asked the Secretary of State for Trade what resolution he expects to the general agreement on tariffs and trade multilateral negotiations by mid-December; and what part he is playing in those negotiations.

I hope that the negotiators will be able substantially to complete their work next month, although ratification of the results by the EEC Council must wait on a satisfactory resolution of the United States countervailing duty waiver problem. I represented the United Kingdom at the Council discussion on 21st November of the EEC approach to the final stages of the negotiations and expect to play a full part in any further such discussion or other important but less formal discussions.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Secretary of State well in his difficult role at the talks, bearing in mind the United Kingdom's dependence on the growth and increasing liberalisation of world trade. When does the right hon. Gentleman think the United States will pass a new Bill waiving the imposition of countervailing duties? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the talks can be meaningfully concluded in Geneva before such a Bill is passed?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. These are indeed extremely complex and complicated negotiations, involving a wide variety of interests. They pose problems for every country. But we are seized of the great difficulty that there would be for world trade if there were a failure in the current round of negotiations.

I asked whether the talks could be concluded before such a Bill was passed.

In this connection the United Kingdom and, I think, the majority of Community countries draw a distinction between the completion of negotiations and the conclusion of an agreement. It is the settled view of the Community that there is no question of our concluding an agreement until the Congressional problem has been solved.

I wish my right hon. Friend well in the multilateral trade negotiations, but is he aware that there is another set of trade negotiations in danger of breaking down today? Will he use his best offices to make sure that the commodity negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion?

We have been following the negotiations in Geneva very closely. Indeed, I received reports about them over the weekend. I do not think that the danger of a breakdown is quite as serious as was reported in some of the newspapers today. But, clearly, they are very difficult negotiations. They have been going on for a very long time. There requires to be flexibility on both sides of the argument, but we very much believe that it is important not only for international trade but for the maintenance of a meaningful North-South dialogue that the negotiations be brought to a conclusion.

As one of the main difficulties in these long-running negotiations concerns national subsidies to ailing or vulnerable industries, can the Secretary of State give us any guidance as to how much of the trade between developed countries is now affected by those subsidies, and what are the prospects of multilaterally reducing them?

This is an extremely difficult area of the negotiations, because it is extremely difficult to detect just what subsidies are in operation and how they affect trade. Such things as the movements of currency can be regarded as affecting world trade just as much as overt actions by Governments to support their industries. I can go no further than to say that we are examining the matter carefully. There are some actions that the United Kingdom Government take in connection with the regeneration of our industry and the development of our regional development policy that we regard as very important.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any immediate plans to meet representatives of the film industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will be providing preliminary information prior to the drafting of legislation to establish a British film authority; and, if so, in what form this will be provided and when.

My right hon. Friend and I are always ready to meet representatives of the film industry. I have had discussions with the representatives of the British Film Producers Association, the Association of Independent Producers, the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association and the Association of Independent Cinemas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has also met the chairman of the Interim Action Committee and some of his colleagues. I hope to make a statement at about the turn of the year regarding future legislation.

Can the Minister therefore say that there will be some legislation on the matter during this Parliament, or that there will not? We should like clarification as to whether or not there is a definite intention to legislate. This is the point that is causing the anxiety.

We certainly intend legislation in this Parliament, in the form of a National Film Finance Corporation Bill, because we are committed to ensuring that the NFFC has enough funds for the next five years, or until it is subsumed under the British film authority. We are certainly committed to ensuring that its funds do not run out in this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent meetings he has had with the Association of British Travel Agents.

I am meeting the president and other representatives of the Association of British Travel Agents tomorrow.

When my hon. Friend has such a meeting, will he ask ABTA whether it can devise more effective ways for its members to make clear their membership of the association to customers who walk in off the street, in order to protect customers who deal with non-ABTA members and subsequently run into disputes about their holidays? Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of firms, including such firms as Odyssey Travel, trading from Oxford Street, are not ABTA members and do not advertise the fact that they are not, and it would be better if ways could be found by ABTA to have a clear and distinctive sign to encourage members of the public to notice with whom they are dealing?

