asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent there are governmental limitations on British firms tendering for contracts concerned with the Cabora Bassa dam project.

We do not impose any special limitations. As with any contract, British companies should ensure that they do not contravene the sanctions legislation relating to Rhodesia.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that that reassurance will give great satisfaction, in view of this imaginative programme which will raise the standard of living of over one million Africans?

Why should we prejudice the amount of trade which we have with black Africa, which is infinitely more important to us than the trade which we have with white Africa, by engaging in investment in this highly controversial scheme which is designed to continue racialist oppression in Southern Africa?

The hon. Gentleman makes several suppositions which at present have no substance. We have no investment, and at the moment we have no involvement, in any of the consortia concerned.

While at present our trade with black Africa and with white Africa is roughly equal, is it not a fact that in black Africa many of our assets are being expropriated, and in Southern Africa none? As regards the Cabora Bassa project, is it not extraordinary that those who think that the so-called liberation movements will succeed want to stop the scheme? Why should they not want to inherit a scheme which will enrich all the peoples of all races in this area?

As the Minister particularly charged with duties in connection with exporting, my task is to try to maximise exports in any way which is legal and sensible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which industries the Government have assisted over the past year by imposing or increasing levies or tariffs on imported products.

No new or increased duties were imposed under the Import Duties Act, 1958. Anti-dumping duties under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1969 were imposed on certain imports of dolls' eyes, new potatoes, zirconium dioxide and certain nitrogenous fertilisers. Under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, minimum import prices, maintained when necessary by means of levies, were increased on shell eggs.

The Secretary of State could have added that on 1st July we shall have import levies on certain food products from New Zealand. Can he explain the logic of Government policy in giving protection to agriculture by the imposition of import levies and at the same time offering a threat to the workers in the car industry unilaterally to remove the barriers against imported cars?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my keen desire is, wherever possible, in the consumer's interest, to accentuate the forces of competition; and this was what was in my mind in relation to the motor car industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that levies and tariffs will seldom in the long term assist in the way the Question implies but are more likely to slow down investment and development and to reduce our competitiveness overseas?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole movement of tariff disarmament since the war is proof of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of his studies of the possibilities of removing tariff protection from certain industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has completed his consideration of the economic and employment effects of the abolition of import duty on foreign cars; and if he will make a statement.

As I told the House on 17th May, the Government will continue to keep under review the possibility of a unilateral change in the tariff in relation to motor cars and to other products enjoying substantial tariff protection. After careful consideration, I have decided not to make any immediate unilateral change in the tariff on motor cars. If, however, circumstances arise either in this or in any other industry enjoying substantial tariff protection, where it appears useful to abate, tariffs unilaterally, in order to improve competition, or to deter excessive wage settlements, I shall not fail to do so. In any such case, I will consult those concerned before I reach a conclusion.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Bromsgrove is behind us now? Does not he recognise that his ill-judged statement at the Tory Party conference in Scotland, which will now be very much smaller even than in the past, created a good deal of uncertainty? How comprehensive is his examination of the problem? Does it cover all industries which are now protected? If not, on which criteria does he base his assessment of which shall be protected and which shall not?

The level of tariff protection is separately considered, and it can be considered within the framework of international arrangements. As regards the industry that the hon. Gentleman particularly has in mind, I and many others were concerned with the wage settlements which seemed too easily to be passed on to consumer prices. I was therefore taking that industry as an example. I wish to watch any industry which, behind a high tariff wall, can find means of passing high price increases resulting from high wage settlements.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the electors of Bromsgrove, near-neighbours of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), have recently given a very clear verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's views about tariff barriers? Does not he agree that it would be madness for Britain to remove tariff barriers on cars when British car manufacturers have to export to countries that impose penal barriers to our exports?

I am not certain to which countries the hon. Gentleman is referring. He is certainly not referring to any of those with which we trade extensively in motor cars. I shall continue to keep the matter very much under review if I think that the case justifies it.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the complete removal or tariff protection also removes any preference that may exist in favour of Commonwealth countries, which is often the subject of reciprocal agreements that it might be difficult to abolish?

I am very well aware of the case affecting Commonwealth countries. The import of motor cars built in the Commonwealth is minimal.

Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had been frank with the House and told us that he made a gaffe, that he was thinking aloud on a matter which had not been the subject of consultation? He now says that there will be consultations and that the initial statement was not well-considered. That is why, when pressed, he has nothing constructive to say on the matter.

No, Sir, I do not accept that at all. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in a poor position to comment on those who think aloud.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his candour on this and other subjects is very much welcomed? Can he say whether he ascertained from his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that in the negotiations at Brussels we were preserving for ourselves the option of unilateral adjustments of tariffs, irrespective of the common external tariff?

The abatement of tariffs unilaterally is open to us, on our own decision. When no tariffs exist between ourselves and the Community, the problem will not arise. As regards the C.E.T., we shall undoubtedly be within the framework of our agreements and arrangements within the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Restrictive Practices Acts, 1956 and 1968, so as to permit agricultural organisations to give advice and to make recommendations regarding the marketing of livestock and to recommend the prices to be paid for agricultural machinery.

The National Farmers' Union has recently sent my right hon. Friend a memorandum calling for changes in the legislation in its application to agriculture. We are giving careful consideration to the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the finding of the Restrictive Practices Court, the National Farmers' Union is debarred from supporting the Government's agricultural policy to ensure market stability and that, unless he takes action, it will mean also that the small producer is at the mercy of the big buyer, in contradistinction to what is happening in countries overseas with which we are in competition?

My right hon. Friend will understand that while we are studying the matter it would not be proper for me to comment. However, I am sure that it will be regarded as wholly proper if I congratulate him, on behalf of the whole House, on his recent honour.

Hear, hear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation requiring companies making donations to political parties and pressure groups to make public those donations at the time they are made.

No, Sir. I see no advantage in such a change.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that donations made before the 1970 election need not be made public until 1972. In view of the Government's leaning towards the interests of brewers and others, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be for the honour and reputation of his Government and of Parliament if they were made public immediately?

No, Sir. The extreme delay to which the hon. Gentleman refers is exceptional in any case, but I can see no particular advantage in accelerating publication of the information.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether the trade unions are required to publish their contributions to organisations proscribed by the Labour Party?

No, Sir. I am not aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the light of the Bank of England's new proposals to allow the clearing banks to compete for deposits, he will now refer the other cartel arrangements of the banking industry to the Monopolies Commission.

I propose to await the response of the Clearing Banks to the Bank of England's paper "Competition and Credit Control" before deciding whether to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he accept that in the light of the proposals of the Bank of England paper there should now be no obstacle to the banks' relinquishing their collusive arrangements in other fields?

That will no doubt be a matter raised by the banks themselves in response to the paper.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the difficulties of the Scottish joint stock banks in view of the Bank of England statement, in that their lines of credit might be restricted because of the Bank of England's discussion document?

I take that point into consideration, but I think that it is more a point for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress so far of his discussions with the electricity boards on the possibility of removing from their ownership and control showrooms, contracting and similar other activities in the electrical utilisation field.

I have received the Electricity Council's views and am now considering them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that rather pointless investigation has been going on for a long time, and is causing great worry and uncertainty to staff, and that the electricity supply industry is facing the keenest possible competition? Should not the investigation be dropped and the industry allowed to get on with its job?

There is a general understanding in the industry that these things need to be properly studied before any decisions are reached.

Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that his consultations have not been one-sided? If he is receiving the observations of the electricity authorities in the publicly-owned sector, will he seek the views of private enterprise traders, notably electrical contractors and appliance distributors, who have views widely removed from those of the nationalised electricity industry, including my own view, also widely removed?

I have been receiving the views of other interests concerned, including the private traders. It is because of this that the study is taking some time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance is being given by his Department to civil aircraft programmes other than the Concorde and the RB211.

About £1 million will be spent this year in completing launching aid for the Trident 3B aircraft.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some sections of the aircraft and avionics industry are of the opinion that a disproportionate amount of assistance is going into the Concorde and 211 programme, to the detriment of research and development in other projects which may well hold the key to the future prosperity of those industries? Can he give me an assurance that those projects will be given favourable consideration by the Government, and financial assistance if it is sought?

