asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has about cargo in Great Britain waiting for late uplift because of ships' slower sailing.

We have made inquiries with the British Shippers' Council, the Institute of Freight Forwarders and the Chamber of Shipping about delays in the shipment of cargo from this country. But we have received no evidence that any significant volume of cargo has been held up here because of the slower sailing of ships.

In view of the importance of keeping exports moving, will my hon. Friend report on the discussions taking place in OECD about bunkering and will the Government do all in their power to retain the traditional bunkering pattern?

Certainly we recognise the importance of maintaining a bunkering pattern that will provide the maximum help to our shipping industry. We support the recommendation from the OECD discussions that all Governments should give priority to the supply of oil for bunkers in accordance with the normal pattern.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what he now estimates to be the likely level of shortfall of supply of aviation fuel; and what effect he estimates this will have upon the finances of British Airways and other United Kingdom carriers.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is examining the prospects for all fuels. While he cannot at present predict what the level of availability of aviation fuel might be in the coming months, he has no reason to believe that the incoming supply will deteriorate in the near future. In the present period of adjustment to the new régime of fuel scarcity and in the absence of firm information on future supplies, the extent of any financial damage to the airlines cannot yet be estimated.

Can my hon. Friend say, however, whether there is any risk, at least at present, of cut-backs in services to the level at which people will be unable to find seats? Can he confirm that so far there have been no such cuts and that all the passengers who wanted to be carried have been carried?

As far as I am aware, there has been little hardship to the travelling public through lack of availability of seats. There has had to be a certain amount of diversion from one flight to another, but I believe that the airlines have been agreeably surprised at the way in which they have been able to handle the traffic on offer, although there has been some dislocation.

I can understand the uncertainty about seats on the Government side of the House. Does the Minister remember announcing that he was cutting back supplies of fuel oil to the British airline industry by 55,000 tons from 20th November to 31st December? What effect has that cut-back had on the industry? Secondly, how was it monitored? Thirdly, what has been the reduction in supplies since 1st January?

The cut-back which I announced for the period mid-November to the end of December was, if I remember correctly, of the order of magnitude that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The cut-back was monitored by broadly allocating to airlines 90 per cent. of the 1973 uptake which applied to industry at large, but there was a certain amount of adjustment to take account of the special factors which I mentioned in the announcement. The overall position has been that British and foreign airlines have managed to exist within the reduced levels which we announced, but there is an appeal system whereby airlines which feel that they have particular problems have come back to my Department.

What has been the reduction in supplies since 1st January? The Minister announced a reduction only up to 31st December. What guidance has he given to the charter operators about holiday flights in the summer?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I announced a subsequent fuel allocation for the period of January. I do not have the figure of the tonnage of fuel allocated, but I can easily let the right hon. Gentleman have it. I believe that the charter side, as with the scheduled side, has managed to live within the system that we have instigated.

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the shortage of aviation fuel and the cut-back in flights have produced an unforeseen advantage in that they have reduced the aircraft noise nuisance suffered by people living around airports? If flights are cut back now for reasons of fuel shortage, can they not be cut back in normal times to reduce suffering from aircraft noise?

I think my hon. Friend will accept that the degree of hardship and difficulty which has been imposed at short notice as a result of the fuel shortage is a more Draconian measure than we would have accepted in normal circumstances. But I accept that there has been an opportunity for the airlines to examine again their patterns of operation in the light of changed circumstances, and I would think that there would be a noise benefit flowing from that.

Will the Minister go further and suggest to the airlines that they should consider their pattern of operations in the light of what they have been able to do in the present emergency?

I believe that the airlines have found it necessary to look at their pattern of operations as a result of the fuel restrictions and that they will learn whatever lessons are appropriate as a consequence.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the European Economic Community Regional Development Fund.

No. Sir. I have at present nothing to add to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on Wednesday 16th January.

Is the Minister aware that, if Press reports are to be believed, the size of the fund is likely to be decided by almost every consideration except the needs of the regions? Will he assure the House that the Government intend to do something about the far too crude designation of peripheral and central areas, and that in doing so they will not surrender the policy of industrial development certificate control that we have in this country?

