To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have responded to his Department's Europe Open for Business initiative.

More than 400,000 requests for information have been received by the European Open for Business campaign since March 1988, including 266,000 calls to the hotline.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of this initiative. What further measures does he propose to assist business after January, when the market starts? What representations has he received from business about the way in which it feels it can best be assisted to take the greatest advantage of single market opportunities?

I will pass my hon. Friend's congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who must take the credit as I was in other parts during the successful campaign. There is an immense amount to be done, not least in the enforcement and implementation of the single market. In the summer I shall certainly have discussions with industry about how we can develop the next part of our strategy for ensuring that British industry can take advantage of the single market and that the single market is working effectively.

Does the Minister think it part of the success of the European Open for Business campaign that thousands of British jobs, including precious high-tech jobs from INMOS in my constituency, are being syphoned off to European countries? Why has his Department built a Chinese wall around itself, refusing to reply to messages from hon. Members and the managing director of INMOS who are begging the Department to set up practical partnership arrangements with INMOS to save high-tech jobs that have a great future? If France and Italy are prepared to invest in British industry and technology, why is the Department not prepared to?

As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not yet been on the telephone to me. The number is 215 4301, and there is no Chinese wall around my office. The single market presents enormous opportunities for our industry. Now that Britain has returned a Conservative Government who are setting the right atmosphere and the right mood of confidence for industry, thousands of jobs will be created.

As one who has been on the telephone to my hon. Friend at the weekend about a company in my constituency, may I thank him for his assiduous attention to duty? At an early date, will he give me a report by telephone or note about the progress that he is able to offer the company, Lovaux, on its current problems?

I shall phone my hon. Friend later this afternoon.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet representatives of the south-east CBI to discuss the effects of the recession on industry.

I have no meetings planned with the CBI's south-east regional council in the immediate future, although I met the CBI's national manufacturing council on 29 April and I often meet individual CBI member companies.

Why, given the jobs crisis in the south-east, has the Minister no such meetings planned? In view of the crisis in docklands and especially in Canary Wharf, the difficulties with the channel tunnel project and his so-called initiatives for east London corridors—we do not hear much about them at the moment—why is he doing nothing to deal with the serious jobs crisis in my constituency, where 4,600 people are out of work and the total is rising every month? One in nine people is out of work and we want jobs now.

I think that the hon. Gentleman misstates the contribution that the Government have made. We have brought down interest rates by 5 per cent. over the past 12 months and secured a level of inflation that is extremely attractive compared with that of our competitors. Above all else, to help the recovery of our economy we have kept the Labour party out of power.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to explain to the CBI the significance of his adopting the title President of the Board of Trade? Does the board, which is potentially the most powerful of all Cabinet Committees, now meet?

The Board of Trade has not met for many decades, except in a celebratory mode to commemorate its 200 years of success. If it were to meet, it would be attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would doubtless give inspiration to those Opposition Members who are looking for an industrial strategy.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Will he confirm that, despite what he says, his Insolvency Service is predicting that insolvencies will rise to 35,000 this year? That will represent an appalling 60 per cent. increase in the number of business failures. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the industrial policy that he once supported included investment in a research tax credit, a training levy, strengthened regional policy and reorganised export services, all measures that should be implemented immediately? Will he explain why action man is failing to act? Has the right hon. Gentleman exchanged his principles for his presidency?

I have merely exchanged the Department of the Environment for the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that his ideas were very much the discussion basis of the recent general election. Having failed to persuade the country, it is extremely unlikely that he can persuade the House.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the reductions in interest rates that have already taken place. May 1 humbly suggest to him that a further reduction may well be necessary?

I shall take the liberty of passing on my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the TUC and of the south-east region of the CBI to discuss prospects for regeneration.

rose—[interruption] The answer is worth waiting for. I have no such plans at present.

If the President were to meet representatives of employers and workers in south-east England, what excuses would he advance for the record number of liquidations in the first quarter of the year and for the fact that 800 jobs are being lost in the region every day? What excuse would he offer to Essex man and Essex woman, who are enduring unemployment of 66,000 in their county this year?