I do not think that the problem arises among those who are members of ABTA. If they are members of ABTA, I am sure that they take every opportunity to advertise that fact. The trouble arises with people who are not members of ABTA. However, I suggest that if my hon. Friend has any specific problem that I can broach with ABTA when its representatives come to see me tomorrow, he should give me details of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek to arrange that aircraft will not be allowed to take off from airports near built-up areas during the half-hour when outdoor services are held before the two minutes silence on Remembrance Sunday.

There are restrictions on aircraft taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick to ensure that the two minutes silence is not broken, but a prohibition on take-offs for half an hour would impose unacceptable constraints on the handling of air traffic. Arrangements at other airports are primarily a matter for the airport authorities concerned.

What about what is acceptable to people on the ground? Cannot the hon. Member show rather more respect to the quite large number of people who, for just half an hour every year, want to concentrate on remembering those who laid down their lives for the country in two world wars? For example, at Twickenham last Remembrance Sunday, a fortnight ago, 400 people were interrupted during the half-hour service nine times by aircraft taking off. Cannot he take another look at this?

I am sympathetic towards the comments of the hon. Member. However, what he suggests would lead to very great difficulties about the stacking of aircraft. Already a constraint is imposed so that there are no take-offs during the period just before and just after the two minutes silence. As for the hon. Member's comments about Twickenham, this is the first complaint that I have received. Generally speaking, over the years very few complaints on this matter have been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the operation of the multi-fibre arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that all the countries involved are observing the multi-fibre arrangement.

There were bound to be some problems in the first year of operation of new and complicated arrangements, but I am satisfied that they are now operating broadly as was intended.

May I also welcome my right hon. Friend's new appointment and trust that he will show sympathy towards the problems of the textile industry? In this connection, is my right hon. Friend concerned about the present and potential imports of blankets and other textile products from Eastern Europe, Spain, Portugal and Greece? As there are to be separate quotas for the first time next year for blankets, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet a deputation from the British Blanket Manufacturers' Association, which is most concerned about the upsurge of imported blankets?

I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and certainly I shall pay careful attention to the needs of the British textile industry. He will appreciate that this Government have done more than any other, especially through the multi-fibre arrangement in terms of product coverage and future growth of imports, to protect the interests of our textile industry. We have noted the position about blankets and, of course, I shall be very glad to meet a delegation.

Although I recognise what the Government have achieved in these arrangements, is not it correct that there has been a 15 per cent. increase in value terms already this year over last year? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among all in the textile industry, many of whom were very strong supporters of the EEC, about the extension of the EEC to include countries from which further low-cost textiles will be admitted into the EEC?

Dealing with my hon. Friend's first question about the levels of imports, he will bear in mind that some of the imports are re-exports and that some are consignments which reached the country before the 1978 quota came into operation. He will also bear in mind that the MFA took as its base the 1976 levels of imports and that there was a decline in 1977, so that some increase was bound to occur under the agreement. I must emphasise that no quotas have been reached so far as we can detect, and we police these matters very vigorously.

Has the position with regard to imports of cotton yarn and knitted shirts from Greece improved? What is the present position as regards Portugal? Have the outstanding matters been agreed? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied generally with the enforcement arrangements?

I can confirm that we have reached agreements about textile imports from Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Since thoughts are already turning to a renewal of the MFA eventually, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the EEC that our country's national interest is very well served by a restraint on imports which has skilfully avoided any retaliation against our textile exports?

The hon. Member will know that the MFA will continue until 1982. However, the point of view which he expresses is one which the Government share completely and which we state as often as we can within the counsels of the Community.

Is there any means whereby my right hon. Friend can use the measures in the multi-fibre arrangement to deal with the problem of the fibre involvement in the tyre industry? Is he aware that continuing imports of cheap tyres from Eastern Europe and the Far East are posing a great problem, especially to crossply tyres in areas such as my constituency and the India Tyre factory? Can anything be done to prevent it?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that his question is slightly wider than the multi-fibre arrangement—indeed, it is outwith its scope. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been in touch with the tyre cord manufacturers on this matter and is pursuing the very question that my hon. Friend raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects next to meet the chairman of British Airways.

I expect to meet the chairman very shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend remind Sir Frank McFadzean that, as the former chairman of Shell, he ought to know all about Rhodesian sanctions busting and, therefore, should take immediate steps to stop British Airways from acting against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law by remitting profits from its Salisbury ticket office to a Swiss bank account? Will the Government order an immediate inquiry into this?