I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. We have always said that we attach considerable importance to the setting up of the regional fund. It is very important to the regions, from one of which the hon. Gentleman comes. His area will be one of the qualifying areas and we shall be fighting hard for it, as for other development areas.

What was the original maximum size of the fund which the Government hoped to get?

I refer my hon. Friend to the statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who has said that the Commission's proposal of 2,250 million units of account over three years was a substantial sum.

As it is obvious that any prospects of a meaningful re- gional fund have been destroyed by the aggressive selfishness of our partners in the EEC, would the Minister care to tell the House, so that we may evaluate the prospects of a regional fund in a more general context, what concrete benefits have come to Britain in the 13 months of our membership of the EEC?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have noticed the substantial move made recently by the West German Government which would provide countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Ireland with substantially what the Commission proposed. Representatives of the West German Government said at a meeting I attended only on Friday that they regard regional policy as the key to the future growth and development of the Community. The hon. Gentleman's strictures on our partners are unjustified.

Which basis of allocation do the Government prefer, that suggested by the Germans or that suggested by the European Commission?

There is to be a further round of negotiations in two days' time, and it would be unwise for me to anticipate those negotiations.

Can the Minister give the House an indication when a final decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers on which areas are to benefit from the fund, as and when its benefits become available? Will he confirm that the Government do not accept the present criteria in the proposals in so far as they would exclude one important development area in this country, the Furness development area? Will he assure us that representations are being made to the Council to alter those criteria in a way which will qualify all United Kingdom development areas for such benefits under the fund?

We are working to ensure that Furness, the hon. Gentleman's area, is covered by the fund. The first thing to do is to set up the fund, and I hope that the negotiations on 30th January will be successful. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement on how they progress in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority and with representatives of flying clubs about reducing the accident rate for light aircraft.

The safety performance of light aircraft is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority but I know from recent discussions I have had with the chairman that this is one of the subjects that the authority has under continuous review.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, with light aircraft accidents totalling about 200 a year, with attendant fatalities, there is a need for a code of safety and that it would be useful if his Department, the authority and flying clubs got together to work out new regulations and disciplines for light aircraft flying?

I shall put this point to the chairman of the authority to see whether he feels that publication of a specific code would add to the considerable efforts already made and to the volume of publications which in themselves would constitute such a code. He may feel that it would help to bring them together in one place. My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that there has been an improvement in the safety record. I believe that the authority has contributed to that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of practice is an important part of preserving competence in light aircraft flying, and that if he continues his ban on Sunday flying the accident rate will become worse? The ban looks ridiculous, compared with the amount of fuel used by motorists in pleasure motoring on Sundays.

I think that my hon. Friend is making an assumption about the number of accidents, and I do not want to go along with him by agreeing that the one follows from the other. I think he will accept that we have had to take difficult decisions in the light of the energy situation. I do not believe that the argument he advances, unsubstantiated as it is, would warrant our taking any other decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Trade Descriptions Act in relation to holiday travel brochures.

I believe the Act gives consumers substantial protection against false or misleading statements in holiday travel brochures; but my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is considering whether the time has come to review this and other aspects of its operation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has his attention been drawn to recent cases against the Thomson holiday company, from which it seems possible for many claims to be made, based on the same misprint or error in a brochure? Does he not feel that, while protection of the consumer is very desirable, the Act should perhaps be reconsidered to see whether an inadvertent error in printing by a tour company should continue to penalise it in the present way?

It is not for me to comment on recent cases which the courts may not have fully disposed of. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend will take my hon. Friend's point into account in considering whether a review is desirable.

Will the Minister press upon his right hon. and learned Friend the urgent need for a review of the way in which tour companies advertise their tours? I have personal experience of a scandalously misleading description by Cosmos Tours. It is time the matter was cleared up, because the general public are being defrauded as a result of misleading descriptions.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful before making that sort of allegation on the Floor of the House. It is not a matter to smile about. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he knows what redress is open to him. There is no doubt that holiday brochures are generally much more accurate as a result of the operation of the Act, and the standards of operators are much higher.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the contracts between the tour operators and their clients are satisfactory and that they fall within the Act?

I think that if there is evidence of breach redress is open to anyone who suffers as a result.