I would offer no excuse. I would merely say that the country has to fight its way out of one of the worst recessions that we have seen since the war, and that it must do that against a background of all similar capitalist nations facing similar problems. The only way in which we shall succeed in fighting our way out is to excel in the increasingly competitive world that we face.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the part of the south-east that I represent the Government arc already showing clear signs that they recognise the certainty that Kent will lead the regeneration of the region? They are already spending millions of pounds on the necessary infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the forecasts suggest that the volume of trade passing through and settling in Kent will be such that Kent will need to receive continued Government support?

My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. The level of Government support is substantial in terms of the infrastructure plans that are already under way and those that will unfold as the decade proceeds. It is a fact that the part of south-east England that my hon. Friend represents is bound to benefit enormously from the completion of the single European market. The scale of the benefit will depend very much on the entrepreneurial ability of British companies to react to it.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consulations he has had with the chairman of British Coal concerning future long-term contracts with the electricity generating companies.

I meet the chairman of British Coal on regular occasions and discuss a variety of issues.

That is a remarkable answer from a Department that now claims to be interventionist in industrial policy. Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, before the privatisation of the electricity generating industry, it was announced that Fiddlers Ferry, a coal-fired power station in my constituency, was to use 2 million tonnes of imported low-sulphur coal a year? That would serve only to worsen our balance of trade deficit and to threaten jobs in the Lancashire coalfield, where Parkside is the only remaining pit, and it would leave us with sulphur dioxide emissions of 70,000 tonnes a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take urgent action to reduce coal imports, negotiate with British Coal to ensure that the power generating companies have a long-term coal plan, stop the dash for gas, invest in clean coal technology and rein back opencast mining?

No. It is not an appropriate role for Government to stop coal imports, nor could we under our international obligations. However, I am confident of British Coal's ability at some collieries, particularly at the inland coal generating plants, to compete with coal imports. It must be the priority of all hon. Members to ensure that British Coal becomes world competitive. I am confident that it can.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the size of the contracts to be concluded between the coal industry and the generators, not the shape of the privatisation, that will determine the size of the coal industry in the future? Can he tell the House when he expects those contracts to be concluded?

I am aware, as I am sure the House is, of the importance of those commercial contracts to the future structure and size of the British coal industry. I understand that negotiations are taking place between the generating companies and British Coal and the regional electricity companies and the generating companies. They are commercial negotiations, but I am taking a close interest in them.

What discussions has the Minister had with the chairman of British Coal on importing dirty fuel?

As I have already said, I have had a number of discussions with the chairman of British Coal on a variety of matters. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, British Coal has alleged that coal has been dumped by certain countries, and those allegations are with the European Commission.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to ensure that long-term contracts for British coal continue is to ensure that research and development into efficient and clean coal-burn technology continues? Does my hon. Friend have plans to ensure that our lead in that area is maintained, even after privatisation, by ensuring that the Coal Research Establishment at Stoke Orchard survives?

I am well aware of the importance that my hon. Friend and others attach to clean coal and new coal-burning technologies and we shall take that into account as we go through the consultation process on the road to privatisation.

Does the Minister recall that the Government's merchant bank advisers, Rothschild, advised the Secretary of State to intervene directly in the negotiations between the generators and British Coal to ensure that British Coal obtained high-take, long-term contracts? Will the hon. Gentleman take that advice and intervene; or is this yet another example of his having no such plans at the moment?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. I made it clear that I understood that commercial discussions and negotiations were going on. I also made it clear that I am keeping a close watch on them.

Would not limits on coal imports effectively be placing the interests of the coal industry above those of its customers, which include many energy-intensive industries employing millions of people in jobs which may well be lost if those industries are forced to rely on high-price domestic coal? Are not such trade barriers ultimately self-defeating —first for the protected industry which simply becomes cosseted and inefficient, secondly for its customers, who have to buy high-priced goods, and thirdly for the economy as a whole?

As usual, my hon. Friend has put his point effectively and well. We are doing no one any favours by artificially raising energy prices both for the domestic consumer and for the major energy users. I remind my hon. Friend that, since 1979, the Government have made about £17 billion available to British Coal; that works out at a third of a million pounds for every one of the 50,000 people now employed in collieries, and it shows the extent of the subsidies and other assistance given to British Coal by this Government.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on policy for monopolies and mergers within the banking and financial sector.

