I shall come to that point in a few moments.

If I may deal with the situation regarding Stibbe, the firm approached the Department's industrial development unit in July this year to discuss informally possible Section 8 aid for its Braunstone factory because the firm said it had a liquidity crisis. The company at that stage was advised in the first instance to explore more fully other resources, with further discussions to follow. There was a second meeting with the IDU in early September, and at that meeting the company set out more fully its need for financial support.

The company considered the matter in some depth and it became clear that the Braunstone factory would not be viable in the longer term due to its dependence on a limited range of product liable to cyclical demand, and the company accepted that it should seek some form of association with other interests which could provide a wider product base.

The case was drawn to the Secretary of State's notice on 25th September when it appeared that the Department's efforts to bring about such a grouping were being forestalled by the imminent appointment of the receiver. All possible avenues of providing assistance to the firm were examined, and a case for Section 8 assistance was submitted to the Industrial Development Advisory Board on 26th September. The IDAB recommended that Industry Act assistance could not be justified to maintain the Braunstone factory, though it supported the Department's efforts to save the business, which had traded profitably for several years. The Secretary of State, having seen the IDAB report, expressed the view that he was most anxious that every assistance should be given to find purchasers for the viable parts of the business and assumed that Industry Act assistance could be made available for any prospective purchaser of the S. A. Monk business in Sutton-in-Ashfield.

I take my hon. Friend's point about future technology. I agree that it would be a great shame if the technological know-how of the design team were to be lost. The Government appreciate that consideration.

Sutton-in-Ashfield is an intermediate area, and assistance can be given under Section 7 of the Industry Act. Indeed, the Government have made it clear that we are only too keen to give assistance in this way, provided that the circumstances are right. I repeat that we do not want to see the technology lost, for that would be a great shame for this country.

There is no question that there has been a downturn in the world trade situation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South outlined the basic reasons. There was an extremely rapid growth in world trade for circular knitting machines during the 1960s from £20 million in the 1960s to approaching £200 million in 1972. The United Kingdom has been recognised worldwide as the technological leaders in this industry. In the peak year of 1972 our exports totalled £43·3 million, over 20 per cent. of world trade, second only to the Federal Republic of Germany with exports of £74 million.

Since that time exports of all the principal manufacturing countries have declined, with the exception of the United States, although the decline between 1972 and 1973 in the case of the United Kingdom amounted to 19 per cent., which was somewhat higher than that of our principal continental competitors, France and Germany, whose exports fell by 10 and 13 per cent. respectively.

The latest figures of United Kingdom overseas trade show that during the period January to October 1974 our imports of circular knitting machines fell by 26 per cent., against the comparable period in 1973, to £4·2 million, while during the same period our exports fell by 23 per cent., to £24·4 million. Thus, we have continued to show a favourable trade balance this year amounting to £18·7 million in a situation of declining trade, and our industry appears to be holding its own in the domestic market in face of strong foreign competition.

I should like to turn to the future prospects for the industry. The problems in Leicester brought about by the decline in the world market for double jersey circular knitting machines have created problems for all the companies in this sector. Bentley Engineering, the largest manufacturer in the world of such machines, with about three-quarters of total United Kingdom production, was in a relatively strong position to weather the storm because of its size and wide product base.

The regrettable closure of Stibbe's Braunstone factory need not involve a loss of its knitting machinery technology, and there is strong ministerial interest in providing assistance for any proposals which will maintain the United Kingdom capability, particularly in the context of maintaining the remaining Stibbe unit at Sutton-in-Ashfield.

We are not aware of any closures or redundancies among any machinery manufacturers in the Leicester area outside Stibbe and the Bentley Engineering Group. We believe that the remaining firms in this sector will be able to continue in business, though on a reduced scale until the market picks up again, which we expect to be in 1976. The redundancies which have occurred have to some extent reflected the decline in world trade, but the firms have been able partly to offset the effect of the decline in trade and thus limited their redundancies by taking on general engineering sub-contract work.

I shall not go into all the background concerning the firm of Stibbe, but this matter was brought to ministerial notice on 11 th November when my hon. Friend met the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. It is probably regrettable that the matter was not brought to ministerial notice before that date, but that is the situation, and my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State did everything possible at that stage.

My hon. Friend advanced four reasons for urging the Government to set up an inquiry. He raised a number of points about import controls and mentioned various foreign countries. He suggested that other countries are subsidising the textile machinery industry or parts of it. We have no knowledge of that situation, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South has any evidence I hope that it will be forthcoming.

Many of the matters raised by my hon. ,and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West are not the responsibility of my Department. I do not seek to hide behind the ministerial office, but the fact is that those matters happen to be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and the matter of imports is not our concern. However, I shall see to it that my hon. Friend's points are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I assure him that will be done.