To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regional selective assistance has been given in the past 12 months in (a) west London and (b) Greater London, and in respect of how many intended new jobs; and if he will make a statement.

The locations identified are not at present designated as assisted areas and, therefore, projects in those areas do not qualify for regional selective assistance. The assisted area map is being reviewed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we in Ealing respect his effort for jobs in the east London corridor, but ask him to remember west London? Is he aware that 10 years ago all the Hoover jobs were sucked out of Ealing and went to Scotland and Wales and that it has taken us 10 years to get jobs back on that site, which we did last week with the opening of a Tesco store? Will he try in any way that he can to give proper help to west London, and especially to Ealing where we can do with it?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I am looking carefully at the submissions from his London borough of Ealing and other west London boroughs. Those submissions will be carefully considered and the requests from west London will certainly not be overlooked.

Is the Minister aware that London has never before needed the special pleading that it now needs as a result of the Government's economic policies? Will he bear in mind the Engineering Employers Federation view about London, which I fully share, that the lack of an industrial base is at the root not only of Britain's economic problems but of those of west London and London in general? Until the Government take engineering and manufacturing seriously and put real money into them, as other countries do, we shall continue to have a weak pound and a weak economy.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the performance by British manufacturing industry and the extent to which it has improved not only its productivity but its output and, in particular, its exports over the past decade. He will be aware that manufacturing employment is important in London, but that it forms a lower proportion of total employment than in most other areas. We shall certainly take account of unemployment in London and all other relevant facts when reviewing the matter.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide extra assistance for Leicester's traditional industries.

The DTI already has in place a number of schemes that are helping traditional industries and other companies in Leicester and elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that those schemes are totally inadequate and that while in previous recessions Leicester's traditional industries—knitwear, footwear, hosiery and textiles—survived well, they now face catastrophe and high unemployment, and businesses are closing by the day? What practical measures, if any, do the Government propose to help pull those industries and those who work in them out of this misery?

Leicester's economy has successfully diversified over the years and its unemployment rate is below the national and the regional average. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention in his usual litany of lament about Leicester that textile exports by one of Leicester's traditional industries jumped by 8 per cent. in the first half of this year to a value of £1·4 billion. He did not mention the measures in the autumn statement. We now have one of the lowest rates of inflation in the EC and the lowest rate of corporation tax. Those are the sort of measures that will promote business in Leicester, rather than the measures promoted by his party to allow secondary action and a minimum wage. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to name one business man who is currently asking for a minimum wage.

May I ask the Minister to allow his blood pressure to come down a little? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the textile industry being able to export in the manner in which he has outlined is that it has been assisted by the multi-fibre arrangement? There is some concern in the local textile industry about the phasing-out of that agreement as part of the new GATT arrangements. Could he tell the House and the industry whether that phasing out period started at the beginning of the present GATT negotiations or whether it will commence when the new agreement as a whole is signed?

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the textile industry in the period until the GATT review is agreed. Over the years, the textile industry has successfully restructured and that is how we have ensured its record level of exports in the first half of 1992.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the review of the 10 collieries threatened with closure.

My right hon. Friend and I have meetings with the chairman of British Coal, as necessary, to discuss a range of coal industry matters.

Before the President of the Board of Trade next meets the chairman, will he publish the Boyd report and then demand of the chairman why he included among the 10 pits for closure five collieries, including Parkside in my constituency, which that report identified as profitable pits with a viable future in Britain's deep-mine industry? Will he also use the meeting to condemn the chairman of British Coal for his niggardly and Scrooge-like attitude in stopping the attendance payments to the miners at the 10 collieries?

As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, as part of the review that is being carried out, Boyd has been engaged to give a full review of each of the collieries, both the 19 and the 21, and, as has already been made clear, that will be published as part of the review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the 10 collieries have specialised markets for their coal—I think that it is called niche marketing in anybody else's industry—and that there is great interest from the private sector in purchasing some of the mines? Is he also aware that British Coal is refusing to give any information about the collieries and is therefore making it difficult for people to put in bids?