My meeting with Sir Frank McFadzean will be confined to his capacity as chairman of British Airways, and I hope to have an interesting discussion with him about that matter. As for the other matter raised by my hon. Friend, I am looking at the arrangement to which he referred, and I cannot anticipate the outcome of my further investigations into it.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he tell him that he is as well aware as his Department is of the way in which British Airways inhibits the sale of tickets on the sector between London and Gibraltar to the disadvantage of the people of Gibraltar and travellers from this country and, what is more, is making sure that those tickets are available to its own subsidiaries? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ask the chairman why, if his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence wish to travel on a night flight, they are charged a surcharge of £750 per flight to land at Gibraltar?

I am afraid that I cannot give specific answers to the hon. Member since I did not have notice that he intended to raise quite detailed matters concerning the operations of British Airways. Whether I raise that matter with Sir Frank McFadzean on an already full agenda is a matter that I shall have to consider further. But perhaps the hon. Member will give my Department more details of his concerns.

When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman, will he inquire whether Jewish passengers on British aircraft are still banned from landing in Syria, this being a matter that I have raised with him previously?

I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for aviation, and I understand that he has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend. I would rather leave the matter on that basis, because it may be possible to reach a satisfactory outcome.

In view of the importance, particularly in these troubled times, to the United Kingdom of the air link with Northern Ireland, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a £70 return fare London to Belfast is appalling? Will he not therefore tell the chairman when he sees him that if he cannot cut costs and bring fares down the Minister will be obliged to support any pri- vate operator which can offer a more reasonable service?

The hon. Gentleman will know more than most that there are some additional problems in travel to and from Northern Ireland. That of fares is one with which those who travel from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London are familiar, since it is the same price. But these are matters for the Civil Aviation Authority.

When the right hon. Gentleman sees the chairman of British Airways, he will presumably discuss fare structures in Europe. Could he perhaps make a statement in the House or inform the House on some occasion fairly soon where we stand on the reduction of European fares? I think that British Airways are keen to reduce them, but where does the matter stand? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) has said, fares are absurd.

There are some negotiations going on at the moment, and when a suitable opportunity occurs, I shall make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek to repeal the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the Hairdressing Council set up under that Act has become a shambles, with the chairman acting in an autocratic and arbitrary way, the registrar dismissed and the police now making inquiries into the council's accounts? Since the two hon. Members who were members of that council have now resigned and there is therefore no public accountability of any kind, is it not time for that Act to be repealed and the council wound up and for us to start from scratch again?

I am not sure about starting from scratch again, but if the 1964 Act has been infringed, members of the council can of course take action through the courts: if the chairman has acted in the way alleged or if there are other improprieties, it is possible either to appoint a new chairman or to make other changes using the procedures according to the regulations under schedule 1 of the 1964 Act. I certainly see no reason to change the 1964 Act while this opportunity exists to change the situation.

Is the Minister aware that I have just had my hair cut downstairs? [HON. MEMBERS:"Not very well."] I do not think that that had anything to do with the Hairdressing Council. Do we really need the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 at all?

I can certainly compliment the hon. Gentleman on the achievement of the House of Commons barber. The 1964 Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. The only main change made was that the mandatory regulation proposed in the Bill was changed to a voluntary one.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with other EEC Ministers about the difficulties caused to British merchant shipping by unfair competition from shipping of the Soviet bloc.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when next he proposes to discuss shipping matters with his opposite number in the USSR.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress he can report on the measures proposed to counter the Soviet maritime threat.

The Transport Ministers Council last week adopted a decision limited to monitoring all liner activities on the trade routes from the EEC to East Africa and Central America. Regrettably there was no disposition to proceed at present with the development of counter-measures to meet unfair competition, such as the Soviet threat. I expressed the United Kingdom's disappointment and urged further consideration of this issue. I have no plans for further discussions with the Soviet Minister. There is no point in this until progress has been made in resolving some of the specific issues of concern to us.

Is the Minister aware that the House will share his disappointment that the Ministers have limited themselves to gathering further informa- tion about the unfair competition which is clearly already taking place and has been taking place for some time? Is it not likely to be the result that the shipping companies of member countries will suffer further damage in the interim before a decision is taken to act to stop this threat?

