asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the names of the organisations, other than local authorities, on the National Airports Advisory Council whose interests are wholly environmental.

In addition to five local authority associations, the Noise Advisory Council is represented on the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is a considerable disappointment to many people that the council does not have on it a representative of any independent environmental group? The impression created therefore will be that it is packed full with those who represent officialdom.

I cannot accept that. That is something of a slur on the Noise Advisory Council. The local authority interests concerned represent environmental as well as other interests. We have got the right balance. But I should like to make it clear that I hope that the consultations which follow the issue of the consultative document will be meaningful, as indeed they were when we produced the airports policy White Paper.

Before asking my question, I hope that my hon. Friend will permit me to extend our felicitations to Mr. Speaker on his birthday. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the consulta- tions will lead to a quick response to the terrible environmental noise hazards in constituencies such as mine?

May I join with my hon. Friend in congratulating Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] I missed my opportunity, but then I did not know. You look younger than ever, Mr. Speaker.

May I save the time of other hon. Members and say that only those who disagree with the proposition need refer to my birthday?

Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman has represented one point of view; there are others. Indeed, on Friday I met hon. Members representing Surrey and Sussex constituencies, together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, to discuss these matters. There is real anxiety about them which we cannot ignore.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the value of trade done to date with the USSR under the £950 million trade pact as announced by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in 1975.

The total value of contracts financed under the Anglo-Soviet agreement is now £444·4 million.

Why has progress been slow, particularly when the credit arrangements were so beneficial to the USSR?

It is disappointing that not more contracts have been received under the terms of the agreement. One reason may be that the Soviet Union is coming to the end of its current five-year plan. A number of fairly large projects are presently under consideration. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that this is not a uniquely favourable credit agreement. Our competitors have similar ones.

If further contracts are to be signed under this line of credit, what is the Government's policy on the currencies in which such agreements are to be financed? If the currencies are either sterling or United States dollars, will that not involve a substantial burden on the British taxpayer, bearing in mind the big difference between the rate of interest which has to be paid on borrowed money and the rate of interest which would be charged on the line of credit for the Soviet Union?

This is a matter which has concerned the Government. The Soviet Union has already agreed to foreign currency financing for a major contract under the agreement. We hope that it will be possible to continue to arrange this for future contracts, as for similar exports to other countries. However, the ECGD has agreed that the Soviet Union may have the option to choose the currency in which finance is expressed.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what consultations he has had with the trade unions concerned upon the possible nationalisation of banks and insurance companies.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the unions concerned are thoroughly against this proposal? Is it not a typical example of the democracy of the NEC of the Labour Party that it should propose to proceed despite the fact that there is opposition from those who work in these industries?

The unions concerned have made their position clear, as have the Government. The Prime Minister made a categorical assertion about this issue nearly three years ago. Sometimes I am as hesitant to accept the advice of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as was his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who summarily dismissed him from his Government in 1972.

Would the Minister be more prepared to accept the advice of employees in banking and insurance who, apart from opposing nationalisation of their industries, are equally opposed to the control of their investments? Are the Government as opposed to that as they are, by implication, to nationalisation?

This matter is being dealt with by the Wilson committee. The unions concerned have made submissions to the Wilson committee, and we should await its recommendations. The hon. Member really should not try to pre-empt its considerations.

Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was a most distinguished and successful member of the Conservative Government? Is it not possibly a commentary on the present Government that the Under-Secretary has lasted so long in the same position?

Actually, I have had tributes paid to me from Conservative Members on the way in which I have carried out my duties. I must say that that makes me a little worried sometimes. I am surprised that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) found that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was so successful. Perhaps that is yet another example of his differences with his former leader, the right hon. Member for Sidcup.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of British exports to Japan for the 12 months ended 31 December 1978; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in 1977.

The value of exports in 1978 was £542 million. The equivalent figure in 1977 was £471 million.