I have received a number of representations on the bid for the Midland bank by the Hong Kong and Shanghai banking corporation, and on the possible offer made by Lloyds bank, which has now been withdrawn.

The threat of a Lloyds takeover of the Midland bank has now been withdrawn, but had the takeover gone ahead it would have posed a threat to thousands of jobs and, possibly, hundreds of bank branches. Will the President of the Board of Trade take account of his own advice now that he is Secretary of State? According to that advice, in the event of a takeover bid involving a company with more than 500 employees, that company should involve its employees in consultation plans with a view to implementation of the takeover, and the bidder should be required to show that any benefit resulting from the takeover would be in the wider national interest.

The Government take the national interest into account in all mergers and takeovers. If the Lloyds bid had gone ahead, it would have been examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which would have considered both its benefits and its disadvantages. The Government's policy is perfectly clear; it is as it always has been. We look to competition, but not exclusively to competition: the national interest may well be wider.

I welcome the likelihood that, for the foreseeable future, there will be four rather than three clearing banks in England and Wales. But are my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade happy that those four banks should have 90 per cent. of the corporate lending market? Has not that effective oligopoly enabled the banks to achieve a remarkable success in driving through an increase in their margins and charges at a time of falling loan demand, in a recession? Will my hon. Friend ask the Office of Fair Trading to take a thorough look at the whole position?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to keep that question under review. My hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, the director general considered whether there was any evidence of collusion, anti-competitive practice or exploitative behaviour by the banks in their relations with small businesses. He concluded at that time that there were no grounds for action under competition legislation, but it is open to him to institute an investigation at any time if he thinks fit.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relocate the petroleum engineering department from London to Aberdeen.

The arguments for and against relocating the Department's petroleum specialists to Aberdeen are being considered in depth by independent consultants. I await their report and conclusions.

Has not the consultation being going on for a considerable time? If it is not obvious that the PED should be relocated in Aberdeen, will the Minister tell us what factors are persuading him that that may not be a good idea?

The independent consultants' study has begun, and I hope to receive the results in August. We are committed to publishing it, and I shall of course take account of its findings in reaching a final decision.

Will my hon. Friend refer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to the Scottish Conservative manifesto? It stated unequivocally that, should the independent inquiry say yes to relocation, the Government were committed to relocating the PED, and that in the meantime it would be entirely wrong to pre-empt the inquiry.

I agree, and I pay tribute to the energy with which my hon. Friend has made me aware of his concerns— and those of his constituents—about the relocation of the PED.

Will the Minister assure the House that the comments that he made on Monday about the high cost of operating in Aberdeen were not an attempt to soften us up for the decision not to relocate to Aberdeen? Does he accept that the industry would like the jobs to be located in Aberdeen, as that would increase efficiency? The comparison with America, therefore, is hardly relevant. Will he put pressure on the Scottish Office to make the necessary infrastructure investment in north-east Scotland, which would help to reduce operating costs?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the comments that I made in Aberdeen about the potential long-term problem of moving to Aberdeen's higher-cost base do not show that I have formed any view about the PED. I am deliberately keeping an open mind until I receive the consultants' report.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Order. I shall take points of order later.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funding his Department has provided to Ealing Enterprise; and what estimate he has made of the number of jobs created.

Ealing Enterprise received pump priming in its start-up phase and is now supported by the West London training and enterprise council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Ealing Enterprise was founded by me and that it has been a source of many jobs for my constituents and others? Will he put more money into it and commend its excellent example to other parts of the country?

Most Members are just Members, but my hon. Friend is Mr. Ealing. The whole House will recognise that he is one of the most dedicated and conscientious constituency Members. The enterprise agency that he founded has been successful. It has been helped by us in the past and it has created more than 1,200 jobs. Enterprise agencies are central to our strategy of creating the enterprise culture which so transformed the economy in the 1980s and resulted in there now being more than 3 million businesses in this country.