This is a point which I have made because I believe that the evidence already is overwhelming in this regard. However, colleagues in the EEC take the view that monitoring is an essential precondition of taking any defensive measures, if they find that defensive measures are called for as a result of that procedure. I think that this is a longwinded way of going about the matter.

If it is decided that further measures are necessary, what measures will the Minister recommend should be taken?

We should be ill advised at this stage to advertise to the Soviet Union the precise steps that we would want to take if we could persuade our colleagues in the EEC to recognise the threat. But we have the powers.

Will the Minister explain why the decision makes no reference to the Soviet threat? Will he accept from this side our welcome of some of the words that he has uttered in answer to this question? However, will he please explain his reference to"further consultations "? What further consultations has he in mind?

The omission of the specific Soviet threat is not a matter of our making. I have consistently tried to persuade colleagues in the EEC to use precisely those terms. The question of consultation will proceed before the next Transport Ministers Council and it will at my request cover a study—I hope I shall be able to persuade the Commission to undertake a study—of the defensive measures which need to be taken. Unless we get that right, I do not think that we have any real chance of securing an accommodation with the Soviet Union, which is what I want.

What, if anything, does the Minister's Department know of the relationship between the cartelised freight charges now being made by our shipping organisations and the actual costs to them of running their ships?

The conference system, which I think my hon. Friend is seeking to impugn, meets the approval not only of the shipowners but of the shippers whom they are intending to serve. There is a large shipper element in these discussions. If they felt that unfair advantage was being taken by the shipowners in the operation of the conference system, they would be the first to complain.

Since the Minister has described the EEC's efforts as longwinded, is there not a case for this country taking unilateral action on this matter, as the French have done, for example, over the oil measures? Is there anything in the Treaty of Rome which would prevent us from taking unilateral action?

It is not a question of the Treaty of Rome: it is a question whether such action would be useful and rational. I believe that if we did that, all that would happen is that we would expose ourselves to the blast of possible counter-measures by the Soviet Union without anybody else in Europe suffering. I simply do not believe that it is reasonable for us to adopt a unilateral design in this matter.

The Minister has already said that difficulties are being caused to our shipping industry by the Soviet bloc. He claims that it is difficult for us to take unilateral action. There is one unilateral action that we could take, and that is to cancel the Polish shipping order, which will result in dumped cut-price competition for our shipping industry and which was decided exclusively by his Government.

Uncharacteristically, the hon. Member has taken a totally irrelevant point. I am talking about the Soviet threat. Generally, when the Poles are members of conferences they adhere to the rules of conferences and there is much less difficulty in that regard. I think that the hon. Member's suggestion would promote further unemployment in the shipbuilding industry, which is a view that we on this side do not share.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the imports and exports of steel for the latest convenient period for which he has figures.

In the 12 months ended October 1978, 3·85 million tonnes of ingots, semi-finished and finished steel were imported and 4·16 million tonnes were exported.

Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations because at least the figures are on the right side for the first time? However, my constituents who make steel, and who could make much more, still think that the import totals are too high. Will the Minister take into account rumours coming from British Steel that it is not satisfied with the European arrangements which are being negotiated and that there is some fiddling going on which is to our disadvantage?

I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend refers when he says that there is some"fiddling going on which is to our disadvantage ". I can assure him that the Commission, with our support, has established a base price scheme for a wide range of sensitive steel products. Imports from third countries which are below the base price are liable to anti-dumping regulations. The Commission has also negotiated voluntary restraint arrangements with 15 main countries which export to the EEC. These arrangements have restrained the growth of imports considerably. The Commission is now negotiating for 1979. We hope that not only will these measures be maintained but that they will be extended.

In the Minister's judgment, what in the past year has been the overall effect on the import-export balance of the Davignon proposals—for the European steel industry in general and the British Steel Corporation in particular?

I cannot give a quantified answer. But there is no doubt that the Davignon proposals have introduced a measure of discipline, particularly within the EEC. That has assisted the balance of trade because there has been some restraint on the growth of imports into the EEC. There has been no significant export retaliation.

Is the Minister aware that the export of steel from this country would be facilitated if there were better access to capital goods markets within Europe? Is he aware that fabricators within Europe often get cut price steel to supply to British process plant customers at a cheaper price than British fabricators can obtain in order to sell to European customers?