I can reassure my hon. Friend best by reminding him that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and I have always made clear at this Dispatch Box that we would take very seriously any proposal by any aircraft manufacturer for launching aid for a new project, but we have none before us.

How much is being spent on research and development into a short take-off, inter-city, 150- to 200-seat airliner? In view of its potential, could not this be expedited?

As I have explained to the House on a number of occasions, neither we nor our competitors have yet reached a position of having a precise definition of the parameters of a short-haul, civil, S.T.O.L. aircraft. Conversations and discussions on this matter are going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to enable him to contribute to the extra cost involved in modifying and repairing new Central Electricity Generating Board generating plant which has not worked properly because of design faults, thereby relieving the Board of those costs.

No, Sir. The C.E.G.B. lays down the performance specifications for its plant and is responsible for ensuring that its contractors meet them.

How does the Minister attempt to justify that answer? Why should a State industry be called upon to pay what is estimated to be between £35 million and £40 million towards the repair and modification of this generating plant, which was supplied to it by private industry? Is this yet another example of the way in which the Government intend to hamper and hinder the activities of State industries?

These are largely matters for the contractual relationship between the C.E.G.B. and its main suppliers of plant. They are working it out together.

Can my hon. Friend tell me any good reason why the State enterprise should not pay for its mistakes as the rest of us do?

The plant manufacturers enter into a contract with the C.E.G.B., and I am sure that it is right that the two parties to the contract should resolve these difficulties.

Will the Minister draw the attention of the Board to the very useful Report on the subject prepared by the Select Committee on Science and Technology?

I am aware of that Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the medical products industry to the Monopolies Commission, in view of recent price increases of up to 30 per cent.

If the hon. Member will say more precisely which products he has in mind, we shall consider the case for a reference to the Commission.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Glaxo and Unigate have raised their prices of baby milk food by 30 per cent. and that Boots, which made a profit of about £30 million last year before taxation, has raised the price of nearly all its products by 15 per cent.? Does the hon. Gentleman propose to do nothing about that?

The hon. Gentleman did not specify a particular product in his Question. He will realise that the phrase on the Order Paper, "medical products", can cover everything from wheelchairs to new drugs, and that I therefore could not be more specific in my answer.

The Minister should know that an hon. Member is not allowed to specify in that way. I was told so when I put down the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will issue a general direction to the chairmen of gas boards not to impose charges for repairs arising from conversion to natural gas.

No, Sir. I am informed that gas boards already repair, free of charge, all defects clearly attributable to conversion.

I pay tribute to the manner in which conversion, in general, has been done in my constituency, but is my hon. Friend aware that old-age pensioners and people without much money have been charged, not once, but twice—and this is the case also in South-East Essex—for repairs which, by any reasonable interpretation, arise from the teething troubles of conversion? Will the Department issue a suggestion to chairmen to be a little more accommodating in this matter?

A full post-conversion service is normally carried out by the teams of conversion specialists over a period of eight weeks after conversion, but if my hon. Friend has any particular points that he would like to bring to my notice I shall look into them further.

The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has hit on a crucial point, because the kind of thing to which he referred is happening in my constituency and also, I assume, in the constituencies of many hon. Members. May I ask the Minister to look at another problem concerning gas conversion? It is a growing problem for many retired people. It is the need for them to purchase new gas cookers, which may often cost £40 or £50, to do which they receive no help whatsoever.

Those are matters largely for the area boards concerned. Repre- sentations can be made direct to them, or to the consultative councils which exist to serve consumers in these matters, but I shall be happy to look again into the matters that have been raised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem is a little more serious than he appears to think? In many cases repairs subsequent to conversion go on for many months—not just a few weeks—and these are due entirely to the problems arising from conversion. Is it fair that people with limited means should be expected to meet the cost of these repairs?

I am sure that, generally speaking, repairs directly attributable to conversion are met by the boards but, arising out of this afternoon's exchange, I will look into these matters again.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his Department is not without responsibility in this matter? The functions of the area boards have been hived off under our legislation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago it was revealed to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that it was the purpose of the industry to wipe out the capital value of all the town gas plant, which was valued at £300 million, and to do it quickly? The consumer is to be charged unreasonably because of these operations, merely to cover up the cost of conversion to natural gas, and thus the bonanza which natural gas was supposed to represent has become a mixed blessing to many of our constituents.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's question takes us into wider issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the last inspection was made of the wreck of the munitions ship "Richard Montgomery" in the Thames estuary; what estimate was made of the condition and safety of its cargo; and whether further thought has been given to methods of neutralising the effects of any explosion.