Does the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report on inward investment relate to London, and in particular to Ealing, in the same way as it relates to the northern region, in so far as it makes recommendations about assisted area status? What is the report's status? Is it a consultative document? Will it be debated by the House before Ministers make recommendations? Will we have the opportunity to question Ministers on the contents of the report, which has major implications for my constituents?

One thing is absolutely certain: the report has nothing to do with Ealing Enterprise.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations.

Talks are continuing between the United States and the European Community to try to resolve their remaining differences, principally over agriculture. That is essential to open the way to wider agreement in the round.

Has my hon. Friend noted the forecast that a successful conclusion of the GATT talks could lead to an increase in world trade in goods and services of £110 billion a year? With the safeguards for countries in the developing world, might not the benefits of such a successful conclusion be far more in the long-term interest of those countries than the discussions in Rio, with all the media attention focused on them? May we have more media attention focused on the GATT round?

I entirely agree that a successful outcome to the GATT round would lead to an increase in trade, as suggested by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of £110 billion. That wealth creation can produce the tax stream that can do so much to improve the lot of the third world and, above all, its terrible environmental problems.

To ensure confidence in the British textile and clothing industry, will the Minister say when the Government will announce a further extension to the multi-fibre arrangement?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the multi-fibre arrangement will finish at the end of this year, and the method of replacing it is tied up with the GATT negotiations. I still believe that it is probable rather than possible that we shall be able to reach some agreement on GATT, but, failing that, I assure him that the Government will ensure that arrangements are put in place to cover the future of the MFA.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the legislation preventing a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry reconvening to review the effect of its recommendations.

Where appropriate, the Director General of Fair Trading may be asked to review the effectiveness of measures taken following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He also has a general duty to keep markets under review. Where he has concerns about the competitive situation, he may ask the MMC to look again at markets that have been the subject of previous investigation by the commission.

May I be the first Conservative Member to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment? As he saved the nation from the roof tax in a memorable speech, I hope that I can invite him to save the nation from a number of perverse decisions by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—such as the decision on the brewers, which has thoroughly upset all the landlords and beer drinkers of the nation, the decision on gas prices which has put the horticulturalists in a parlous state, and the report on Isle of Wight ferries which said that we had the most expensive ferries in the world but drew no conclusions. Will my hon. Friend either amend the legislation so that in future the Monopolies and Mergers Commission must reconvene within nine months to reconsider the results of its actions, or abolish that last reservoir of state-subsidised socialism for ever?

I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend on his last point, but he may be aware that the chairmanship of the commission becomes vacant later in the year. If he would like to apply for the job, he might be able to sort it out himself.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession on industry.

Ministers and officials of my Department receive considerable correspondence about the state of business in the north-west.

Given that two Tory recessions have cost a third of a million manufacturing jobs in the north-west and that last year 4,130 businesses in the north-west went bust—a 54 per cent. increase on the previous year—would not Ministers be better served by changing their approach and policies rather than the title of their Department?

It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should ask me that question when, if his party had been elected to government, it would by now have refused to order the fourth Trident submarine and be threatening the nuclear industry in the north-west and slaughtering the defence budget on which so many companies there depend.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the importance of the GATT negotiations not only to the textile industry in the north-west, but to Yorkshire. Can he assure the House that the Government will retain their robust position on the GATT round in the hope of a successful outcome for textiles as well as agriculture?

My hon. Friend raises perhaps the most important opportunity facing our companies. We are committed to doing everything in our power to press our colleagues to reach an early conclusion to the GATT round, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to do so.

As the President of the Board of Trade has taken that rather pompous title, does it mean that he is no longer bothered about industry and energy, or can he tell the people of the north-west what he intends to do about all the industry that has been destroyed by the Government and about the last remaining pit which is hanging on by a thread?

The fact that the hon. Gentleman somehow thinks that trade has nothing to do with industry or the price of energy is a devastating revelation of the ignorance of the attitudes of the Labour party.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the election the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) came to the House to forecast doom and gloom for the north-west, saying that there would not be one Conservative seat left and that we should be completely decimated in that area? Should we not therefore take his forecasts with a large pinch of salt?

I have not kept such a beady eye on the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend has. Perhaps I shall do so in the future, although on mature reflection I very much doubt whether I shall.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's regional policy.

The Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy.

Does the Minister agree that an important element of an effective regional policy for Britain in the 1990s, unlike the statement that he has just made, would include specific and targeted measures to help constituencies such as mine which are dependent on defence-related spending? Is he aware that tens of thousands of jobs in the defence industry have been lost since 1990? When will he present to the House a range of specific policies which will offer a reasonable prospect of secure employment to people in my constituency?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that employment opportunities will be the major factor that we shall take into account in our review of the assisted areas map. The implications for employment opportunities of cutbacks in defence spending will be fully taken into account, along with all other relevant factors.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that business and commerce should always be based where they are most efficient, and that we therefore have no national cohesion policy?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not intend to try to dictate to industry or commerce where they should go. I recall industrial development certificates and, even more horrific, office development permits. I dare say that if the Labour party had its way we might return to those bad days.

As employment in the regions could be improved at a stroke by reducing interest rates, why does the Minister continue to support the exchange rate mechanism, which freezes those opportunities?

Interest rates have some influence on industry's decisions on investment and expansion, but currency stability also has a great influence, as do many other factors. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to take that into account.

When my right hon. Friend is examining the policies, will he look carefully at travel-to-work areas? In particular, will he note that in my constituency a travel-to-work area was created some years ago embracing Blairgowrie, Pitlochry and Aberfeldy? Anyone who knows the highland parts of Perthshire knows that it is nonsensical to describe that as a travel-to-work area.

My hon. Friend must be the most knowledgeable person about those areas, and I admit that I should like to know them better than I do. However, travel-to-work areas will be the basic building block of the review of the assisted areas map and there will be no fresh census data on which to reassess those areas until 1994. That would leave the review too late.

In his book, "Where There's a Will", the President of the Board of Trade called for an active regional and industrial policy, but other DTI Ministers in the past have supported the anti-regional policies of the No Turning Back group. Will the Minister give a clear statement today that the DTI is turning its back on the No Turning Back group for good?

I assure the hon. Lady, as I said in my original answer, that we have had and will continue to have not only an effective regional policy but an active one.

May I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) was in charge of regional policy up to the general election he promoted Government regional policy in my constituency by ensuring a Government grant of more than £12 million to the Kimberley-Clark factory, resulting in more than 750 jobs to be created next year—

Order. What is the question?

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the presence in his Department of a distinguished member of the No Turning Back group clearly proves the Government's commitment to regional policy?

I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the skill with which our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) carried out his responsibilities for regional policy and I am glad to follow such an excellent record.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy towards the attempts being made by the European Commission to establish a reference price for coal.

The Commission has put forward preliminary ideas on reference prices for coal as a device to restrain excessive levels of subsidies for coal mining in some member states. There is no suggestion that the Commission intends to subsidise Community coal production so that it is all sold at a reference price level. We support the Commission's aim of reducing unjustifiable subsidies.

Is there not an appalling unfairness and absurdity in the fact that Britain, which produces the cheapest coal in Europe, is running down its coal industry while Germany, whose coal production is twice as expensive, is providing massive subsidies? What are the British Government doing to open up Europe's coal market?

I have made it clear that the European Commission is as concerned as we are about the subsidies offered to some coal-producing member states and has made proposals to reduce the level of subsidies which it currently pays. Although we have some doubts about the precise proposals, we support the broad thrust of the Commission's suggestions.

Will my hon. Friend and the House take note in response to an earlier question that Scotland is a supplier of low sulphur coal? May I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the reference price and urge him to take urgent action to ensure that our coal can be sold on a level playing field with other coal produced in Europe?

Yes, I share my hon. Friend's objective. Clearly, it is important that no artificial subsidies are available which distort market pricing.

In the light of the President of the Board of Trade's curiously forked-tongued speech yesterday to the annual conference of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, in which he said that he would not intervene in the relationships between British Coal and the two electricity generators, can the Minister tell the House what price and what length of coal supply contracts National Power and PowerGen should sign with British Coal to ensure long-term security of supply, long-term viability for the coalfield communities and his long-term friendship with Roy Lynk?