That is a problem for the British Steel Corporation. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that there are ways in which the Government can assist. If he is, we shall be glad to examine them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the main import penetration problem is not from outside the EEC but from inside, particularly from West Germany? Does my hon. Friend admit that we have no powers to prevent this?

I am aware that the Sheffield special steels industry has suffered badly in the past year, particularly from exports from Germany, Italy and, to some extent, France. The Secretary of State for Industry wrote to Commissioner Davignon about this. We have just had a reply. The Commissioner is now examining price practices for special steels on the basis of article 60 of the ECSC treaty and is looking at methods to improve price discipline by the harmonisation of price lists. This is not as much as we wanted but it is a helpful reply. We shall study it and reply soon.

The Minister mentioned the Sheffield steel industry. Are the Government supporting a policy of market sharing for domestic industries which are in temporary trouble, plus a minimum price which is agreed by the main producers in that industry? Several industries are now approaching the Government with such schemes which might come up against the EEC competition rules. What is the Government's policy on special industries which are in difficulty? What is the Government's position on market sharing and minimum prices?

The Commission has already established a mandatory minimum price policy for three product groups and a non-mandatory guidance price system for another five product groups in the steel industry. Our policy is to seek the extension of this policy and to ensure that special steels are brought within the ambit of this policy which, up to now, has been restricted to bulk steels.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will reconsider his decision to give Teesside airport category C status.

The Government will keep the role of individual airports closely under review, but as of now I foresee a positive growth of traffic for Tees-side airport within its present status.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the current year it is expected that the traffic at Teesside airport will increase by about 70 per cent. and that the surpluses will more than double? Will the Minister therefore pay careful attention to the increase of business passing through the airport with a view to reconsidering the decision not to give the airport category B status?

I am glad to have confirmation of the information that I have received about the prospective growth in traffic of Teesside airport. This indicates that the category C status has not inhibited growth. I adhere to the view that it is not possible for the North-East to support two category B airports.

Is the Minister aware that there will be considerable disquiet about his answer, in view of the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth)? Is he aware that many people who are most directly involved with the airport find the arguments for refusing to give category B status to the airport wholly unconvincing?

The hon. Member might assert that, but I hope that the evidence about growth will give the lie to the argument that a stigma attaches to category C status. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, I cannot resile from the judgment that I have made.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether other EEC Governments have yet fulfilled the expectation he declared on 25th May 1978 that they would follow a reporting format for their national companies operating in South Africa similar to Annex 3 of Command Paper No. 7233.

The West German and Belgian Governments have sent the United Kingdom reporting format to their employers' organisations and the Danish Government have sent out a reporting instruction based upon the United Kingdom White Paper which was at the same time enclosed for information.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, although it is important that there should be a steady improvement in the working conditions of black people in South Africa, it is also important that the British Government do nothing to put British companies in South Africa at a disadvantage compared with their international competitors?

We believe that the code takes account of the realities of the situation in a practical way. If it were more widely adopted we would make progress. The United Kingdom has taken a useful lead in this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure not only that all the EEC Governments accede to the code of conduct but that they take active steps to ensure that it is operated? Does he agree that while the evil of apartheid is allowed to continue it is essential that Britain should be seen not to be contributing towards making circumstances even worse for the black workers of South Africa?

I agree with the necessity of seeing practical results. That is why we did not leave the matter on the basis of accord but sought to achieve agreement on a reporting format. The United Kingdom has taken a lead. We shall continue to press our views upon the Nine. We have commended the formula to all the OECD countries. We shall continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now take steps to amend the guidelines applicable to section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 so that aid can be made available nationally to suitable projects, rather than remain restricted to development areas only.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to extend the areas of the United Kingdom eligible for financial assistance under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend announced in a Written Answer on 22nd November, the Government have decided to make this assistance available in future in intermediate areas as well as development and special development areas to which it had previously been confined. We shall review the eligible areas in two or three years' time.

Is the Minister aware that judging from that answer constituencies such as mine, which are dependent on the tourist industry, will not receive the assistance to which they are entitled? Is he aware that the Isle of Wight is trying to extend its season and that it needs substantial financial input to improve facilities? Other parts of the country such as North Wales are receiving substantial sums. Is it not time that the scheme was operated on a countrywide basis rather than the money going to the intermediate and development areas?