Is the Minister satisfied with the volume of exports of motor cars, motors and engines, and what are our prospects for future improvement?

No, I am not satisfied. Despite the fact that there was an increase of 115 per cent. by value in our exports of motor cars to Japan in 1977, and 41 per cent. in 1978, the level is still extremely low. Nevertheless, I hope that the fact that there will be a major buying mission of 80 senior Japanese business men visiting this country from 25 February to 6 March will lead to significant extra purchases of cars and car components.

Will my hon. Friend make certain that British business is thoroughly informed about this Japanese mission and will take every opportunity to make the most of it? Will he also contact the Japanese side to ensure that this is not just a one-off mission? Will he encourage such missions to come regularly for the next five years so that we can really get the hang of the Japanese market?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do everything possible from the British end to ensure that this is a successful mission. We have made it clear to the Japanese that we hope that this will not be a mere exploratory mission, as was the case in 1973. I assure him that we hope that this type of mission will be a regular feature of the landscape.

Will the Minister confirm that not only did our sales to Japan increase considerably in 1978 but that they increased substantially more than those of most of our European competitors, and that was during a period when the Japanese economy was relatively stagnant? Is this not a considerable credit to our exporters?

Yes. In fact I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Export to Japan unit of the British Overseas Trade Board.

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 what recent agreement has been reached to safeguard the United Kingdom from the import of the most sensitive textile products.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he remains satisfied with the working of the multi-fibre arrangement.

I am reasonably satisfied with the operation of the bilateral agreements negotiated under the multi-fibre arrangement. The EEC Commission has also been negotiating voluntary restraint arrangements for 1979 with a number of Mediterranean suppliers, and agreements with Greece, Spain and Portugal have now been concluded. The agreement with Portugal, which is by far the most important supplier to the United Kingdom, covers a period of three years.

Will the Secretary of State accept that there is a good deal of concern being expressed by the wool textile delegation about the lack of automatic application of the quota arrangements under which, by change of mind by the EEC, representations must be made in a similar way to those made on dumping? Will he accept that this is a matter of considerable concern? Should the import position for textiles worsen, what action will he take?

I had very full discussions with both sides of the textile industry before the last meeting of the Council of Ministers, as a result of which I put forward proposals to the Council for a warning bell mechanism. This would mean that when 75 per cent. of the restraint level was reached, consultations with the exporting country would be set in hand by the Commission. I am glad to say that that has been approved and is now part of the machinery. It is a substantial and important advance for the operation of these arrangements.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the warning bell or safeguard measure to which he has referred has been introduced to ensure that import levels are observed? Also, will he confirm that absolute minimum growth is the underlying approach of his Department in all matters concerning textile imports? Lastly, will he give a clear assurance that in any trade discussions he has with the Chinese the interests of the British textile industry will not be sacrificed for the exporting interests of British capital goods industries?

We are very sensitive to the adverse effects there might be on the textile industry if agreements which did not take its interests into account were reached. I must constantly balance the interests of exporting and importing concerns, both of which provide employment in this country. Certainly I shall bear my hon. Friend's concerns in mind.

Is it not quite clear that on balance the Commission is doing a good job in terms of the responsibility that it has been given? Are we to understand from the Secretary of State's original answer that it is now his intention to try to bring most if not all of the remaining financial agreements within the framework of the MFA? Has he given instructions to that effect to our negotiators in Brussels?

We have had discussions with the Commission during 1978 about the way in which action should be taken when levels are breached. As a result of these discussions, we have reached a very satisfactory arrangement for the future. I must leave matters at that stage.

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the relationship of the GATT arrangements—the Tokyo round—with the multi-fibre arrangement? Is it not the case that the wool textile industry is very concerned about exports from this country to the United States? What progress is being made there?

