Does he accept that the present anti-dumping procedures in the European Community are inadequate and that by the time that Brussels decides that action can be taken the damage is done? Will he do something about that?

I hope that, like my hon. Friend, we all support the British textile and clothing industry in our purchases. I agree with my hon. Friend about the slowness on occasions of the anti-dumping procedure. That is one of the matters that we are addressing in the current Uruguay round of GATT. I am optimistic that the current negotiations will achieve a much more effective disputes procedure and a more transparent and quicker anti-dumping procedure.

When the Secretary of State addresses the Department of Trade and Industry textile conference in Manchester next week will he be urged by the Minister to apologise to the thousands of companies that have gone out of business in the industry in the past year and to the 35,000 workers who have lost their jobs in the industry in the same period because of the failure of Government economic policy and the bad news that that means for many of the textile communities in Lancashire, Yorkshire and the east midlands? Does the Minister agree that his failure undermines the sterling work to promote and talk up British products during the London fashion week which is now taking place?

I am delighted to hear at least one Opposition Front-Bench spokesman refer to praise and talking up of British industry. It would be a relief to us all if the achievements and successes of British industry, including the textile industry, were occasionally acknowledged and if we could hear from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen some praise instead of some denigration of the achievements of British Industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as Britain generally plays by the rules, it would be in our interests for European Community competition rules in relation to textiles and clothing to be more rigorously enforced? Is it not quite unacceptable that the Spanish and Italian Governments continue to subsidise their textile and clothing industries while some Belgian companies have not yet repaid the illegal state aid that they received from the Belgian Government, despite the fact that they are required to do so by the European Commission?

My hon. Friend will know that we are making progress on the important matters to which he refers. However, some issues, including continuing improper subsidies and the Belgian case to which he refers, are a matter of concern to the Government. We hope to make progress on those in the near future. We have made much progress on reducing subsidies and on creating a more open, level playing field for the textile industry and for other industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his assessment of the long-term effects of the recession in industry.

British industry is becoming more competitive and more productive. Manufactured exports are 60 per cent. up in volume terms compared with 1979. The balance of payments deficit in manufactures has been closed. Total investment in the economy is above the levels of the 1970s and private consumption per head is above that in France and Germany. It is about time that Opposition Members started looking at some of the pluses in the situation.

Given that since the Prime Minister took office we have lost 250,000 manufacturing jobs out of a total of 750,000 jobs that have been lost and that 30,000 firms have gone bankrupt, can the Minister say upon what basis British industry can expand and tackle the balance of payments crisis? Can the Minister tell us about any point in a post-war recession at which at the depth of that recession we did not have a balance of payments surplus? What is the difference this time?

The difference is that the hon. Gentleman does not know the facts. The manufacturing deficit has disappeared in recent months because of the great export success of British manufacturing industry, especially in the motor car industry, which has been mentioned already by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Does my hon. Friend accept that wise and experienced industrialists know well that recessions are part of the economic price of every industrialised country? Britain went into recession in an incomparably stronger position than it did 10 years previously because of tax changes, deregulation and a huge improvement in productivity. That is very much a plus and when the present recession ends, we shall be ready to win more markets.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We were much stronger and we delayed a recession for 10 years, a much longer period than the Labour Government were able to delay recessions in their time. There have, of course, been slowdowns around the world and it is difficult to resist all of those all the time. The important thing is that the economy will recover. All private sector forecasters are looking to growth next year. That is why Opposition Members are so glum. There will be more good news, and they do not like good news.