Following the last diving survey in 1965 it was decided that the best and safest course was to leave the wreck and its cargo undisturbed. A recent close survey over the wreck and a study into the feasibility of a protective barrier are being evaluated. We shall tell interested parties our conclusions later this year. There does not appear at present to be a feasible method of neutralising the effects of any possible explosion in the wreck.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in regard to this major hazard to shipping in the Thames Estuary, and the communities on both sides, I was told by the previous Government, in 1969, that the cargo could not be moved because of the possible danger to life of the salvage teams, but that the feasibility of putting a protective barrier round the wreck would be considered? That was two years ago. It is not time that some definite progress was made to deal with what is clearly a serious matter?

The survey is being carried on. It is not simply a question of danger to the salvage teams. If this weight of explosives were to go up, the damage would be much greater than that. We are hoping to get the results of the survey later this year, and we shall communicate them to the people concerned.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise the danger to the town of Sheer-ness and the thousands of people living there if there were to be an explosion? Is he aware of the considerable alarm created recently by reports of ships sailing through the Channel in areas marked to show recent wrecks? Will he recognise that there is considerable urgency in the need to reassure the public that there is no danger of a collision occurring with this wreck in the Medway?

I recognise the possible danger to people living near a wreck of this sort. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of vessels sailing near the wreck, I should look into the matter, because this will help in considering which steps we can take in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to foster the purchase of oil from Nigeria and to reduce Great Britain's present dependence on Middle East oil supplies.

This is a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is something that we should pursue with the utmost vigour, especially in view of the recent negotiations in the Middle East, and also because of the need to secure for British goods a full share in expanding Nigerian markets?

I agree with my hon. Friend that diversifying our sources of oil supplies is important, and in this respect what we get from Nigeria is quite significant.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what credit facilities are being extended by the Export Credits Guarantee Department for British exporters to Bulgaria and Romania.

The full range of E.C.G.D.'s facilities is available for both markets.

I welcome all measures that will help to improve trade between this country and the Iron Curtain countries, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that before offering fresh credit facilities to Romania and Bulgaria, in particular, and before encouraging those countries to borrow again from European capital markets, the Government should make some effort to get a settlement of previous sterling debts to British shareholders who have been kept waiting many years for their money?

I think that my hon. Friend's supplementary question raises a slightly wider issue than is dealt with in his Question but, as long as British exporters are allowed to trade with these countries, I see no reason why they should be deprived of the full insurance facilities which the Department provides.

Will the Minister say to what extent, to encourage trade between East and West, his Government are prepared to take the initiative to reduce the embargo list?

That is an entirely different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the short-term adverse effects on the United Kingdom balance of visible trade if Great Britain should join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantitative estimate he has made of the appreciable down-turn in the United Kingdom's external trading relationships he expects during the first years of membership of the Common Market.

I cannot add anything to the estimate given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 16th December last. Two separate sets of forces will be at work: on the one hand the impact of changes in tariffs and costs, and on the other the beneficial effects of integration into a wider market. All these effects will build up gradually, over a number of years, and I am sure that in the outcome the gains will greatly predominate.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the candour with which he recently admitted that in the short term there would be an appreciable down-turn in trade. Can he say how, if we have to carry this extra burden, he is able to forecast that the Government expect a rate of growth of 4 to 4½ per cent. during the transitional period of four years?

As I said in response to the Question, the dynamic effects will not only emerge much later in the game but will certainly start pretty early. I am convinced that the impact of membership can be counted upon from a relatively early stage to have a dynamic, stimulating effect on the economy generally.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, if any terms are finally presented to the House, the remarks he has made about being sure that there will be a dynamic effect will be totally unacceptable, and that the Government in their White Paper must give a balance sheet and state the pros and cons, so that they can be properly analysed by economists all over the country?