The hon. Member is quite correct to remind us of the importance of wool textiles in the context of the Tokyo round, because this principally concerns barriers towards exports from this country and others entering the United States. We are one of the countries pressing the Community to take this line with the United States. There are some domestic political problems from the Congress affecting the attitude of the Administration, but the level of withdrawals that the Community might make would depend largely on the United States' attitude. We have certainly taken that point seriously into account, because if there were a change in the position of the United States we could anticipate a considerable increase of exports of textiles from this country to that market.

I must ask for shorter answers, as well as shorter questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade why import-export statistics are not kept for petrol internal combustion engines which can operate on low-lead and lead-free petrol.

The cost and practical difficulties of collecting reliable statistics would be substantial, and would have to be weighed against the benefits of establishing precisely the volume of overseas trade which is known to be small.

In view of the fact that our major export markets, namely, America, Japan, the Soviet Union and West Germany, all require petrol driven engines to run on low-lead petrol and that all Ford vehicles sold here in the last four years are able to run on low-lead petrol, why do not the Government consider it important enough to know what our manufacturers are doing to meet the requirements of those overseas markets, notwithstanding the fact that it should be a requirement of our own that vehicles should run on low-lead petrol?

It is true that we produce a small number of cars which operate on virtually lead-free petrol. The introduction of this more widely depends on balancing the medical evidence about the effects on health with the economic price involved in lead-free motoring which would be considerable in terms of having to solve a number of technical problems, such as the need for lower pressure ratio engines.

Will my hon. Friend give a little more weight to the medical evidence which he is receiving? Is he aware that taxpayers are now spending £8,300 million a year on a comprehensive Health Service? If only we can stop pollution, we can start preventing rather than curing.

I am well aware of the importance of the medical evidence. There have been a number of foreign studies, notably American and German, which the Government are examining, and there are British studies currently in hand. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Security has set up a special working party on the health effects of lead, and we await that report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the EEC for the most recent 12-month period; and how this compares with the figure for 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the latest official figures for imports and exports to and from the Common Market countries as represented in csterling.

Our exports to the EEC in 1978 were £14,104 million and imports from the Community were £16,589 million, giving a crude trade deficit of £2,485 million, compared with one of £2,386 million in 1975.

Will the hon. Member confirm that since 1975 exports to EEC countries have increased by four times as much as exports to other countries? Does not this show how beneficial our membership of the Common Market is?

I cannot confirm the figures given by the hon. Member. How- ever, I can say that at the end of the first three-quarters of 1978 the visible trade deficit with the EEC was £2,162 million and that the visible surplus with the rest of the world was nearly £1,000 million.

Does my hon. Friend recall how the former Secretary of State told us that if we went into the Common Market Britain's trade would benefit and that we would be able to sell to this massive market? Will my hon. Friend now accept that the so-called industrial difficulties, which are of only a temporary nature, pale into insignificance compared with the permanent damage to Britain's industrial base as a result of these massive imports which themselves are resulting in large dole queues? Will my hon. Friend now support on behalf of the whole Treasury Bench the Common Market manifesto which we have just drawn up with the national executive committee stating that we shall pull out if we cannot reform not only this problem but some of the others inside the Common Market?

The permanent effects at membership of the Common Market in trade terms cannot at this stage be established. The question depends ultimately on international specialisation in capital goods production. What is more, there can be no doubt that other economic factors, apart from the mutual reduction of tariff rates—namely, inflation rate differentials, exchange rate differentials and the differential impact of oil prices—are in the long run more important.

Will the Minister be very careful answering these questions, bearing in mind that he himself wrote in an article in The Times just before it ceased publishing that there was no evidence that the deficit had increased in net terms as a result of our membership of the Community?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to that article, draws a completely false conclusion from it. I actually wrote in that article that export-import ratios over the period since we joined the Common Market showed a slower improvement in terms of our trade with the EEC than in terms of our trade with the rest of the world and in fact a slight worsening of the position compared with that before our entry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only have we this huge deficit in trade but that we are paying a very much higher price for our food, that our contribution to the Common Market will be the highest by 1980, and that stupid regulations issued by the Common Market have just caused a serious lorry drivers' strike in this country? What good have we got out of the Common Market?