Does the Minister recall that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs told me last week that there had been discussions in the past about the protection of the public in the event of tour operators going bankrupt? Will he tell the House, in view of this morning's warnings from the CBI about the imminent danger of an increased number of bankruptcies—a point of view which was dismissed as alarmist when I put it forward last week—whether he is satisfied that the public will be fully protected in the event of bankruptcies arising in the holiday travel sector? If not, in the extreme circumstances of 1974 what urgent extra action do the Government envisage?

I do not believe that that question follows from the Question on the Order Paper or that the circumstances are as extreme as the hon. Gentleman seeks to suggest. However, I am certain that in the present difficulties the tour operators will do everything they can to maintain their holiday programmes.

The question I am asking is whether the public are adequately protected. It is not enough for the Minister to say complacently that the tour operators will do what they can. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the measures they envisage taking will give adequate protection? If not, what will the Government do?

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support what he says, apart from alarmist scaremongering of that kind, it will receive serious attention.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest available figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EEC in 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage increase for British exports to the EEC for 1973; and what was the comparable percentage increase for EEC imports into Great Britain.

The deficit for 1973 was £1,120 million, and the percentage increases for exports and imports were 37 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was for the privilege of securing this enormous trade deficit of £1,120 million that the Government were prepared to accept the obligations of Community membership and the burden of the common agricultural policy? As a bargain, it can hardly be described as a good one. Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the time has come for a substantial renegotiation of the terms of entry?

Compared with the rest of our exports which went up 26 per cent. last year, our exports to the Community went up 37 per cent. There are also very substantial invisible earnings from which we have benefited as a result of our entry into Europe.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with these figures? Do they not prove that we are losing the battle of exports across the Channel? Will he now produce for the benefit of the House a White Paper showing the trading figures for and against our first year's membership of the EEC?

The hon. Lady, coming from Birmingham, should appreciate that virtually the whole of the deficit is accountable by the increase in our imports of fuel, machinery and industrial materials, which have been of benefit to industrial areas like hers which have also benefited from the 37 per cent. increase in our exports.

Can my right hon. Friend recall the figures for our trade with EFTA in the last year?

Not without notice.

Do the Government attribute this deficit and the enormous deficit with the countries with which we were formerly members of the European Free Trade Area to a basic uncompetitiveness of the British economy as compared with Europe, or to the Government's economic policies?

The fact that we have increased our exports to such a degree and the fact that during a period when there was a substantial growth in manufacturing industry in this country we have imported more machinery, fuel and industrial materials than before have been the reason for this size of deficit in the last year.

Although this supplementary question is not directly connected with the EEC, will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that we all congratulate him on his deal with Iran and say whether he thinks that there is a great future for our exports to the Middle East?

In recent months the proportion of our exports to the Common Market has been increasing. I still believe that there is a substantial potentiality for growth in this export market.

When did the Government first recognise that our trade deficit, of which the EEC portion forms only part, was getting serious?

At the beginning of the year we predicted that even on the then knowledge of commodity prices there would be a deficit if we were going to get a period of growth. Alas, the price of world commodities substantially increased that deficit.

Has my right hon. Friend calculated to what extent our trade deficit with Europe is attributable to Communist subversion which is affecting British industry, slowing down exports and sucking in more imports?

No, Sir.

In view of the devastating effects of the three-day working week and of the Government's economic policies on the output of British industry, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consderation to the restriction of imports of foreign motor cars into this country?

I can imagine nothing which would do more harm to British Leyland than the creation of conditions world-wide whereby countries imposed restrictions on the import of cars. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the British motor industry has a very substantial interest in exporting cars throughout the world.

Will my right hon. Friend take every step to encourage European investment in the regions of this country, which would make a very substantial net improvement to our balance of payments position?

Yes, Sir. Already a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have held conferences with business men and Governments on the Continent for this purpose.