I am very much aware of a point made by my hon. Friend, which has been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a matter for British Coal, but it would not be appropriate for British Coal to be considering the sale or the licensing of pits in advance of either the statutory consultation period or the end of the review. Once that consultation period and the review have been completed, then, in the light of the review and the interest in the private sector, British Coal will have to consider how to respond. I dare say that, as a result of the review, the Government will make clear their position.

When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal to talk about the 10 pits, will he remind him of the commitment given in the House that the review will be open and honest? Given that commitment, why will not the Minister instruct British Coal to share with the work force the financial statements—the F23s—for those pits? If the work force are to be able to put up a case for keeping those pits open, they need the figures. If the Minister is open and honest, he should give them.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matters to which he refers are the subject of a judicial review, so I must be careful about what I say. However, both my right hon. Friend and I have stressed that there must be full and proper consultation. It is our understanding that that is exactly what British Coal has pledged to do.

When can I have a reply to the letter that I delivered to the President of the Board of Trade on the day of the pit closure debate, in which I asked a number of questions that, as yet, remain unanswered? Will my hon. Friend let me know whether any Minister has signed a public interest immunity certificate to prevent the disclosure of information that is relevant not only to that matter but to both the Select Committee review and the Government's review?

A reply to my hon. Friend's letter is on its way. [Laughter]. I may tell him and other hon. Friends that it may literally be in the post. A number of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, particularly with regard to Trentham, will be covered in the statutory consultation that is under way between British Coal and the unions. As to public interest immunity certificates, there has been a considerable degree of misreporting by the press in respect of the current judicial hearing, and I assure my hon. Friend that no such certificate has been signed by Ministers.

Does the Minister accept that many of the pits threatened with closure have substantial reserves? Does he agree that the cost of mothballing the pits would be between £3 million and £6 million a year, whereas the cost of reopening them would be about £400 million? Will the Minister ensure that an independent review of reserves will be undertaken and published before any pit is closed—and that if British Coal is not prepared to operate those pits, they should be offered to others who may be able to do so?

I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about mothballing, but the figures may be rather lower and rather higher, depending on the particular pit. Mothballing will be considered in the review, and I presume that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry also will examine that aspect.

Given that the electricity inter connector with France, through which we import huge amounts of subsidised French nuclear electricity, displaces the equivalent production of coal from the 10 pits in question, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly popular in coalfield communities and the country as a whole if that contract were renegotiated?

That undertaking, which was entered into by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), has potential consequences for the amount of coal burn in this country and is bound to be considered as part of the review. I dare say that it will also be taken into account by the Trade and Industry Select Committee.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is widespread cynicism about the manner in which the 10 collieries appeared on the list? We know that negotiations about which collieries were to be included went on until 10 o'clock in the evening, or certainly until 4 o'clock in the afternoon—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker—I was thinking of another debate. Obviously the price was not high enough for a number of hon. Members who took part in the coal debate, as it was in the other debate. Seventy per cent. of Grimethorpe colliery's output does not go to the electricity industry, and that is true of 90 per cent. of Houghton Main's output. Betws produces anthracite and has no need to take account of the electricity generating industry. At least three of the 10 mines are completely independent of the electricity supply industry, so there is no reason why they should be considered in any way uneconomic. They should immediately be reconsidered for inclusion among the 20 pits that are considered possible contenders for a long life in the coal industry.