The hon. Member is wrong in his original premise. About two-thirds of the Government's tourism budget is spent across the whole country. It is not limited to development and intermediate areas. We are talking here about the bricks and mortar provided for in section 4 of the 1969 Act. For that the budget is £2 million to be paid in the next year to the development areas. To provide the extra £1½ it seemed best to restrict the allocation to the intermediate areas otherwise the butter would be spread too thinly.

Does the Minister appreciate that there are different criteria for helping the tourist industry? Why is he so much against the South of England which could make a contribution if it were to receive help from the Government?

We are not against assisting the South of England. Promotional expenditure is not regionally limited. It goes to the whole country. Considerable benefit is derived from that. We have to decide how a relatively small amount of assistance for building and projects can be best spent. Our view is that it should be limited to those areas which have considerable unexploited tourist potential and a high unemployment level.

Is the Minister aware that in the Aberdeen area there is a considerable welcome for the proposal to extend tourism assistance to intermediate areas, a move that is long overdue? What estimate has the Minister made of the additional employment what will be created by this decision?

I cannot give a direct answer to that question because it will depend upon the way in which the money is spent. I estimate, however, that it will involve at least a few hundred new jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of United Kingdom imports consisted of manufactured goods during the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding proportion five years ago.

In the 12 months ended October 1978, imports of manufactured goods accounted for 63 per cent. by value of our total imports, compared with a figure of 56 per cent. for the year 1973.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that its meaning is catastrophic for the British economy? Is he aware that much of the increase in the importation of manufactured goods arises from decisions by large multinational companies to import manufactured goods into Britain as a matter of company policy? Is he further aware that this has nothing to do with the operation of any alleged laws of free trade? Does he agree, therefore, that this points to the urgent need for planning agreements which incorporate international trading policy?

I do not believe that the situation is as catastrophic as my hon. Friend suggests. It probably represents a structural change in the pattern of our imports which brings the level of imports of manufactures in the United Kingdom more or less into line with the position in Germany, France and the United States. If anything, the import propensity for manufactured goods has been higher in those countries since 1973.

Does the Minister understand that the figures he has quoted illustrating the relative decline of manufacturing industry in the past four years have particularly damaging consequences for jobs and living standards in the West Midlands where Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country are so heavily dependent on this kind of industry? Does he realise that the latest increase in the minimum lending rate will worsen the situation in that it will lead to less vital investment being made in the future?

The minimum lending rate is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In no sense did the figures I gave suggest that there had necessarily been a relative decline in manufacturing. Although there has been an increase in the level of manufactured imports, that was more or less matched by an increase in the level of manufactured exports. Last year our manufactured exports grew by 8 per cent., which was twice the increase in world trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will institute a sample quality control on vehicle bulbs for which import licences have been requested and refuse such licences when the quality is inferior to that of British-produced bulbs.

As vehicle bulbs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom without the need for importers to obtain individual import licences, I receive no requests for licences for these products.

Will my hon. Friend look at the serious situation which has arisen in British industry, particularly in my constituency, as a result of the flood of bulbs from Korea and Taiwan which could lead to unemployment? Even more important, will my hon. Friend consider the extent to which the inferior quality of the light from these bulbs makes road accidents more likely?

We have received no requests from the Lighting Industry Federation for restrictions on these imports. It has tried to assemble a European antidumping investigation about domestic light bulbs but not about vehicle light bulbs. The safety aspect to which my hon. Friend referred is a matter for the Department of Transport, which is considering a request for the provisions of EEC regulation No. 37, which provides for acceptable standards of vehicle bulbs in the United Kingdom, to be made mandatory.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how the French proposals for dealing with oil pollution at sea differ from those which his Department currently endorses; and if he will make a statement.

Both the United Kingdom and the French contingency arrangements for dealing with oil spills at sea are based primarily on the use of dispersants sprayed from ships.

Is the Minister aware that the French have taken action in their Parliament which gives their Government far wider powers than anything proposed by the British Government, even in the Merchant Shipping Bill? Is he further aware that many people would prefer that example to be followed in this country even if, as I understand, the Minister believes that some of the French action may be hard to uphold in the international courts, rather than to have to argue about the pollution which may occur if strong parliamentary action in the form of preventive measures is not taken soon?