In this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to Sir Christopher Soames—whose salary, as a civil servant, we pay and who represents nobody—the great resentment created in this country by his political statements about the trading policy of this Government or of any British Government, particularly in view of the very great damage to our interests which has taken place in trading in the first year of our membership?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to ensure that companies which have charge of clients' money, such as banks and insurance companies, may not make political contributions.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman think about this again? Is it not the case as regards trade unions that it is necessary to set up a separate political fund in order to make political contributions? If this is all right for trade unions, is it not equally proper for contributors to the Conservative Party to have the same treatment as contributors to the Labour Party? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of us on this side of the House who have any dealings with banks and insurance companies are inadvertently contributors to the Conservative Party? Is he very happy about a situation in which part of his own election expenses will be inadvertently compulsorily contributed by Members on this side of the House?

In so far as that is true at all, it is true that the previous Government, which I understand the hon. Gentleman supported when they legislated in 1967, did not think it right to take action in this field. I recognise that the Labour Party has massive commitments to the nationalisation of banks and insurance companies. I think it is disgraceful that they should seek to deny to these companies the means of defending themselves.

Can my hon. Friend say what contributions have been made during and between General Elections by the National Union of Mineworkers and ESLEF? If the banks and insurance companies were nationalised, where would we o nthis side of the House put our money?

I am sure that the whole House would very much like to know the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Unfortunately, I cannot give the answer. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I can assure him that this dilemma is unlikely to face him.

Does not my hon. Friend think it unfortunate that the Labour Party is prepared to accept money for financing from these very unions some of whose officials, like Mr. McGahey, are determined to destroy the country?

The party opposite had better answer for itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to make representations to the United States Government concerning the consequences for the United Kingdom of the candy quota introduced by the United States Sugar Act of 1971 and due to be renewed in 1974.

Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the United States administration about the confectionery quota four times since 1971. With our accession to the EEC the Commission has taken up the matter and is seeking a satisfactory solution through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this quota is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and will he accept that the United States administration would welcome further representations from foreign Governments with a view to having it abolished?

It is indeed our view that the quota is contrary to Article XI of the GATT and it is a breach of the United States obligations to the United Kingdom following the Kennedy Round of negotiations. As to the question of representations, it is best that they should be made on behalf of the Community as a whole.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are in a sticky enough mess already without dealing with the candy quota in the way suggested?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many unfair trade practices have been referred to the Director General of Fair Trading; and what practices these have concerned.

I understand that the director general has in mind certain practices for possible reference to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. This is a matter for him.

That is precisely the same unsatisfactory answer as came from the Government on the last occasion when this matter was raised. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Act could do a lot of good and that there has been far too much procrastination? When are we to have some facts and some action?

Some time ago the hon. and learned Gentleman was told that, if he had any representations which he wished to make to the director general, there was no reason why he should not do so direct. I do not know whether he has done so. The director general has been in office for only the last three months, and I hope the House will think that the Act should be left to take its course.

Will my hon. Friend ask the director general to look into the deplorable practice whereby, for example, car parks and garages often exonerate themselves by small print on the back of the ticket or document from any payment of compensation to people whose vehicles are damaged in their installations? This is a most unwelcome practice.

I am sure that the director general will take note of what my hon. Friend says. I understand that the director general has some proposals for references to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee under active consideration.

Will the Minister confirm, as his ministerial colleague told us in the past, that the weights and measures inspectors are the essential local agents of the director general? As the Price Commission is not even acknowledging queries from the Weights and Measures Inspectorate about its secretly approved price increases, how are weights and measures inspectors to protect the public? Does the hon. Gentleman remember the references to "open government"? If he does—without a blush—will he now issue an instruction to the Price Commission that in future it shall announce publicly all price increases which it approves so that the director general, the Weights and Measures Inspectorate and the public may know whether they are being cheated?

I perfectly well recall "open government", but I am aware also of the rules of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask that question. perhaps he will put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers to lay down stan- dardised prescribed quantities for the sale of yoghourt.

There is undoubtedly scope for reducing the variety of existing practices within the trade, and I intend to invite trade and consumer interests to suggest possible means of rationalisation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he speed matters up a bit? Is he aware that the Weights and Measures Inspectorate recently pointed out that control of prices would be very much easier if far more goods were packed in standardised packs, such as I have been advocating for two years and more?

On my hon. Friend's specific Question about yoghourt, I have to tell her that marked variations in consistency which have been developing recently have probably contributed to the diversity of markings. I hope she will feel that this is a matter on which consumers and the trade should be left to form their opinions, and there is no need to rush matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading to publish a quarterly analysis of his investigations and their results.