I do not know the source of the hon. Gentleman's information, but given the accuracy with which he put it across at the Dispatch Box, I am sure that it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Betws is an anthracite mine, and he will have noted the exchange between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself during the debate on pit closures. As to the two other mines, the hon. Gentleman may be correct in claiming that some of their output potentially goes to domestic and industrial markets rather than to generators, but a significant amount goes into the generating market. None the less, I can categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that when the statutory consultation period ends—I am sure that he accepts that it would not be right for British Coal actively to consider the sale of either the 10 or 21 pits in advance of the consultation period for the 10 or the review of the 21 mines—British Coal will remain responsible for licensing coal mines and must consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences. That must of course be subject to the current statutory limitations. It is a complicated subject, but I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the answer that he has just given and that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) begs a central question: will those 10 pits be in a state to be taken over? We do not want to leave it until too late. Will he please assure the House that if at the end of the review the 10 pits are still up for closure, there will be an opportunity for them to be taken over in a working condition by private owners?

I have heard what my hon. Friend said. British Coal has given a quite categorical assurance that the decision as to reopening will not in any way be influenced by any deterioration that may or may not have happened during the closure period.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, it is my intention to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms export credit guarantees are offered to British industry in respect of major south American countries.

Short-term credit insurance is available from the private sector. ECGD medium-term cover, on credit terms of two years or more is available for British exports to Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay. At present, medium-term cover is not generally available for other south American countries, but the position on individual markets is kept under regular review.

Does the Minister accept that the absence of export credit guarantee support in respect of Brazil and Argentina has severely prejudiced the prospects of a world-beating firm that is based in my constituency—STC—which has sought to win an international submarine telecommunications contract in those countries? Will he review urgently the nature of the export credit guarantee scheme to ensure that British firms are no longer left at a disadvantage as against their overseas competitors, whose Governments give them far more effective support than ours do?

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to my right hon. Friend about the issue on 26 November. We replied to him yesterday. I hope that by now he has received the letter. I think that I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. What I said in that reply was that of course we keep all these matters under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have already intervened on behalf of STC and that I wrote to the procurement group of companies to see whether any help could be given to the company, for which it was grateful. To put the matter into context, £800 million of Brazilian debt and £150 million of Argentinian debt has been rescheduled. There has to be a real possibility of the debt being repaid. It does not help UK Ltd. if exports are not paid for. To ignore economic reality would, to quote the hon. Gentleman's article on the anaesthetised, torpid Labour party, be to sleepwalk into oblivion. We are not prepared to do that.

May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that we are losing many opportunities in the major countries of Latin America, due to the lack of capacity and flexibility of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department? I draw his attention also to the major city of Sao Paulo in Brazil which has always used the River Tietê to get rid of its sewage, with very smelly consequences. It is looking to Britain, to the example of what we have done to the River Thames, as a means of improving the position. That gives great opportunities to British water companies and to British technology. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Britain is at the forefront of this activity in Brazil?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House recognises his expertise in south American affairs. The Minister for Energy, who is sitting on my left, met the governor of Sao Paulo last week. The competitive nature of ECGD generally has been improved by the additional £700 million of cover that has been obtained by the sterling efforts of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Of course we shall keep these matters under review, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the difficult economic situation in Brazil.

The Minister has not yet answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He talked about competition from our European competitors—our European counterparts. Is it not a fact that their interest rates are lower than ours and that their time scales are longer than ours? As we now have the presidency of the European Community, can the Minister tell the House what initiatives have been taken within that presidency to bring those rates and time scales into harmony, in the interests of British industry?

The Government continue to press ahead with initiatives in the EC and OECD to ensure that other agencies charge premiums that more closely reflect the risk. In recent months, a number of agencies in Japan, France, the Netherlands and Belgium have announced increases in rates or have advised that they plan to do so.

I recognise the generally excellent performance in the recession of British exporters to south America and elsewhere, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the representations made by the CBI in "Making it in Britain" and by the Engineering Employers Federation in "Industrial Strategy"? Both ask for a more level playing field for export credit guarantees compared with their European competitors.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but repeat my point: my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade are committed to promoting British exports. In the spring, they secured the major achievement of cutting premium rates in more than 50 markets, since when we have obtained another £700 million of cover. They constantly strain every nerve to promote British exporters and exports. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that in these difficult markets there must be some realistic chance of the product and export being paid for; otherwise the taxpayer will lose out considerably. There is about £4 billion worth of debt outstanding on ECGD.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to secure the future and effective deployment of civil servants in the Export Credits Guarantee Department who were not affected by the sale of the insurance section to NCM.