The hon. Gentleman should do my right hon. Friend the courtesy of reading his speech, which clearly he has not, or—if he has—he has misinterpreted it. His latter question is a commercial matter for the generating companies and British Coal.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has concerning the total value of exports by the textile and clothing industries in the first quarter of 1992.

They were £1.2 billion.

Although I am sure that the whole House will congratulate the textile and clothing industry on its record exports in the first three months of this year, does my hon. Friend accept that imports were also up, at a record £2.1 billion, that this important sector of our economy is finding it difficult to export to countries in Asia and to the United States of America, which erected substantial barriers against us, and that overall we are, sadly, dangerously exporting our manufacturing base? What steps will my hon. Friend take to stand up for British industry and help the regeneration of our manufacturing base?

As my hon. Friend is the Member of Parliament for manufacturing, we always welcome his positive, helpful statements on these occasions. No doubt he will have noted that since the early 1980s manufacturing output is up by a quarter, productivity by a half and exports by three quarters. He himself has pointed out that exports are up by a record 9 per cent. in the first quarter. Imports have declined by 1 per cent. in the past year. The key point is that the textile industry has successfully restructured, as my hon. Friend knows, into higher-valued lines which ensure that we are competitive on world markets. My hon. Friend and others and I must work together to ensure that we have a successful GATT round as we phase out multi-fibre arrangements and unfair subsidies.

Will the Minister confirm that a successful GATT round with adequate arrangements for the textile and clothing industry, which employs 450,000 people in this country, including 12,000 directly in Bradford, does not mean an efficient, well-organised, high-investment industry asking for special treatment or favours but one that is simply asking for fair competition, an end to dumping, and the prevention of outward processing and the many other abuses that it has had to face from other countries? Will the Minister assure us that he will not allow the Government to let down the textile and clothing industry and cause further losses in a manufacturing industry which is vital for our nation?

That was an excellent question and I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. He is right that the textile industry is vital and successful, as we have seen in the increase in the value of exports. The challenge now is to ensure that we have a successful GATT round. I have no doubt that when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade takes over the presidency of the trade part of the Community in July he will ensure a successful conclusion to the GATT round. I can assure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to a successful and competitive textile industry. Our textile industry now has nothing to fear from international competition because we are so competitive in the higher-valued brands. We shall ensure that MFAs are phased out fairly and properly.

Notwithstanding the excellent export performance of the textile industry, particularly carpet manufacturers, does my hon. Friend recognise that further progress in Europe depends on stopping national Governments giving illegal subsidies to various parts of their textile industries? For instance, five years on, £5 million has still not been repaid to the Belgium Government by Beaulieu, the world's biggest carpet manufacturer, and the Italian Government are still paying significant subsidies to textile machinery companies in Italy which are pricing British firms out of jobs.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole purpose of the GATT round and our negotiations with the EC is to prevent unfair subsidies.

Since the Minister took over his new responsibilities, representatives of the textile and clothing industry will have made representations to him pointing out that that industry, perhaps more than any other, has been savaged by the current recession, with the loss of 70,000 jobs and perhaps many more job losses to come. Will the Minister accept, under his new boss, the responsibility that the Department of Trade and Industry and now the Board of Trade have to help companies to stop the job loss and to restructure their business? If the Minister accepts that responsibility, what measures does he propose?

That is precisely what companies are doing. They are restructuring their business because they realise that output in western countries has had to decline over a long period as a result of increased competition from low-value areas. Unfortunately, that restructuring involves a loss of labour because it involves new machinery. I do not know what the Labour party's policy on these matters is. Clearly, it has no policy except to make vague generalisations about throwing money at the problem—a policy which has failed in the past and would fail again.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the restructuring to which hon. Members have referred has come about largely because of the protection that the multi-fibre arrangement has given to companies, enabling them to make changes and to plan for the future? Does he agree that an equivalent of the multi-fibre arrangement must be included in the GATT talks if we are to ensure the successful continuation of the industry?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I can, indeed, give that assurance. Although the MFA will be phased out over a 10-year period, as the GATT round proceeds, there will be more than adequate safeguards for our own industry. That is absolutely essential, and there will be no weakening of our resolve on the matter.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to relocate the petroleum engineering department from London to Aberdeen.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) a short time ago.