I accept what my hon. Friend said in his first two comments. His third comment is a rather more complex matter and one which goes beyond the sphere of trade.

Does the Minister agree that our present trading position will not be helped by reports of Danish vehicles which have nothing to do with the present dispute having difficulty in crossing picket lines on Tyneside docks?

This is another matter which will be discussed on a later question on the Order Paper.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our deficit with the EEC is massive and serious? Does not he accept that under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act there is already legislation which we could utilise to reduce the deficit by ensuring decent standards for products flowing in from the EEC? Does not the Department of Trade accept that the only way that we can reform the position and improve our negotiating power within the EEC is by taking a stand and making it quite clear that unilateral withdrawal will be undertaken unless serious reforms are brought about?

The Prime Minister and other Ministers have made clear the British position in respect of quite fundamental reforms under the Treaty of Rome. As for section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, I am not sure what my hon. Friend is referring to, but I am not aware that it is impossible to implement that whilst we remain in the EEC.

Does the Minister accept that, despite his EEC jargon replies, the general public in the United Kingdom are only too aware that none of the multi-benefits has appeared and that all the disabilities are coming to the forefront in increasing number? Is not the answer total reform or total withdrawal?

The immediate answer is neither totally staying in nor totally withdrawing but making certain of fundamental changes, which is the Government's position. As regards the wider effects, of course, there is a balance between political and economic effects. I have tried to make clear that it is extremely difficult to find anything positive to say about the trade effects.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on progress being made towards the introduction of legislation on industrial democracy.

Consultations are in progress on the proposals in the White Paper, Cmnd. 7231.

Is not the real question about the power of the trade unions not whether they have too much, as the Opposition allege, but how trade union power can be used in a constructive manner? Therefore, is not it vital that rather than succumb to suggestions about introducing union-bashing legislation, we should get ahead quickly with promoting industrial democracy?

My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to advancing industrial democracy. We made that clear in the White Paper, and we are continuing consultations about the details of that. I believe firmly that the subject is of the greatest importance to our industrial future. Employees have a right to participate in decisions and relationships, and industry will improve if they have that right.

Would not one of the most significant advances in industrial democracy be the widespread adoption of a secret ballot in industrial disputes? What are the Government doing to encourage the adoption of that practice?

That is a quite different matter from industrial democracy. The way in which the Question was posed—that industrial democracy should proceed—as the hon. Member will discover if he reads the White Paper, or, indeed, the Bullock report which repeated it, is by a basis of ballots held in the work place.

Does the Secretary of State believe, during the current industrial situation, that it is a good idea to proceed with this type of industrial democracy? Does he not feel that it would be better for us to move on more non-controversial and non-partisan lines with the object of securing agreement in the widest possible context both inside and outside the House?

I would certainly like to see a wider consensus on industrial democracy. I am disappointed with the view taken on this matter by certain managements and employers' organisations. We believe that it is necessary for the Government to give it a push forward. The hon. Gentleman might reflect that industrial relations at the moment are far from perfect, and industrial democracy might do a great deal to improve them in future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what effects he expects the current industrial dispute in the road haulage industry to have on exports in the short and longer term.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has been able to make of the amount in value of United Kingdom export trade lost as a result of the recent industrial disputes in the road haulage and related industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that normal trade can continue during periods of economic stress as at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of recent industrial disputes on the United Kingdom export trade.

Exports to a very high value are being held up, though I cannot put a figure on the amount involved. If this were to continue the strikers could cause lasting damage to employment in the export industries. The damage can be limited if we can get goods moving freely in and out of the ports, and I am working with my colleagues to secure this.

I propose to call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

What action has the Secretary of State taken to impress upon the pickets the damage done by this industrial dispute to our trading prospects and to press the point that lost exports will inevitably mean lost jobs for British workers? Is it true that Russian ships are moving goods in and out of our ports while British ships remain strike-bound?