I have endorsed the recommendations of the ECGD management board that there should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years.

Will the Minister acknowledge that moving jobs from Cardiff to London—now or in three years' time—would be against the Government's policy of dispersing civil service jobs from London to the regions, Wales and Scotland? Will he confirm, first, that the 200 jobs in Cardiff are safe and, secondly, that they will remain in Cardiff in the long term?

When NCM took over the short-term credit arrangements of ECGD, everybody who wanted to move to NCM was given the opportunity of doing so. These 200 jobs are for staff who decided that they would not go to NCM. They were aware that there was bound to be a reduction in the number of jobs because some of their work was being taken over by NCM. The functions have been reviewed by ECGD. There will be a further small reduction, but the jobs will be there for three years, after which we shall reconsider.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the potential for extension of the life of the seven Magnox stations.

It is for the operators of Magnox stations to assess the practicality of life extensions, taking fully into account the safety requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate. The review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 October will consider the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.

Is the Minister of State aware that Nuclear Electric's latest annual report shows that almost two thirds of the subsidy to the nuclear industry goes to prop up the operations of the Magnox stations, which were described by the President of the Board of Trade in an answer in October as being "old and unsafe", and of advanced gas-cooled reactors? How can the Government justify spending £783 million a year of taxpayers' money to bail out and keep going an old and unsafe nuclear industry, when perfectly up-to-date and safe coal mines are paying the price and being carved out of the electricity supply market?

The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the Magnox stations, the future of which will be covered by the review.

When considering energy policy overall, will my hon. Friend not allow the very unfortunate events at Chernobyl, which not surprisingly raised considerable anxiety in the minds of the public, to colour our energy policy, and recall that nuclear power is the most enviromentally friendly power source?

I have taken a careful note of what my hon. Friend said. Such issues will be covered by the review.

Is the Minister aware that the high cost of electricity now poses a threat to the future viability of large energy users? How does he propose to help to reduce the high cost of electricity to large-user industries, whether future electricity is generated using Magnox or other means?

I am aware that that is a matter for considerable concern to large users, both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of the issues that will be covered by the review, and we had received evidence, especially from Northern Ireland interests, by the deadline that expired yesterday.

Will the Minister confirm that the cheapest electricity on the grid comes from nuclear power stations, and that by keeping them going longer we can spread the decommissioning costs over a longer period? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the safety standards in nuclear stations are higher than those in coal-fired power stations, and that their accident record is better than that of coal-fired stations?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, safety standards are covered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. With regard to the statistics on the costs, it is true that Magnox stations have low current operating costs per kilowatt hour, but they have high front-end capital costs and high back-end decommissioning costs.

Is the Minister aware that trade unions representing workers in the nuclear industry have given their commitment in writing to support the future of the coal mining industry in this country, and that they and their coal mining colleagues want a strategic energy review to be published? Members of the House, too, want such a review to be published and want there to be a stated strategy, in the interests of supply from all sources throughout the energy industry.

I am aware of the concern expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman's constituents but by other constituents, especially those in the north-west, who are affected, especially with regard to their employment prospects, by the future of the nuclear industry.—

And by coal.

And, of course, by coal. That is exactly why the review that my right hon. Friend is currently conducting will cover all those issues.

If the seven Magnox stations were closed, and the Government maintained their commitment to controlling atmospheric pollution, would not there be a threat to several coal-fired power stations and the pits that they support?

Undoubtedly one of the many issues that we shall have to consider in the review is the interaction between methods of electricity generation and the environmental obligations into which we have entered. I believe that my hon. Friend is saying that if we had less nuclear-generated electricity, and therefore more coal-generated electricity, there would be an impact on emission levels.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade missions to Iraq have been authorised by his Department involving Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce in each year since 1984.