Does the Minister accept that the fact that BP has decided to move its office from Glasgow to Aberdeen makes the case for the petroleum engineering department coming to Aberdeen even more compelling? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that his denigratory remarks in Aberdeen recently do not signify any intention to repudiate the Conservative party manifesto pledge to move the PED to Aberdeen?

I made no denigratory remarks in Aberdeen. I merely drew attention—quite understandably —to the need for Aberdeen to control its costs as a centre. I believe that Aberdeen is the offshore oil centre of Europe. It has done spectacularly well over the past 20 years, and I want to see it doing even better. I want it to be a Europewide centre, not just a United Kingdom continental shelf centre. Aberdeen has some things to do to take advantage of those opportunities. I made that quite clear because oil companies had expressed to me their concern about the cost side. I repeat the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that I have an open mind with regard to relocation. I am awaiting the report from the independent consultants. I have given a pledge that that report will be published and I will, of course, take account of what it says.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will not only consider moving the centre of offshore petroleum exploration, from London to Aberdeen, but will examine the possibility of moving to the AEA Technology site at Winfrith in my constituency, next door to the centre for onshore petroleum exploration? A new technology park is to be established there and a great deal of research work is already being done into petroleum technology. I am sure that a move to the site would be warmly welcomed.

I have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and I will look into the matter further.

Can the Minister reconcile the enthusiasm with which the Government move thousands of civil servants to bail out the subsidy junkies in the London docklands with their reluctance to move 80 civil servants from opposite Buckingham palace to the centre of the oil industry in Aberdeen? What will happen to a party in Scotland that pledged before the election to move jobs to the north-east of Scotland if, after the election, it is seen to be conspiring to keep them in the south-east of England?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what was in the Scottish Conservative manifesto. He also knows perfectly well what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have said. I suggest that he awaits the publication of the independent consultants' report and the decision that will be made taking account of that report and other matters.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with Egypt.

Our commercial relations with Egypt are good. United Kingdom exports to Egypt have been just under £300 million annually. Imports have been just under £150 million.

With a major railway contract between the Egyptian border and Tobruk, with 1 million or more Egyptians working in Libya and 5,000 or more British nationals working in Libya, what are the Egyptians saying about the imposition of the increasingly farcical sanctions and what is the cost of those sanctions to Britain? When Time magazine and the Pan Am lawyers—not exactly organs of the left—are saying that the target is wrong in respect of the Libyans who were, at most, operatives, will not the Government reconsider the whole question of sanctions, 'because the responsibility may lie in Teheran?

I know the hon. Gentleman's views about sanctions on Libya, but I spent the past six and a half years seeing the consequences of Libyan Government actions through the Semtex, machine guns and rocket which have been blowing up the people of Northern Ireland and its economy—and so far as I am concerned personally, I should like the sanctions to be even harder against Libya.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the workings of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Insolvency Act 1986 has a number of major aims: to provide remedies against abuse of limited liability by company officers; to regulate the activities of insolvency practitioners; to simplify formal insolvency procedures to allow official receivers to concentrate on protective and investigative work and to introduce new voluntary procedures allowing those in difficulties to come to an arrangement with creditors. I am broadly satisfied that the Act is achieving these objectives, but my officials in the Insolvency Service executive agency continue to monitor its workings.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that the Maxwell pensioners—and others, such as the Lewis's pensioners in Leeds—are trapped not only by faults in social security law, but by the inadequacies of the Insolvency Act 1986? Does he agree that the Government must amend that Act to ensure that occupational pensions are better protected and that they are not simply lost when a company goes under? If not, it would seem that the Maxwell episode is sadly proving to be the tip of a lost pensions iceberg.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a statement on Monday, an ingredient of which was that we should make provision under the Social Security Act 1990 to make deficits from pension funds that are wound-up a debt owed by the employer. The hon. Gentleman wants those debts to be made preferential. If that were done, it would be at the expense of other unsecured creditors of the company. It is not absolutely certain in welfare terms that that would be an improvement. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced a wide-ranging review of the law on pensions and that is one of the subjects that it would be appropriate to consider in connection with that review.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to deter the trade in artefacts of torture.