The director general tells me that he will be publicising his activities widely. In addition, he has a duty to publish an annual report. I see no need for the quarterly analysis suggested by my hon. Friend.

Will not my hon. Friend accept that, as the Parliamentary Commissioner publishes such a report quarterly, a quarterly report from the director general could contain valuable advice and information? Is he aware, for example, that after the servicing of domestic appliances consumers are often asked to sign a paper saying that the work has been satisfactorily carried out, although they have not had the time or do not have the expertise to ascertain whether that is so? Will my hon. Friend refer this matter specifically to the director general?

I am sure that the director general will take appropriate note of my hon. Friend's observation. As to the way he goes about his business, I can tell the House that the director general intends shortly to make available to hon. Members a pamphlet describing his office and setting out the way in which he goes about his work. Publicity is essential to the success of his operations. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member wishes to keep abreast of the facts, I am sure that he will gladly add their names to his mailing list for Press releases.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes he proposes in his long-term steel strategy in the light of the latest economic outlook.

The British Steel Corporation's long-term development strategy is essentially flexible and allows for the latest economic forecasts to be taken into account as planning proceeds. I do not foresee changes in the main features of the strategy as published in the White Paper, Cmnd. 5226.

In view of the developing world energy crisis, are the Government justified in putting all their eggs into the one jumbo-size steel plant basket, especially as that may well cost not £3,000 million but £5,000 million? Will they not ask that the strategy be altered to the extent that there would be one medium-size 2½-million ton plant, and could that not be at Shotton, in that way helping to save some of the 6,000 jobs there which will otherwise go?

As regards Shotton, I understand that BSC and trade union representatives met on Friday, when the trade unions put forward counterproposals to the closure of steel making, and I am sure that the corporation will consider those proposals quickly and impartially. It is the corporation's responsiblity, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of discussions which are taking place between the men and management at Shotton.

In view of the importance of coal to the steel industry, are steps being taken to ensure that the secret ballot which is about to take place remains secret and that miners are not subjected to intimidation?

The National Union of Mineworkers has always been proud of the trouble it has taken to see that these ballots are conducted on a truly democratic basis, and I am sure that both sides of the House will expect it to proceed in the same way on this occasion.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to visit the Victoria Theatre in Stoke-on-Trent, where he would see a vivid, exciting and convincing portrayal of the reasons for retaining Shelton steelworks? Does he realise that it would be an act of great folly to close this steelworks, which has such a distinguished history of steel production, and could still have a distinguished future if the British Steel Corporation were prepared to invest a few million pounds?

I have always been worried about going to the theatre since Abraham Lincoln went to one on a certain occasion.

If Shotton is to be refurbished, would it not be only fair that Irlam should receive the same treatment?

In all these matters the important consideration is that the British steel industry, which is of such interest to British steel workers, shall have a future as compared with other steel industries throughout the world. This is why the steel unions applauded the massive injection of new capital which the present Government agreed to put into the industry. I recognise that there are serious problems for a number of steel plants, and on every one of these the British Steel Corporation has agreed to enter into most detailed discussions with those concerned. In my view, the corporation is pursuing a responsible and correct policy.

In the light of the past history of the rundown of coal mining, why will not the Government agree to review the long-term strategic plans of the British Steel Corporation? As an interim step, will they stop all immediate closures, especially those involving the 6,500 redundancies which are to take place in the Scottish steel industry?

I can well understand the hon. Gentleman being sensitive about the rundown of the coal industry, which this Government have reversed. We are not running down the steel industry. We have agreed to a massive investment in the steel industry in order substantially to increase production, which the previous Government did not agree to.

As the real damage to the steel industry now arises from the policy of confrontation which the Government have adopted towards the mining industry, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an article which appeared in the first edition of The Times today calling for a 35 per cent. offer to the miners, and may I ask him also to inquire why the second edition of that newspaper excluded that reference?

I am not responsible for The Times. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously worried about the future of the steel industry, he should urge the miners to vote against strike action.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amounts by which he plans to reduce expenditure in the Northern Region for 1974–75.