There were two in 1984, one in 1985, two in 1986, one in 1988, one in 1989, and two in 1990.

Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that one of the authorised participants in the mission in 1989 was Sheffield Forgemasters, which was clearly against the 1988 guidelines, the 1985 guidelines and any other guidelines that the President may feel are in fashion at the moment? If there was no ministerial approval, will the right hon. Gentleman take action against senior DTI officials for breaching the Government guidelines, or will he turn a blind eye, as he and three other Ministers did in the past, to innocent business men who were set up, fitted up, in British courts?

I do not see the gain involved for the hon. Gentleman in peddling a totally dishonest interpretation of what happened, presumably in an attempt to get some cheap publicity in his constituency.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance is currently given to United Kingdom firms that produce mining equipment.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the British mining engineering industry.

The size of the domestic market for the mining equipment industry is largely determined by British Coal. Prospects in export markets are reflected in the 38 per cent. rise in exports last year.

Does the Minister agree that the mining manufacturing industry in this country has an extremely good record in terms of exports? Perhaps he could tell the House how much foreign exchange they earn. If firms such as Oldham Batteries in my constituency lose the market for their mining lamps and helmets, they will find it increasingly difficult to compete on the world stage without that home market, because they will not have the money to invest in keeping themselves at the forefront of technology. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British coal mines, they also destroy an important part of our manufacturing base?

I can confirm that the mining equipment industry has a good record. In 1991, it ran a positive trade surplus of some £46 million. It has been active in export markets.

Is the Minister aware that since 1984 some 2,000-plus manufacturing jobs have been lost in my constituency alone? Many of those jobs were related to the export trade, and were directly earning for Britain. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British pits, they also destroy the vital shop window that mining engineering companies need to display their products for the export market? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the 13 October announcement on coal, especially as it relates to the export trade and mining engineering?

I have had meetings with individual mining equipment companies. I had arranged another meeting with MECO a week ahead. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment has asked me to attend that Committee, but we will be rearranging the MECO meeting. I am aware of the problem. I recognise that there is a role for the Government to play in assisting.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that representations from mining equipment manufacturers, such as MECO in my constituency of Worcester and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will be taken fully into account during the review of the coal mining industry? Will he further confirm that one of the major fears of mining equipment manufacturers is that the significant subsidies enjoyed by German coal producers enable German mining manufacturers to develop a home market, which enables them to enhance their penetration of export markets?

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly sent MECO's evidence to the review. That evidence will be considered as part of the review. I have met the managing director of MECO on at least two occasions. Indeed, he accompanied me on a visit to the United States to see his and Gullick's equipment in operation in United States mines.

I have visited three of the coalfields that are at risk. The more I visit pits that have spent millions of pounds in orders to the British mining engineering industry and, as a result, can cut coal at a profit and at a competitive price, the more I marvel at the decision to close them.

I imagine that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was referring to Markham Main. Of course, Markham Main is one of the pits that are covered by the statutory consultation period. The consultation will be genuine.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for steel production in 1992 and in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

United Kingdom steel production totalled 11 million tonnes in the first nine months of 1992, equivalent to 14·7 million tonnes in a full year. The industry expects United Kingdom steel production in 1993 to be at the same level as it was in 1992.

Is the Minister aware that his response will be seen as another example of the Government's attitude towards industry, which reeks of complacency? In the light of the recent statement by the chairman of British Steel that up to 50,000 additional jobs could be lost as a result of this Government-inspired recession and of the dumping of cheap steel imports, especially from eastern Europe, into the European market, will the Minister in his capacity as President of the European Council initiate an immediate inquiry into the dumping of cheap steel imported into the European market? In view of the similarities, will he do the same for cheap, dumped coal imports?