It is a question always of balancing the need to buttress the authority of IMCO, the United Nations agency which deals with these matters, with our requirements. I feel we shall achieve that as a result of enacting the Merchant Shipping Bill, and as a result of the action that we are considering with our EEC colleagues. The hon. Member will bear in mind the increase in port state authority that has been conferred by the memorandum of understanding of the North Sea States.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Le Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise of 4th August where it is shown that a ministerial committee for the sea has been created, reporting directly to the President, and composed of—so that I may get it correct I shall quote—

" the Minister of the Interior "—

Order. Quotations are not permitted in the course of Questions. Perhaps the hon. Member will quickly memorise it.

For the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer only to notes, and not quote. The committee is composed of the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Economics, the Minister of the Budget, the Minister of Trade, the Minister of the Environment and Ministers concerned with coastal matters. Would it not make a great deal of sense if the British Government took a leaf from the French book and set up a ministerial committee of this sort? The first action of the French committee was to impose a massive fine on the operators of the"Amoco Cadiz ". Is he aware that that is having a major effect on the way that oil companies operate their tankers?

The hon. Member should read more widely. He ought to recognise that the French judicial process is quite different from ours. It involves a different means of imposing fines. There is already a wide measure of coordination between Ministers in this Government. That was exemplified in the degree of co-ordination that existed between myself and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and officials representing a wide variety of other Departments and interests in the"Christos Bitas"incident.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the extent of the precautions to minimise the pollution that might occur following a major oil spillage in the Channel.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement about the Government's proposals to reduce the risk of oil pollution on shore from tankers operating near the coasts of the United Kingdom.

Extensive preparations have been made to deal with oil spills in the Channel, as in the waters around the rest of our coastline. We announced the results of our review of those arrangements on 2nd August, and the appointment of Rear-Admiral Stacey as the first director of our new marine pollution control unit on 20th November. The follow-up work to that review is well advanced. The Government remain determined to develop arrangements that are as effective as possible in mitigating pollution.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of public concern about the apparent failure of the arrangements that have been undertaken so far? In an earlier answer he referred to concentrating on dispersants. Would it not be advisable to give more attention to the development of means of containing and recovering oil spilled at sea?

If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to develop his arguments in the debate which is to follow. I am aware of continuing public concern. We do our best to allay that concern. The Warren Spring laboratory devotes a considerable amount of its activities to investigating processes for recovery and containment. As yet no absolutely suitable method of recovery has been devised, but progress is being made.

Is the Minister aware that most people are concerned about what action is to be taken to prevent this kind of event from recurring? They also wish to know what sanctions will be incurred by those who could be guilty of negligence, because these disasters damage the coasts and wild life of our nation, and cause a great many people to contribute money to clear much of the filth which has been created around our coasts. What measures will the Government take to prevent these incidents from arising rather than merely trying to minimise their effects?

I suggest that my hon. Friend listens to the speech which is to be made very shortly on this subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

I shall call the two hon. Gentlemen who have a constituency interest in this Question. I call first Mr. Adley.

Does the Minister accept that the Warren Spring technology has been heavily based on dispersants, and that there is a need to concentrate more on other measures? Is he satisfied that the effort which Warren Spring is putting into its own technology is the best way of proceeding when it appears to be ignoring other similar technology which has the advantage of being able to be lifted into various places by helicopter, whereas the Warren Spring technology appears to depend entirely on fixed ship activity, which relies on the hope that the ship is in the right place at the right time?

I do not regard that as a fair criticism of the activities of Warren Spring. There are severe limitations on the use of helicopters for carrying this kind of heavy equipment. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue these matters further in the debate that is to follow.

Is the Minister aware that the most important matter is the prevention of such accidents? Are there enough pilots to go round to make pilotage compulsory on tankers in most of the areas around the British coasts?

There is a problem about compulsory pilotage. In order to secure an adequate number of pilots, one would have to diminish the number of people serving on the bridge of our merchant vessels. That would not be a satisfactory arrangement. There are a number of other technical problems. I am not satisfied that deep sea pilotage represents a panacea, as a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, seem to think.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to run down the coastguard services at Swanage and St. Aldhelm's Head; and for what reasons.

I have no plans to run down these services, but, consistent with the general policy of increasing VHF coverage in preference to the much less effective visual watch, I propose to make greater use of auxiliary coastguard at these two stations.