The export of leg irons, shackles, gang chains and certain types of handcuff which may be misused against prisoners is already controlled by my Department. We pay great attention to the human rights records of other countries when deciding whether an export licence should be issued.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, just as it is right and proper that our overseas aid policy is geared to acceptable human rights in the countries to which our aid is targeted, the same should apply to our trade? Does my hon. Friend accept also that there is no way in which any British firm should export devices which are either designed to be or turn out to be used as barbaric forms of torture or barbaric types of imprisonment, including the leg irons to which he has referred?

Indeed, they should not. There is, of course, a difficulty whereby certain products which in normal use are perfectly safe can be misused and changed into measures of repression when they get to countries overseas. As I have said, my Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence keep a very close eye on this.

How does the Minister justify the sale of such equipment—not just leg irons, but entire cells which have been used for the execution of political prisoners in totalitarian regimes—in contrast with another decision by his Department to deny to the Croatian Government the use of mine detection equipment for the humanitarian purpose of clearing mines from areas where civilians are living?

I do not justify that, and I would not even attempt to do so. The point in my previous answer—I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to me—is that much of the equipment is exported and the exporting company has no idea that the equipment may be altered and used for the purposes that the hon. Gentleman describes. In those circumstances, it is impossible for the Government to stop the export of all sorts of equipment which, for the vast majority of the time, are perfectly proper products.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. Is he aware that we are talking not only about artefacts of torture but about artefacts of execution? Is he aware that the Amnesty International report gives details of a set of gallows being exported from this country to a certain middle eastern country? Does he agree that that is totally unacceptable and must be stopped?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. As he knows, that was a single incident. Once the company had discovered it, it dealt with those involved. I agree that it is totally unacceptable to export gallows from this country.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for regional policy.

The Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy. I announced to the House yesterday a review of the United Kingdom assisted areas map.

Is the Minister aware that, since 1979, unemployment in the northern region has increased by 58 per cent. and that bankruptcies have increased by more than 200 per cent? Will he explain why, at a time of rising unemployment and record bankruptcies, the Government have cut regional assistance to industry in the north by 85 per cent. in real terms? When will the Government discharge their responsibilities to the people of the north by investing in the north so that it can bring real jobs to the people living there?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said in my answer that the Government remain committed to an effective, well-focused regional policy. The focus, of course, can be improved by reviewing the assisted area map to take into account changes in employment, employment opportunities, industry and other factors in the region since the map was last drawn in 1984. The hon. Gentleman refers to the overall volume of expenditure. He will recall that there was a grant called regional development grant—RDG—which was remarkably unfocused, as I believe is generally agreed. Much of what was spent went on paying companies to do things that they were going to do anyhow.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department is uniquely placed to consider which regions of Britain are best placed to have more Government Departments relocated there from London? While the whole House and, indeed, the whole country looks forward to the demolition of Marsham street, can my right hon. Friend ensure that only those jobs which need to remain in London will remain here and that as many as possible will be relocated to the regions, especially Yorkshire?

I cannot give a guarantee to my hon. Friend, who is a great supporter of Yorkshire, but I can assure him that it has long been the Government's policy to relocate as many Government jobs as appropriate. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said about the attractions of Yorkshire will have been carefully listened to by the Departments and will be taken into account when they come to make decisions about how many of their employees can be relocated and where they might best be relocated.

Does the Minister accept that if regional policy is to be more effective in the future than it has been in recent years it needs not only a commitment of resources but an ability to fine tune so that assistance can be given in areas where there may be substantial closures of companies? Will he give an undertaking to the House both that the resources will be available and that flexibility will be built in to do a real job?

I do not accept that regional policy has not been effective in the past, but I recognise the need for the policy to respond to changing circumstances. Indeed, that is why we are redrawing the map. Several of the instruments of regional policy, such as regional selective assistance, can take account of circumstances at any given moment in any given area.

Before we consider clause 20, I note that three hon. Members wish to make their maiden speeches. I respectfully point out that, although it is entirely appropriate that they should refer to their constituencies and to former Members, they must address their more general remarks to the specific clauses and amendments.