I am a little puzzled about how giving the facts about production this year and the forecast production for next year could be complacent. We are well aware of the concerns about dumping. We also fully support the Commission's investigation into illegal state aids. We are working urgently with our European Community partners to explore what regime might be appropriate for the imports of steel from central European countries into the whole European Community from 1 Janaury next year.

Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that nationalised, subsidised Italian steel firms have gained the orders for the supply of steel to all the works in the second Severn crossing, in addition to embroiling British Steel, which stands on its own two feet, in a trade war with America? Will my right hon. Friend please intervene, if not before tea, at least before dinner?

I am well aware of the concerns of the industry about the contract to which my hon. Friend refers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has already written to the British Constructional Steelwork Association on that. My officials yesterday met the director of the association and explained the Government's present action to address those issues.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the £50 million losses announced by British Steel, of its 20 per cent. cut, of the loss of 500 jobs at Shotton steel works and of the closure of Brymbo steel works with the loss of 1,100 jobs? What precisely will the Minister do to prevent the dumping of east European steel in Britain and in western Europe? May I remind the Minister of the vital part steel plays in Wales? We have given our blood. We cannot lose any more jobs. We look to the Minister and to the Government to help our steel industry.

I hope that hon. Members of all parties are aware of the achievements of the industry and of the dramatic improvements in efficiency which have made it, by all accounts, one of the world's most efficient steel industries. It would be nice to hear Opposition Members pay tribute to the achievement of the industry in increasing its exports again this year and for the first time achieving an export of more than 50 per cent. of its production.

Will my right hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that when they were running British Steel with their hands-on industrial strategy, British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and our balance in steel products was £1 billion a year in the red? Now, our balance of trade in steel products is £1 billion a year in surplus and British Steel is the most productive and efficient steel producer in western Europe.

My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. I can add that in 1979, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of liquid steel. That is now being achieved by British Steel in fewer than five man hours.

Will the Minister look without delay into the trading position of the engineering steels industry, a large part of which is in my constituency, not least to ensure that we maintain our export record, especially in North America? Urgent consideration needs to be given to the matter.

I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment about the action taken on steel imports by the American authorities. Countervailing duties have been imposed, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the duties on British steel are somewhat less than those on most of the competitors.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss future prospects for the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.

Ministers and officials from my Department are in frequent contact with the Confederation of British Industry on a range of issues. I addressed the CBI national conference on 10 November.

Given that in the 1980s, 1,752,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector and in the 1990s, 668,000 jobs have already disappeared in manufacturing, will the President confirm that he is aware of the CBI projection, backed up by other sources, that those job losses will continue at least until 1994? Will he agree that unless those losses are stopped and reversed, there will be no possibility of a sustained economic recovery?

I agree that the CBI welcomed the Government's autumn statement, which was made with just the same intentions in mind that the hon. Member has referred to. The CBI welcomed the fact that we got rid of the car tax; that we increased capital allowances and reduced interest rates to the lowest level for 15 years, saving something like £10 billion a year from the costs of industry; that we preserved the capital programmes; and that we increased Export Credits Guarantee Department cover by £700 million. Those actions were a very considerable, determined step by the Government to help the policies the CBI wanted.

Does my right hon. Friend share my irritation at the constant denigration of manufacturing industry in this country by Labour Members who ignore the fact that £90 billion of exports from manufacturing industry will go out this year? Will he agree with me that the lower pound means not only that the industry can increase exports, but that it can recapture home markets?

My hon. Friend puts the case extremely well. The fact is that there is now considerable opportunity in export markets for British manufactures. Exports already are at an all-time high and they are set to increase further as a result of the opportunity. I also agree with my hon. Friend that Labour Members seek every opportunity to run down success, not only in manufacturing industry but anywhere they can find it.

Will the Secretary of State have a look at the Engineering Employers Federation's devastating critique of the Government's policy and the failure of the Government to provide for manufacturing industry? Has he discussed it with the federation? Has he discussed it with the CBI? Does he not think that it is about time he did?