Expenditure by my Department in the assisted areas, of which the Northern Region forms part, is expected to increase in 1974–5. The amount depends upon what eligible projects become available under the 1972 Industry Act.

Will the Secretary of State now relieve the Northern Region of the great uncertainty which exists over the Government's policy on the regional employment premium? It represents a considerable element in an industrialist's programme of future investment, and a firmer decision than has hitherto been given by the Government would be welcome at this juncture.

I have no decision to announce today but, knowing the hon. Member's interest in developments in the Northern Region, I am sure he was pleased to hear the major announcement at lunch time today of considerably increased investment there by ICI.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Government to maintain active regional policies at a time of great financial economic stringency overall is evidence of their determination to unite the nation and to reduce the disparities which exist between the various regions?

Yes, Sir. I think that perhaps both sides of the House would now agree how outstandingly successful the 1972 Industry Act has been.

Has the Secretary of State seen the recent independent economic report and national survey which showed that the Northern Region has suffered more from inflation than any other part of the country? Will he take due note of that and take the necessary action when public expenditure cuts are formulated?

I hope that the hon. Member will in his turn do all he can to support the Government's counter-inflation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to him about the shortage of glass containers; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations about the shortage of glass containers. The glass industry is doing everything possible to alleviate the situation and, in particular, to meet the needs of the dairy trade and the food, drinks and pharmaceutical sectors.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the recycling of waste material is of great importance to a country that is short of both basic materials and energy? Is he not aware that we can no longer afford the luxury of non-returnable glass containers? Will he enter into discussion with the trade to see how the problem can be resolved?

I agree on the first point entirely. The glass industry is embarked on a programme aimed at significantly increasing use of waste glass in the manufacture of glass containers and finding other sources of supply. Non-returnable containers are a matter which falls within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I know that he will take note of what my hon. Friend said.

One of the largest glass container factories, Rockware Glass in my constituency, was driven out of existence by threats by Slater Walker of take-over bids. As a result it was compelled to close the factory and sell the land to ward off the predatory intentions of Slater Walker. A thousand men were thrown out of work at a time when the company was bulging with orders for home and export markets. It cannot carry them out because it had to close the factory. Will the Minister now consult the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to decide what legislation should be introduced to stop these predatory activities, which seriously damage British industry, far in excess of the damage attributed to alleged Communist activity?

As far as I could hear the hon. Member's speech I can only say that everything he said has been specifically denied by the chairman of the company.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the working of the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971.

The Act appears to be working as intended, but I am watching its operation closely in the light of recent developments.

As one of the objectives of the Act was the elimination of bogus business directories and as the promoters of those bogus directories have been showing remarkable ingenuity recently, would not my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another matter which should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading?

This is not a consumer problem in the terms of the Fair Trading Act and it falls outside the scope of the director general's activities. However, if in his references to ingenuity my hon. Friend is referring to those gentlemen who are sending invoices here from the Irish Republic, for examule, I can tell him that under the terms of the Universal Postal Convention an obligation is im- posed on other countries in these matters and the Post Office has drawn the attention of overseas postal administrations to the implications of the 1971 Act.

Are not these trade directory firms still operating almost as actively as they were before the passing of the Act? Does not their ingenuity—if that is not too polite a word to use—extend to using in small print the words "this is not an assertion for payment" when quite clearly it is a demand for payment aimed solely at getting money which is not due to them? Is not a closer look at the Act and its working overdue?

I am closely watching the operation of the Act. There have been convictions under it and I am sure that the hon. Member, as one of its sponsors, welcomes that fact. The Act was designed not to stop people being asked to buy entries in directories but to give people some protection when sent what can best be described as bogus invoices. However, in this activity as elsewhere, there is a certain duty on people to read the small print.

Where there have been prosecutions of bogus trade directory companies, is it not a fact that they have been so petty and insignificant as to be no disincentive? Is it not also a fact that these cases have not been publicised enough to warn the public against this dishonest trading practice?

I do not think I can agree with my hon. Friend's assessment.

It is true.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his discussions on trade with representatives of the Government of Iran.