My hon. Friend is being as dogmatic as he reproaches me for being. The truth is that there will be dynamic effects, whether he likes it or not. His judgment of the balance of them is, of course, his own affair.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the upper limit figure of £670 million in the White Paper issued by the Labour Government is now a realistic figure, or should it be higher or lower? Will he give the House information on what the actual cost is likely to be?

As yet it is impossible to give an alternative figure. An alternative figure will be put forward, I feel sure, at the appropriate time. The evidence, such as it is up to date, indicates that the estimates made at that time give an unfavourable situation as compared with those that might be made today.

With regard to the so-called dynamic effects, will my right hon. Friend repeat in this House and to this country what he said with such admirable candour in his Press conference in Stockholm to the effect that these so-called dynamic effects were not capable of assessment or measurement?

I have never failed to say so. It is clear at this time that they are not capable of accurate forward assessment; but that they are powerful and will predominate, I have no doubt.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the process of penalising our world trade for the benefit of a close Western Europe bloc should be described as widening our market?

I do not think that it is so described. What is described as widening our market is abating existing barriers between ourselves and this great, growing market across the Channel.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say which are the factors which have led him to say at the Dispatch Box today that the figures he believes would be accurate are different from those that were earlier presented?

One factor, which the hon. Gentleman will himself have in mind, is the time scale. The years in which the February, 1970, White Paper was cast were quite different from those which are now within the transitional arrangements.

If my right hon. Friend persists in his reply that the economic effects of entry are incalculable, how does he arrive at the conclusion that there will be this dynamic upsurge in the economy?

It is a matter of taking all the factors into account and making the best judgment that can be made. That is my judgment.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed statement giving particulars in tonnage, sterling or description in goods of the estimate of the improvement or worsening of the United Kingdom's trade with each of the East European countries if Great Britain enters the European Economic Community on the terms known and available for entry on Friday, 21st May, 1971.

No such detailed estimates are available.

Is it not strange that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer such Questions as No. 17 or No. 22 or my own, or indeed any question which asks for facts and figures on how entry will improve our trade? Is it not obvious that the Government are trying to sell the people of this country a pig in a poke over the Common Market?

Whether it is possible to give figures in reply to any question must depend upon the question. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know, the present figures for the European Economic Community's trade with Eastern Europe are six times greater than our figures—

That is not my question.

As to the annual rate of growth of trade with Eastern Europe, on both imports and exports the Common Market countries have been growing very much faster than we have.

The Minister has failed to give an answer to my original Question and then he starts answering a question which he puts to himself and which is not relevant to my Question. Are we not now used to this from the Government, trying to kid and bluff and lie to the people?

The hon. Gentleman put down a Question which anyone who studies it for a second would realise had no sensible answer. I know perfectly well the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in trading with Eastern Europe, and therefore I gave him the facts about the greatly increased trade between the E.E.C. and Eastern Europe compared with what we have been able to do in the past because I thought that that might help him in his argument.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are concerned at the adverse balance of trade with Eastern European countries? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government's prospective partners in the European Community are doing better or worse than us in achieving a reasonable balance of trade with Eastern Europe?

At the moment there is a balance in favour of Eastern Europe largely because of considerable quantities of diamonds and other things from Russia. I have not exact figures for the Eastern European countries, but the E.E.C. are trading at a higher level and are, I believe, in better balance than ourselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now reverse his decision to allow imported coal into this country, in view of the build-up of indigenous stocks.

No, Sir. The stocks position has improved but the time has not yet come to review imports, which continue to provide a useful degree of flexibility for consumers and merchants.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the recent increased productivity in the British coalfields, and of the Government's deliberately induced economic slump, stocks have risen much more rapidly than estimated? Does not the importation of foreign coal at £5 a ton more than the cost of British coal make nonsense of the Tory promise about free competition?

Stocks have been improving, as I said, but they are still much lower than desirable and well below the end-May levels in recent years. As for the price paid for imported fuels, that is a matter for those who import them.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of United Kingdom exports is now accounted for by United States companies.

About 16 per cent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that this figure is likely to increase, and will he give the House the figure of imports by American companies? Might there not in the future be an adverse balance of trade position which would be detrimental if we were to enter the European Economic Community?