I spent some time last night reading the Engineering Employers Federation publication and I was delighted to see upon how many of their suggestions the Government have already acted.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chattering classes, both in the media and the universities and sometimes on the Opposition Benches, talk about the importance of manufacturing industry, but one thing, for sure, that they do not want is for their children to go to work in manufacturing industry? Indeed it is fair to point out that very few Opposition Members have ever worked in manufacturing industry themselves, as I did.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have taken significant measures during the 1980s to draw together manufacturing industry and the educational establishments in order to create just the improved atmosphere which he suggests.

Does the President recall telling the "Today" programme in October that he was putting in place the basis of a strategy for industry? While he was reading the Engineering Employers Federation document, did he notice that the federation produced its strategy in six weeks? As it is now seven weeks since the broadcast, eight months since he took the job and nearly 14 years since the Government took office, just when will the right hon. Gentleman produce a strategy for industry?

The very successful conclusion of the EEF publication is that we have done so many of the things that it wanted us to do. We have done them because we had considered, perhaps even before the federation began to draft its report, the needs of manufacturing industry. I was delighted to see the warm reception that the autumn statement received from the CBI.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce the conclusions of his review of the assisted areas map.

The Government's intention is to announce the results of the review of assisted areas as early as possible next year, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the shrinkage of the defence industry is a factor which will be taken into account in his review? In that context, may I draw his attention to the compelling case for assisted area status put forward by Havant and Portsmouth councils?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that any closures or job losses resulting from "Options for Change" will be fully taken into account, together with all other relevant factors, in the review. I am also happy to assure my hon. Friend that the particular presentation to which he referred will be very carefully considered.

In the letter that the Minister sent to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dated 1 September, he said that the mining communities would be seriously hit by the closure programme and he suggested, as he has just suggested, that assisted area status may help. Looking at those areas now, before the closures, does not the Minister believe that there are good economic grounds for them to have assisted area status now and not to have to wait until more coal mines are closed?

We are looking at all areas and we are taking into account the current unemployment situation and any known changes, including the coal review to which I have referred, which might affect that situation. We want to arrive at a balanced map that properly reflects the priorities across the whole country. I do not think that it would be very sensible in that context to try to anticipate the outcome of the review in respect of any single area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it would clearly not be wise, as he has just said, to anticipate the findings and the announcement of the redrawn map, one of the great strengths of assisted area status has been that areas that have benefited from it in the past have improved on almost all the criteria applied to the previous map? Will he note that areas such as mine in Blackpool have particularly welcomed the very careful analysis by Baroness Denton, my right hon. Friend's ministerial colleague in another place, of all submissions made by those areas?

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the submissions received from his area and all others are being carefully considered by my officials. That is why we want to ensure that they are all taken into account so that we arrive at a fair new map that is right for the whole country and not just a review that takes account of one particular area.

Is not it significant that the first demand for assisted area status should come from an hon. Gentleman who represents a southern constituency? Is not that an indication of how the Government, having ripped out the heart of manufacturing industry in the west midlands and the north of England in their first recession, have now done exactly the same to once-prosperous London and the south-east of England? Will the Minister give a guarantee that if he is to create new assisted areas in the once-prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, he will not do that at the expense of the north of England, the west midlands, Scotland and Wales, because those areas still need regional assistance?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining the usual catalogue of criticism of British industry that we hear from the Opposition Benches. I am also sorry that he feels that some parts of the country should be prejudiced in favour of other parts. The objective of the review is to determine which areas fall within the approximately one third that most justify the additional assistance that is available in an assisted area. If that reveals areas in the south, which may have suffered from changes in employment as a result of the defence review and "Options for Change", it is surprising that the hon. Gentleman should believe that those issues should not be taken into account and that they should be prejudiced at the expense of some others.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the United States Government concerning section 337 of the US Tariff Act.