Negotiations were satisfactorily concluded during the course of my discussions at St. Moritz last Friday. As a result Britain will receive an additional 5 million tons of crude oil from Iran during 1974 and the early part of 1975 and will supply £110 million worth of British goods during the same period. The oil will be purchased by BP acting as agents for Her Majesty's Government. Parliamentary authority for the expenditure will be sought in the usual way. We reviewed the progress being made on the £250 million of industrial joint-venture projects in Iran, which were negotiated at the Iran/United Kingdom Investment Conference last November. We also agreed to examine at an early date the potentialities for Iranian investment in the United Kingdom and agreed that there were many spheres in which substantial investments from Iran into United Kingdom industry and technology could be of mutual benefit to both countries. This agreement marks a further important stage in the valuable and increasing inter-relationship between the economies of Iran and Britain.

What proportion of the £110 million will be represented by arms sales, and what discussion took place on the short-term use of Iranian finance for developing countries?

The answer to the first question is "None". On the second question, Iran is taking an increasing interest in the problems of the countries of the Third World and recently the Iranian Government have had negotiations with India to assist in the development of that country's economy. In addition, they are taking a far greater interest in the economies of a number of African countries where I believe that economic assistance and aid will be of great value.

In negotiating these particular purchases and sales with the Shahanshah of Iran, are the Government acting as principal or agent?

In negotiating the purchase of oil we were acting as principal. As for negotiating individual commodities, the individual companies carried out their own negotiations and obtained their own contracts and these are therefore individual contracts between the British companies and the companies and public agencies in Iran.

Since the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor were ready to hurry to St. Moritz at the flick of the Shah of Iran's finger, will they now at least meet Mr. Joe Gormley, perhaps in a Butlin's holiday camp, and discuss with him the miners' pay claim, since coal costs one-third the price of oil for heat generation?

I only hope that if the Labour Party ever become the Government they will not take the same nauseating patronising attitude towards Iran as the hon. Member adopts.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal which he has negotiated. I assume that BP will be the agent for the Government, but is not that acting in favour of one company when there are other marketing organisations in the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether petroleum products and not merely crude oil are covered by the agreement? Will he indicate also, since the price is about seven dollars a barrel, whether there is any way of ensuring that the consumer benefits?

On the first point, with the Government having such a substantial equity interest in BP it is right for that company to act in this case. On the second question, the oil is crude oil of various qualities, both light and heavy. On the last question, some of the companies—for example, those which will be producing petrochemicals and therefore needing oil—will be guaranteed to receive this oil at the price obtained in these negotiations.

Has the Secretary of State noticed that one of the European Commissioners and a former Member of this House has been warning this and other West European countries not to engage in these separate deals because of the great dangers they have for divisions within Europe? What is the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to this question?

Our approach is that it would be a mistake for the United Kingdom or any other Government to enter into deals which would inflate the price of oil world-wide. To indulge in a scramble for oil would be a mistake. However, as a result of these negotiations the oil will be delivered at stable prices currently provided by the consortium and it in no way has the effect of inflating the world's oil prices.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in principle, it must be bad policy to keep up the price of oil by these individual barter deals? Surely we should try to keep in touch with the Americans and use the large oil companies to protect a market which we are now encouraging to be held at ransom. Surely every trade in the world agrees that this is precisely what the Labour Government did when they started bulk purchase schemes in the 1950s, thereby keeping up world prices.

I remind my right hon. Friend that spot prices for oil have recently reached 17, 18 and 20 dollars a barrel. In the light of such prices, obtaining a stable price for one year of seven dollars a barrel is surely a bargain.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on both sides of the House there will be a general welcome for sensible commercial arrangements which secure oil for this country? Is he further aware, however, that the public do not understand why, if that makes sense to the national interest, the Government should be losing £400 million a week as a result of their present attitude in not paying the miners the income they richly deserve, and this at the very time when the nation needs to acquire more miners if the coal is to be dug in the quantity required?

It is because we take the opposite view to the one which the right hon. Gentleman ascribes to us that we are offering the miners more than the Labour Government offered in their six years of office.

rose—

Mr. Lamont.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—

This is out of order.

Order. I called the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the deal announced will no doubt have great advantages for the United Kingdom, many people, whether for or against the EEC, will share the preference of Sir Christopher Soames for a multilateral rather than a bilateral approach to the problem of the oil deficit? Is it not extremely difficult to separate the financing of oil deficits from the price of oil? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give an assurance that the Government will treat the important question of recycling the proceeds of the Arab oil surpluses as a matter of urgency, above all on an international basis?