I do not think that there is any reason to think that these figures are likely greatly to increase. United States firms in this country represent about 12 per cent. of the manufacturing capacity, and, as I told the hon. Gentleman, they are exporting at the rate of 16 per cent. I see no reason why this rather good trend should increase. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the position about imports, I hope that he will put down a Question.

Although I welcome foreign investment in the United Kingdom, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the degree of our dependence upon United States wholly-owned companies in Great Britain is a matter of concern? Does he not also agree that the best way to reduce this dependence would be for this country to gain access to the Common Market?

I have always felt that there was a great deal to be gained, particularly by the development areas, in increasing American investment, and it has been extremely valuable to these areas. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, if we join the Common Market the investment will be in both directions, and this is probably to the benefit of everybody.

Surely one of the main reasons for going into the Common Market is to make it more attractive for American firms to invest here, and the inevitable consequence must be an increase in the trend to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention?

This has been one aspect of American business over here, but in the past American business has found extremely valuable markets in E.F.T.A. and other countries with which we have special relationships.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress of Concorde.

Since my statement on 10th May Concorde has made a number of further flight tests. In addition it has flown to Dakar and appeared at the Paris Air Show where it attracted considerable interest.

Continued interest is not enough. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what causes concern is that the Government are continuing to pour out millions of £s while the decision has not been made? What is the minimum number of firm orders he requires before deciding to go ahead with the production of this aircraft in proper production numbers, and why is he not setting a deadline for the receipt of such orders?

I do not agree with the expression "a decision has not been made". A decision has been made to press ahead with the development of this aircraft. On the question of production and orders, there is a great interest by the airlines. This interest cannot be converted into orders until the full details of performance guarantees are available, as they are not at the moment. I cannot reasonably be expected to reach any conclusion until I have in front of me the full details which my ultimate examination will bring out.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that many of us look to him as "our man in the Cabinet" over Concorde? Is he aware that not only have numerous French Ministers, including the French President, flown in the plane but also the United States Secretary for Transportation? Does he realise that if he visits Bristol or Fairford and takes a flight in the aeroplane many thousands of people employed on the project will be delighted to give him an enormous welcome?

Nothing would give me greater pleasure but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace has priority over me and will in due course, I hope in the near future, take such a flight.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that whatever other considerations there may be, if at any stage the Concorde project is cancelled it will add enormously to the already serious unemployment in the Bristol area?

The employment question is very much in my mind. As yet there is no question of this.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage of registrations of foreign-made cars in 1964 in respect of the total number of cars registered in that year; what was the comparable percentage in 1970; and what was the percentage for the first three months of 1971.

Foreign cars represented about 5 per cent. of registrations in 1964 and about 14 per cent. in 1970. In the first four months of 1971 they were 18 per cent. or 75,000, compared with 12 per cent. or 47,000 in the corresponding period of 1970.

Are not these figures alarming? Combined with the forecast of the president of Volkswagen that the imports of foreign cars into Britain may rise before long to 50 per cent., do they not prove the absolute unwisdom of the right hon. Gentleman's original proposal to make unilateral tariff cuts? Apart from that, is it not reprehensible on his part to use the suggestion that there should be tariff cuts to threaten the living standards and wages of British motor car workers?

I think it was the president of B.M.W. who made that statement. He carried on to say that in due course the penetration of the other markets within the Community would in all cases amount to as much as 50 per cent. and this would give us as great a potential market as, if not greater, than, the penetration which would take place at home.

Do these figures not bear out conclusively the fact that many unofficial strikes will close the British motor car industry and that the public will buy the cars which are obtainable, that is, foreign cars, made in countries where there are no strikes?

There is certainly good reason to believe that the rather exceptionally high figures in the early part of this year owed something to the strike situation at Ford.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests he has now received from British aircraft manufacturers for assistance in funding a feasibility study of reduced take-off and landing techniques; and what replies he has sent.

We have had proposals from the British Aircraft Corporation and we expect some from Hawker Siddeley Aviation. We will reply to them when they have been studied in depth.

How soon does my hon. Friend expect that to be? Will he take this opportunity of reassuring the British aircraft industry that he sees no danger that this area, in which Britain still has a lead over the rest of the world, is one in which we may be overtaken by competitors for the lack of necessary Government stimulation and support?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no lack of Government interest and support for appropriate projects, when they can be clearly defined. We have to look at the possibilities of international collaboration in the whole of this area.