Strong representations against this discriminatory legislation have been made to the United States Government on a number of occasions by the British Government and by the European Commission.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for the news that the European Commission is also now involved. He will be aware of the company in my constituency, Bath Scientific Limited, of Melksham, which has traded successfully in the United States for the past six years and which now finds itself unexpectedly subject to extremely expensive litigation, because of this legislation, brought against it by a competitor. Will my hon. Friend continue to press the American Government on this issue and do what he can for my constituents?

My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has made strenuous representations on behalf of Bath Scientific, based at Melksham in his constituency. I can confirm that the British Government will continue to make the strongest representations to the United States Government to ensure that section 337 of the US Tariff Act is repealed. The United States Government have said that they will act as soon as the Uruguay round is completed. That is yet another reason for ensuring that the current GATT negotiations are completed successfully and as quickly as possible.

Does the Minister accept that the United States, while in one arena preaching free trade, is in many ways the most protectionist economy in the world? Will he particularly note the 36 per cent. tariff on British textile goods that still destroys jobs in this country and take that into account when we reach the last stages of the Uruguay round?

It is a bit rich of Opposition Members, who are great supporters of import controls and protectionism, to attempt to castigate the United States for its protectionist policy. The hon. Member knows that our Government, of all Governments in the European Community, have been the strongest supporter of GATT, and we will make every possible opportunity available to advocate the cause of British industry and free trade.

Does my hon. Friend recall that something like half of the total foreign earnings of the top 20 British manufacturers come from the North American market? At a time when some elements in Europe are becoming protectionist or anti-American, would it not be wise to consider new initiatives building on our right hon. Friend's undoubted success in GATT to reduce tariffs between the North American free trade area and the European Community, which would have immense benefit for the economies of the eastern seaboard of North America and a certain large island off the western coast of Europe?

Important as we know the European Community to be, my hon. Friend is right to remind us of the importance of our trade across the Atlantic. I can assure my hon. Friend that, under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, we have not lost sight of this important element in Britain's foreign earnings.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investment programmes are planned to assist the development of new products arising from technology transfer programmes; and if he will make a statement.

The Department has a number of technology transfer and investment programmes directed at encouraging industry to address the development of new products.

That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that much of the breakthrough in fibre optics technology was developed in the research laboratories of the United Kingdom? Does he share my concern and that of the Scottish business community that 50 per cent. of those awarded doctorates in fibre optronics in Scottish universities are working in the research laboratory of one United States telecommunications manufacturer? Will he give us an assurance, or any indication, that he has any programme at all to ensure that he will do better in the development of future industries for this country than he is doing at the moment in defence of our traditional industries?

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has implied, the United Kingdom spends about £3 billion a year on civil R and D, which is quite as much per head as Japan. My own Department's programme amounts to about £100 million a year which is split between technology transfer—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman pointing his finger at me; he may learn something if he listens. One third goes on technology programmes, one third on pre-competitive research and one third on collaboration programmes. We have a programme which is effective and well targeted, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman does not agree, the paltry two Labour Members who stood just now to announce that they had worked in manufacturing industry—unlike the rest of them—would accept that the best form of R and D is that funded and financed by industry itself.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase support for British exporters; and if he will make a statement.

Our plans for export promotion were set out in my export promotion strategy speech to the Institute of Export on Wednesday 25 November.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that some of our European partners have not reduced their aid and subsidies to industry to the same extent as the United Kingdom, despite agreeing to do so? Will my hon. Friend continue to do all that he can to ensure that there is a truly level playing field so that excellent and competitive British companies are not disadvantaged in their trade in Europe?

Of course. The fact that we have reduced the value of the pound by 12 per cent., the fact that we are working toward a successful GATT round, and the fact that we are now working with industry in a partnership at local level, national level and overseas level mean that we now have in place just as good an export strategy as any other nation in Europe. It is high time that the Opposition read it.