On the first point, the Government have asked the unions concerned, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the URTU, to remind the drivers concerned that under the terms of the code, a great deal of the goods that go through the ports should be allowed through.

In order that we can be clear of the dangers and magnitude of the problem, even though he does not have a value figure, will the Secretary of State say precisely what proportion of exports in the last three weeks have not moved from the ports as a proportion of the total due to this strike?

We have been assessing information of this kind, but it is difficult to give a general answer because the situation varies from port to port. For example, one method of investigation is to assess the drop in certificates of origin issued by chambers of commerce. In some cases, we know that it is one-third. In other cases, it appears to be both higher and lower than that figure. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but it is impossible to give a general and accurate figure.

Is not the Secretary of State aware of the widespread disgust felt by millions of people over the wide-spread picketing they see on our television screens—

Get out.

It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "Get out". It is true. Those feelings amount almost to despair because the Government seem not only unable but also unwilling and disinterested in doing anything about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on from many of my constituents a message to the Prime Minister—"For God's sake, go,"?

The hon. Gentleman's contribution is up to the usual level that he displays on these matters. We should all try so to conduct our affairs that we bring this dispute to an early conclusion. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has helped us to do that.

If the right hon. Gentleman's figure of a fall by one-third in export deliveries is anywhere near the truth, does he admit that this is extremely serious in the short term and long term implications for contracts in British industry? Will he use his influence to persuade the trade unions to include export goods among those categories allowed through without hindrance?

The hon. Gentleman may not have caught precisely what I said in an earlier answer. The Government are extremely concerned about the position. Obviously there is a longer term as well as a short-term aspect of the failure of exports to reach thier destinations. We are acutely aware of that fact and are concerned about the position. We are taking what steps we can to remind those concerned of the value of exports.

Will my right hon. Friend avoid the exaggerations of Conservative Members and their business friends who estimated that there would be 1 million lay-offs last week compared with the actual figure of 200,000?

I am concerned neither to exaggerate nor to under-estimate the effects but to state the accurate position. I have been trying to do that in my answers today.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the postal services have an important role to play in exports? Is he aware of a notice in the House of Commons post office to the effect that the situation in the docks has stopped overseas mail going through them? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Industry to give a direction that an injunction should be taken out to prevent this if it is due to secondary picketing?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who will no doubt note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the cost to the Exchequer through claims on ECGD, which could run into hundreds of millions of pounds?

I cannot give that information off the cuff. I do not carry it in my head. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, I will look into the matter to see whether any answer can be given.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the basic causes of the road haulage strike is the threat of the drivers losing hours and earnings due to the EEC regulations?

I do not think it would be wise for me to be drawn into the merits of this dispute. As the Minister with primary responsibility for exports, my major concern is to see that it is settled as soon as possible so that exports can move again.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this is effectively the worst blockade of our ports since the war? In view of the Christmas and new year holidays, even if there is a settlement today, it will have gone on longer than any other strike affecting our ports since the war. As Secretary of State for Trade with responsibility for these matters, will he say clearly and specifically whether he welcomes the injunction that has been granted in the courts to restrain secondary picketing at the docks? Is he pleased about that? Does he think it will help?

It applies to one man.

I dónot think it is helpful in the present dispute to consider how it ranks with others in this country since the war. Our major concern is to ensure that we get our exports moving again. On the second question, I have not had an opportunity to study the judgment. I am busy at the Department of Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from persons and organisations concerned with general aviation concerning recent and prospective increases in costs in that industry which arise from Government policies.

I have received a letter from the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association Ltd. about the implications for general aviation of the Government's proposal to phase out vehicle excise duty and to replace it with an increased duty on hydrocarbon oil.

Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the proposal is not designed to increase revenue but that it will increase taxation on the general aviation industry by about £2 million a year? Who is to get the benefit of that £2 million tax on business and industry? Is it the private motorist? Will the Minister take action to make sure that the £2 million is fed back in some form of benefit to the industry from which it has been filched?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for almost eight and a half years. If he has not learned that questions relating to taxation ought to be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it seems to me he is incapable of learning anything.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the incompetent nature of the Under-Secretary's reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what have been the volume and value of exports of rail- way engineering products in the last year for which figures are available; and how these compare with the previous two years.

The value of these exports in 1978 was £82 million compared with £39 million in 1977 and £37 million in 1976. With permission, I will circulate the remaining information requested in the Official Report.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous programmes of capital expenditure on railways in the leading countries of the world this year? Is he satisfied that the British railway engineering industry, with its lead in technology over almost every other country, is taking full advantage of these opportunities?

The Government fully support and have part funded for its first three years the British railway industry's export group. The Department of Transport is jointly sponsoring with the British Railways Board the case for a programme of main line electrification, a main purpose of which is to promote exports.

Has the Minister been made aware that the Japanese recently announced that one of their linear motor-propelled trains had reached 500 km per hour and that the Japanese Government are now spending £9 million a year on research into linear motors in this area? Will he now reconsider some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology about linear motor development in this county?

That, of course, is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport.

Is my hon. Friend aware that people in Swindon very much welcome the Government's support for railway exports and also for the British railways? Is he also aware, or in any event will he note, that, as a result of Government policy and railway policy, Swindon—this is the first time that such a thing has happened since 1962—will be completing the first railway locomotive for Kenya on Wednesday of this week?

I congratulate those responsible for that important export.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the most up-to-date figure for the annual amount by volume of whisky exported (a) in bottle and (b) in bulk.

In the 12 months ended December 1978, 74 million proof gallons of Scotch whisky and Northern Irish whiskey were exported in bottles and 32 million proof gallons in bulk.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern within the Scottish trade union movement about the damaging effect of bulk exports on jobs in the bottling, capping and packaging industries, as well as the long-term damaging effects on the whisky trade itself caused by certain distillers exporting whisky in bulk to overseas companies, which in turn mix it with their own inferior spirits and pass it off as genuine Scotch whisky? If the distillers themselves cannot face up to this with the same degree of responsibility as the trade union movement, is it not about time that the Government stepped in to stop this practice?

The Government are certainly very much aware of this problem. That is why we asked the NEDO distilling sector working party to produce a report on this matter. My hon. Friend will probably know that that was published last month. Its conclusion was to recognise the undesirability of bulk exports but also the difficulty of blocking them in a way compatible with our international trade obligations. But we look for a united front within the industry, which at present is not forthcoming. I should be very glad to discuss this matter further with my Friend—perhaps over a drink.

Is the Minister aware that, although there are differences of opinions within the industry about export in bulk, there are no differences about the real difficulty that the Scotch whiskey industry faces at present in respect of parallel exports and dual pricing? He referred to the sector working party report. Does he support its recommendation that pressure should be put upon the EEC Commission to accept a more realistic approach to this problem?

We are well aware of this problem of dual pricing, particularly as it affects distillers. All that I can say about the sector working party report at this stage is that we are closely studying its implications, including the one mentioned by the hon. Member.

Has my hon. Friend noted that when a question such as this is raised, which is of such importance to the people of Scotland and our export trade, not one member of the Scottish National Party is present, either in bulk or in bottle?

Perhaps they have gone out for a drink.

Since there is a section of the Japanese delegation arriving next month which will be dealing with the foodstuffs area of consumer products, can my hon. Friend take up this matter with the Japanese in an attempt to persuade them that the best way of improving relations with Britain in this field is by importing in bottle rather than in bulk?

We shall certainly be making that point to the Japanese. I am glad that, last March, they made an advance cut of 12½ per cent. in the tariff on Scotch, but we are pressing the point that we want a further and bigger cut in order to reduce the over-large differential in import duty between bourbon and Scotch.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has presented to the EEC Commission any substantiated allegations of dumping in relation to domestic appliances.