In the light of the recent American-Italian project, should this not be taken up very urgently indeed?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are many reasons other than purely designing aircraft, namely, the question of the economic operation, the noise level, planning considerations and above all the market. It is important to try to get these things right before starting on a particular project.

When taking an interest in "appropriate projects" could my hon. Friend tell me exactly which sort of project he believes is appropriate? Is it the type of airliner such as the 100-seater medium-haul class, because this House and the country and, above all, the British aircraft industry would like to know.

This is exactly what my hon. Friend's original Question was all about, the feasibility study phase to define this matter precisely.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to amend the Companies Act to compel firms to disclose their financial support to organisations engaged in industrial espionage.

I think that this is a matter which would be best considered after the Committee on Privacy, set up by the Home Office in 1970 under the chairmanship of Mr. Kenneth Younger, has reported.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that Common Cause is an organisation which combines support for the Conservative Party with industrial espionage? Will he include in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of organisations which combine political contributions to the Conservative Party with industrial spying?

I am sorry, but I have very little information indeed about industrial espionage and have made no detailed study of the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Rolls-Royce.

No, Sir. I have nothing at present to add to statements made previously.

Since, despite even the incredibly inept handling of this affair by the Government, it still seems likely that the unsecured creditors will receive in excess of 10s., will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the Government's intention to try for a composition rather than a liquidation? In the circumstances, as the ordinary shareholders are to get nothing, what is the Government's intention about worker shareholders, which they promised to look into?

The question of a composition with the creditors is for the company and the Receiver, and not for me. We are still looking into the question of worker shares. I am not yet able to give any definitive answer.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth about the likelihood of Rolls-Royce requiring further finance for the M45 engine?

If my hon. Friend tables that question, I will let him know the answer. I am not in a position to give it now.

The whole House will hope that the guarantee of the bank loan to Lockheed will be approved by Congress, but there is a suggestion that it will be delayed until Congress has its Summer Recess. If that is so, may we have an assurance from the Minister that further aid will be forthcoming to Rolls-Royce to enable it to continue work on the RB211?

The date which has been put about as being the terminal date when the Government would stop the support to which the hon. Gentleman refers, namely, 8th August, was, broadly speaking, agreed between all the parties, including the American Government, as being reasonable in the circumstances. If it proved not to be possible, a new situation would arise which would then have to be discussed between all the parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest position of unsecured creditors of Rolls-Royce Limited, in relation to the negotiations on the price to be paid for the assets acquired by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.

The position of the unsecured creditors is a matter for the receiver. The receiver issued a Press statement last week which gives some information, and there is nothing that I can add.

Why does the Cabinet hesitate to carry out a composition, which is within its powers?

The question of a composition with creditors is a matter for the Receiver and the company, not for the Cabinet.

In negotiating the price for the take-over of the assets, what consideration is being given to the goodwill and research and development expenditure already incurred on the RB211 contract without which future profits would be unobtainable?

All these matters are fully considered within the framework of the negotiation and discussion which is now currently going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what, according to information available to him from international sources, is the most recent price per ton charged for cold rolled coil steel in West Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United States of America and Japan.

Published home trade prices are respectively: £75·05: £76·10: £67·10: £88·50: £51·20. Actual prices may, however, differ from these. Except from Japan these prices include an element for the average cost of delivery.

Does the Minister agree that those figures suggest that the Corporation's position concerning the product mentioned in the Question is very competitive? Its competitiveness in other products is even greater. Would he therefore provide for its competitiveness to be maintained by giving early encouragement to the future development of the steel industry and by giving adequate and early assurances about the rather restrictive regulations of the Coal and Steel Community?

The last point was fully covered at Question Time the other day. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have promised to make statements as soon as they are ready on the subject of the future of the industry.

Were these figures available to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet when they decided to make their intervention about the Corporation's prices a few weeks ago? Do not the figures show that the Prime Minister's statement that the Corporation's claim was unjustified was false?

Consideration of the Corporation's original price proposals the other day concerned the level of consumer products in this country. It was that aspect at which we had to look most closely.