There is every evidence that the present Government have done everything possible to encourage a unified approach throughout Europe to these problems and have also supported Dr. Kissinger's initiatives. There is nothing at all in this transaction with Iran which in any way damages those initiatives.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the trend in commodity prices.

Between December 1972 and December 1973 the Economist World Commodity Price Index rose from 170·2 to 269; in the previous nine years the index rose by 70·2. In the last year alone it has risen by 98·8. The latest announced increases in oil prices will have a further impact in the first months of 1974.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate what part of the annual deficit is now attributable to world commodity price increases? Has not the whole position been exacerbated by cartels formed by producers getting together, as in oil and phosphates, and making difficulties for industrialised countries?

In last year's adverse terms of trade, the difference between the increases in export prices and in import prices accounted for about 80 per cent. of the increase in the deficit. Unity of action by commodity producers is certainly very important in its effect upon present and future prices.

Can my right hon. Friend state what has been the rise in world food prices over the same period?

Not without notice.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm yet again that the deficit would have been less than half of what it was in 1973 but for the severe rise in marginal food commodity prices, and that the non-oil deficit this year in normal circumstances would have been expected by all economic commentators to be substantially less but for the actions of certain self-centred trade union leaders?

There was an adverse effect by all these influences on our balance of trade last year. The figures in my original answer showed that commodity prices rose far more last year than in the previous nine years put together. They are indicative of the effects.

As the rise in commodity prices has been fairly constant in the last 12 months, and this was well known to the right hon. Gentleman, why was he so euphoric about our balance of trade prospects up to last October?

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. There has been a substantial rise in world commodity prices in the last 12 months.

Not in the last 12 months.

In the last three months there has been a considerable increase in oil prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how export orders have been affected by three-day working in industry.

The Department has no quantitive measure as yet of the effect of three-day working on export orders, but there is no doubt that there will be a deteriorating position so long as the industrial action in the mines continues to create the necessity for a three-day week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if exports are affected at this time above all when they should be rising steeply, our economic future is even grimmer than many of us thought?

Yes, Sir. That is why I hope that the Opposition will urge the miners not to take strike action.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision to exercise flexibility with respect to wool textile firms which have been working seven days a week, to give them about 60 per cent. power. If the miners give him a chance, will he extend this flexibility to the cotton and synthetics sections of the textile industry which have not been able to enjoy the same privileges as the wool textile industry but which make a significant contribution to the balance of payments?

This matter is under constant consideration and if the opportunity arises it will be taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people hold the view that, had the resources of the electricity supply industry been properly organised, up till now there would have been no need at all for the three-day working week? Will he consider issuing a White Paper for the benefit of the House, setting out who gave the advice on this question and at which dates the advice was given?

This is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but on the figures there is no doubt that it was right and responsible for the Government to take the action we did.

Does my right hon. Friend have evidence which confirms or validates the claim of a number of commentators that a great many companies in Britain are now in a critical and deteriorating cash position on account of the protracted three-day working week? If that is so, what hopes is my right hon. Friend holding out for some kind of financial rescue operation for these companies?

There is not yet a great deal of such evidence available, but it is obvious that if the situation continues it will deteriorate at an accelerating rate. In such circumstances, there are certain obvious things which can be done—for example, through the banks or under the Industry Act. If, however, the nation is starved of energy, firms will be going bankrupt and many jobs will be lost.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figure of £100 million a week lost in exports as a result of the three-day working week which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) says, was clearly not necessary at the time it was imposed? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is that he, whose ministerial responsibilities are to safeguard industry, will be presiding over circumstances in which there will be, as he himself admits, many bankruptcies, many of them among exporting firms? Will he look again, as the first edition of The Times did today, at the case for giving the miners a much better offer and allowing free negotiations to take place?

It is because we wish to safeguard industry that, unlike the Opposition, we introduced the Coal Industry Act, we are putting £1,100 million into the coal industry and, under phase 3 we are offering the miners more in one year than the Labour Government offered in six years.