My Department has passed to the EEC Commission allegations that certain domestic appliances are being dumped. As yet none of these has been substantiated.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among domestic washing machine manufacturers, particularly Hoover and GEC Schreiber, in my constituency about their difficulties in proving dumping because of the hidden subsidies given by the Italian Government? Is he further aware that one of the major importers of these machines is the nationalised Electricity Council? Does he think that that is right?

We are aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In July 1976, we passed to the EEC Commission an anti-dumping application on behalf of the relevant trade association, but the Commission—perhaps for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—did not find dumping proved. I hope that it will be some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government have told the industry that they are now prepared to explore other avenues, given that that one is closed. The question of electricity board purchases is another matter that we are now taking fully into account.

Will my hon. Friend deal with this matter urgently? Workers in my constituency and other Welsh constituencies who are producing washing machines, including automatic machines, are convinced that the price determined for these imports is based on some support action being taken for the home industries which is not taken in this country.

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. The problem is that since 1977 anti-dumping powers have gone to Brussels; the British Government do not have them any longer. That is why I have said—this is all that I can say, given the powers that we have—that we are determined to pursue this matter through other avenues.

What other avenues?

In the interests of the industry and of achieving some success in this matter, I would prefer not to say.

Now that responsibility for investigating dumping allegations has passed to the EEC Commission, is my hon. Friend satisfied that a better job is being done than his Department used to do?

That would be difficult, but I think that the Commission has undertaken a number of cases since it took over powers from us. Of course, its performance has been affected by the fact that at least one member of its staff came from the Department of Trade.

Will the Minister say what are these other devices, bearing in mind that his Government are supposed to believe in open government? If they are to threaten importers, at least we should be told with what other devices they will threaten them.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to press this. He must realise that we are in difficulties because of the distribution of powers in this matter, but there are other ways in which this can be pursued. It is not in the interests of the industry itself—either of those who run the businesses or of the workers—for one to be too explicit about this. If the hon. Gentleman is asking a sincere, and not a political, question, he should accept that.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Commission's facilities for investigating dumping complaints? What backlog is there in the number of complaints awaiting investigation?

I cannot say the size of the backlog in anti-dumping cases in Brussels. It would probably be helpful if the number of staff in the anti-dumping division there were increased. Certainly they have been heavily engaged, particularly over steel questions, but on the other hand they have responded promptly, within the limits of their manpower, to requests from Britain.

Does my hon. Friend regard the transfer of these powers to Brussels as one of the benefits of EEC membership?

It is one of the general consequences.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many cars and goods vehicles, respectively, were imported during each of the past five years; what percentage of the total vehicles sold in the United Kingdom this represents; and how many were from other countries outside the EEC.

With permission, I will circulate this information in the Official Report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many cars are being imported into this country? What does he propose to do to take some action against cars coming in? Is he quite satisfied that cars are not coming in through unfair competition? Will he tell his right hon. Friend that it is time that he did some work inside the Cabinet and got the Cabinet to agree with the CBI and the TUC to send out a statement to the managerial side and the workmen of Britain to the effect that unless we produce better and a greater number of cars than we have done in the past, and at the right price, we shall lose many more jobs in this industry?

My right hon. Friend has certainly been extremely active in the Cabinet in general discussions on this matter. The Government have made clear their position. Certainly I agree with my hon. Friend that the number of cars being imported is far too high. I am thoroughly dissatisfied by the fact that there was an increase in the level of import penetration from 45 per cent. to 49 per cent. last year.

Does not the Minister agree that to get these figures in proper perspective one needs to see the proportion of British components in those cars? Does not he agree that these stupid and unnecessary strikes are stopping those components from being exported? Will some member of the Cabinet have the guts to tell the strikers that they will lose the markets once and for all?