I thank the Minister for his sensible reply which will counteract local rumour.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has received any requests from the United States Government for any amendments to the Bermuda agreement on air services.

The United States has not made any specific requests for amendments to the Bermuda 2 air services agreement. However, during air service talks in Washington earlier this month it was agreed, in accordance with annex 4 of the agreement, to continue negotiations with a view to concluding a more liberal agreement for cargo services. Further talks on this subject have been arranged for mid-December in London.

Apart from the question of cargo services, has the Minister noticed the considerable criticism which has emanated from United States Government-inspired sources of the Bermuda 2 agreement? Are the Government still completely wedded to their policies of limiting the number of United States"gateway"cities, and of single designation, except for a few specific routes, for British carriers?

I am not unaware of American criticisms about Bermuda 2, which goes to show that, by and large, we probably got a pretty good deal. Basically, what the deal has achieved is to give British carriers added opportunities. I am most anxious to maintain this. Nothing is totally immutable. We shall listen to reasonable criticism and try to reach reasonable accords. The basic need to protect the interests of British carriers is paramount.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ensure that in any proposals which he may make to bring about employee participation in industry all employees are given equal rights.

The Government's proposals are contained in the White Paper Cmnd. 7231, on which consultations are in process.

Before giving unions the right to nominate people to sit on boards, would it not be advisable to ensure that proper democratic procedures applied within the unions, including the elementary safeguard of a secret ballot for election to office?

That is a quite different matter. The experience of the Tory Party in legislating in that general area is not one which would encourage others to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many employees of Times Newspapers Limited allege that efforts are being made by the management to secure fundamental changes in working practices under duress? Will the Secretary of State say what consultation there has been between himself and the management of Times Newspapers Limited? Further, will he intervene in this dispute to avoid the suspension of publication as from midnight on Thursday, and so allow proper negotiations to proceed?

That supplementary question is a little wide of Cmnd 7231. The Government are watching the position at Times Newspapers closely. We have no plans to intervene.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of the British car market was met by imported vehicles during the last month for which figures are available.

Imported vehicles accounted for 51·7 per cent. of the British car market in October 1978, according to figures published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Will my hon. Friend confirm, or at least consider the proposition, that changes in currency values may not by any means have been adequately reflected in the prices of motor vehicles imported from certain foreign producers? If this is so, is it not the case that this is scarcely compatible with the principle of fair competition?

I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that there may be dumping by some countries. We have had some representations about this and have examined the evidence. If my hon. Friend has further evidence, I hope that he will produce it.

Is the Minister aware of the correlation between increased imports and strikes at Ford? Can he tell us whether the figures for that month were in any way boosted by the Ford strike? Has he formed any estimate of any further increase in imports which will be likely as a result of Government action contemplated against the company, which has been seeking to carry out Government policy?

The higher import figures mainly reflect increased imports by the American multinationals in the United Kingdom, which partly reflect the industrial situation—but not wholly. The level of imports by those companies is high, although I appreciate that, for example, with Ford, a large number of those imported cars have British components. We look to increased British production in future by those companies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures will cause great concern and alarm throughout the West Midlands and will reflect adversely upon the steel industry and all manufacturers of component parts? In view of my hon. Friend's earlier reply concerning the agreement on imported steels, does he not think that it is high time that we sought an agreement to control the number of cars and heavy vehicles being imported? Further, is it not about time that we received a reply to this question which said more than that there would be retaliation by foreign manufacturers?

About 70 per cent. of our car imports are from the EEC and we are precluded, under the Treaty of Rome, from taking restrictive action against them.

Shame.

As for the remainder, the largest supplier is Japan. Here we have taken action. First there have been no direct imports of heavy commercial vehicles. It is too early to say with certainty, but it is possible that the number of cars and light commercial vehicles entering the country from Japan this year will be below the 1977 level of shipments. To that extent, it seems as though the Government's action in respect of those imports could be successful.

Which of the major United Kingdom car producers is in favour of the so-called voluntary restraint on the export of cars from Japan to the United Kingdom?

There have been full discussions with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders by the Government during all the negotiations that they have held with the Japanese. This is not an inter-governmental agreement: it is an inter-industry understanding, which was clarified by the Government in March this year. It had the full backing of the British manufacturers.