Is the Minister admitting that the Corporation's prices are considerably lower than those being charged on the Continent of Europe? Should not that matter have been taken into account when the Corporation asked for the right to charge what it thought was a proper price?

The allocation of prices between particular products is a matter for the Corporation, and no doubt, in making its proposals, it took into account the level of its competitors' prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial development certificates were applied for in Scotland in the first four months of 1971; and how this compared with the corresponding figure for the previous year.

Fifty-seven industrial development certificates were granted in Scotland from 1st January, 1971, to 30th April, 1971, for projects of 10,000 sq. ft. and over. The corresponding figure for 1970 was 54.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish people are being asked to bear an unfair share of the social hardship caused by the present industrial recession? Are the Government satisfied with the effect which their policies are having on the level of employment in Scotland?

The employment estimated by the applicants to arise from the industrial development certificates issued in the two relevant periods when the projects are manned is about 3,400 for a year ago and 5,200 for the current period. That suggests to me an improvement.

Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with the progress in view of the fact that there is an unemployment figure of 10 per cent. in Scotland? The situation is particularly bad in the West of Scotland, we are about to hear a disastrous announcement concerning Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and there is still the threat of the closure of Rolls-Royce in the West of Scotland. Surely the creation of special development areas was supposed to meet the situation. The figures which the hon. Gentleman has given are not adequate to meet the challenge presented by the position in Scotland.

I am talking about Scotland as a whole. For May, the unemployment figure was 5·6 per cent. compared with 4 per cent. the year before. That is very different from the 10 per cent. which the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the Government will put Edinburgh on the same basis as the rest of Scotland?

I do not know what my hon. Friend means by that. Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello now have development area status. But it is not suggested that they should have special development area status.

The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the level of male unemployment in West Central Scotland and in Glasgow, in particular, is substantially above the figure he has given, and he has not given any indication of the effectiveness or otherwise of the Govern- ment's measures. How many industrial development certificates have been issued in West Central Scotland?

The Question on the Order Paper was about Scotland as a whole. There are later Questions about Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of orders for new ships has been placed during 1970 by British owners with British yards; and how this compares with previous years.

About 25 per cent. by value in 1970 compared with between 33 per cent. and 50 per cent. in the previous four years, but the estimated value of orders for United Kingdom registration placed in United Kingdom yards in 1970 at £287 million was the highest for over ten years.

Does not that answer, showing a declining number of ships on order in our own yards, disclose a disquieting position? In view of the situation in other countries, will the Government see what more can be done to put us at least on an even keel compared with other countries?

In recent years the annual value of all orders for United Kingdom registration has been well above the value of the annual output of the shipbuilding industry.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the British shipbuilding yards are not at a disadvantage compared with French and Italian yards, which are their immediate competitors? The French and Italian yards get a 15 or 16 per cent. direct subsidy which is not available to British yards.

The British yards are in an extremely strong position and benefit from the shipbuilding credit facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what facilities are available from the Export Credits Guarantee Department to give cover to British companies exporting components and equipment to Panavia for the M.R.C.A. aircraft.

E.C.G.D. is prepared to consider applications for normal cover for this business.

I welcome the facilities made available since I tabled my Question, but does my hon. Friend feel that Panavia, with a capital of only £10,000 and 60 per cent. owned by West German interests, has the capital structure and financial resources to look after a £2,400 million programme?

My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that Panavia is a get-together of a number of principal companies which have very substantial financial backing, and the fact that it is not highly capitalised does not mean that there are not great resources in support of its activities.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will specify arrangements made by his Department to deal with oil slicks within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom; what financial support is given to local authorities which deal with the problem; how research into the matter has progressed; and if he will make a statement.

The Department is equipped to deal with serious spillages within territorial waters and beyond, using hired vessels and its own equipment, and has done so successfully several times. The Department of the Environment makes grants of 50 per cent. towards approved expenditure by local authorities on dealing with oil pollution. Research into new methods continues. I will, with permission, circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Minister take into account that the expenditure of local authorities in dealing with oil slicks has increased rapidly in the last four years, and will he further take into account that there has been plenty of industrial indiscipline in this matter, and take steps to deal with oil waste?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is for the Department of the Environment. I will take note of what he said in the second part.