Of course, industrial disputes are damaging both to production and to exports. But I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being far too facile if he automatically assumes that those who go on strike are necessarily the cause of that strike.

With reference to my hon. Friend's remark about the Japanese restraint agreement, does not he agree that a far better method of reducing the number of Japanese cars coming into this country would be, through the EEC Commission, to bring pressure upon France and Italy, which seem to have some means of restricting the entry of Japanese cars to their markets and thus increasing pressure upon ours?

My hon. Friend has a fair point. I believe that the Italians have an agreement which restrains Japanese car imports which predates the accession of Japan to the GATT, which, under the grandfather clause, enables it to continue to prevail. In the case of the French, I think that the import penetration level is about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. compared with our 11 per cent., and that is, indeed, one of the mysteries. I wish that we could roll back the clock in Britain to that position.

If it is not those who go on strike who cause a strike, who is it? Is it the Government, or is it employers who are refusing to break the Government's guidelines and increase pay? Will the Under-Secretary say whose fault it is that a strike occurs, if it is not the fault of those who actually go on strike?

The hon. Gentleman is not making a very profound point. He knows perfectly well that strikes are a very complex matter and that their causes run very deep. They are certainly, in almost every case, wholly the fault of neither one side nor the other. Management, in many cases, bears its due proportion of the blame.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he last met the chairman of the Council for the Securities Industry.

I have not yet had an opportunity to meet him.

When my right hon. Friend does meet the chairman, will he tell him that some of us on the Labour Benches would have much greater faith in the Council for the Securities Industry if it had a rather higher profile and we could see some of the work that it was doing? Will he also discuss with him the relationship between the officials of his Department and the activities of the council? Is there not a need for officials of the Department to be closely involved in the council's activities and, indeed, possibly to be seconded to it?

The Council for the Securities Industry is a self-regulatory body. As to whether it should give more publicity to its activities, that is, in the first instance, a matter for the council, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concern about that matter is conveyed to the chairman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the latest position in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade multilateral trade negotiations.

Substantial progress has been made in the multilateral trade negotiations on a balanced package of phased tariff reductions, and in the elaboration of codes covering other trade measures. The negotiating partners are holding intensive discussions aimed at completing the negotiations as soon as possible in 1979.

Does the Secretary of State recognise the great importance of the anti-dumping code in these negotiations? If so, how exactly will that code be enforced and in what way will the injury and transparency criteria be made more effective than hitherto?

I am afraid that it is not possible for me to go into detail on that matter at present. I am thinking of ways in which Parliament should be informed of the outcome of these negotiations, and I shall bear that point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make representations to the EEC on behalf of the British industrial fastener industry on the adverse effects the Davignon steel crisis measures are having on that industry.

We presented evidence from the industry to suggest that European competitors had unfair access to raw materials sold at prices in breach of the Davignon plan. The British industry is assembling more information for the Government to pass to the Commission in support of its claims that the Davignon plan is being disregarded.

Is the Under-Secretary aware of the very severe effect that the Davignon agreement is having on the fastener industry, the centre of which is at Darlaston, in my constituency? In the light of the crisis, will he be prepared to meet a delegation consisting of hon. Members, representatives of the British Industrial Fasteners Federation and representatives of the trade unions involved to discuss our representations?

We are certainly hoping that the Commission will enforce the Davignon price rules, and certainly this means providing a more precise definition of the guidance prices for different sizes and specifications of wire rod. On the second question, I should certainly be prepared to meet a delegation once I have consulted my right hon. and hon. Friends of the Department of Industry, who are also closely involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that merely collecting information and passing it on to the Commission is hardly the positive role that we expect to see his Department undertaking? Will he take a more active part in making sure that justice is done to this industry?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking all the action that we are able to take. The point is that it is the EEC Commission which is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the Davignon price rules. All that we are able to do consistent with our powers in respect of the Commission is to seek to persuade and influence the Commission to do that job thoroughly, and that is what we do.