asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to suspend air traffic with Libya consequent upon the support given by the Government of that country to the hijackers of the Lufthansa Boeing 727 on 29th October, 1972, in view of the fact that that Government have consistently harboured and aided and abetted those responsible for such crimes.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on 6th November, suspension of air services would be ineffective unless it had wide international sup- port. The International Civil Aviation Organisation is working on a new convention to provide for effective international action, and we are giving our full support to this urgent task.—[Vol. 845, c. 44.]

Is the hon. Gentleman giving urgent support to the taking of effective immediate action against a Government, namely the Libyan Government, which openly rejoiced at the freeing of the Munich murderers and has given aid and comfort to other terrorists who have engaged in acts of international piracy? Cannot the hon. Gentleman offer some immediate views as to the action the Government can take now?

I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling. It is, of course, a matter that has concerned everyone who has considered it, but in the absence of international agreement any unilateral sanctions would be of no substantial benefit. I also certainly take the view that we must do everything possible to speed up the work of the ICAO legal sub-committee, the legal committee and ultimately ICAO itself. I have pressed for both its conferences scheduled for early next year to be brought forward in an attempt to reach international agreement, without which I do not believe we can make progress in the matter.

The ICAO legal committee works very slowly and it is not likely that it will come to a decision before August 1973. What sort of international sanctions are the Government prepared to promote now so that they can make sure that there can be no havens for the hijackers? That is the only way in which the Government can succeed.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government cannot impose international sanctions without international agreement. When we sought to do first was to put forward a resolution at the recent meeting of the ICAO legal sub-committee, which commanded a certain measure of support. I have now tried to have the January legal committee meeting brought forward to an earlier date, but I have not been able to do so because of the legal procedures within ICAO. I have also tried to have the August meeting of the full ICAO council brought forward to try to deal with what comes out of the January meeting, and I shall continue to press for that to happen. We have put forward a number of suggestions, but it is an international agreement that we must seek. I have kept closely in touch with all parties to the ICAO proceedings and I shall continue to do so and to give the full weight of the British Government to initiatives of that sort.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the further progress of negotiations with the European Economic Community concerning textiles.

I cannot yet add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), on 23rd October.—[Vol. 843, c. 181.]

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the expected loss of 1,000 jobs at the Skelmersdale Courtaulds plant will affect several other Lancashire textile towns, including three mills in my constituency, and that it has created even greater anxieties about what is to come? Is he aware that if quotas are removed on 1st January the common external tariff of only about 7 per cent. on cotton yarns will produce an import deluge that will make the Skelmersdale disaster look puny by comparison? Has he no information yet on how he will prevent that disaster?

I cannot accept that the Skelmersdale closure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is directly related to the point covered by his Question. Of course there would be implications if no changes were made or if no developments could be announced before 1st January, but as regards cotton textiles we have made proposals to the Commission for 1973 which, generally speaking, would mean a pattern and level of restraints similar to those in 1972. I am hopeful of being able to make an announcement telling the trade as soon as possible what next year's arrangements will be. It would be quite wrong for any exaggerated fears of the kind the hon. Gentleman has raised to be founded upon what is now taking place.

When will those proposals be debated in the House before any decision is taken?

I hope to be able to tell the House shortly what next year's arrangements will be.

As the Skelmersdale closure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred must have been discussed by the firm in question at board level, and the Government were not notified, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please make arrangements to see that all textile firms that might be affected will be consulted about their calculations of the effect of entry into Europe so that the Government can take effective action before precipitate closures of the kind in question at Skelmersdale are announced?

In the context of the topic covered by the Question the Government are in consultation with the trade and have been for some time. The Skelmersdale closure is a matter of a different quality.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to make a statement on the final report of the Joint Steering Group on the Steel Industry.

I announced the conclusions of the Joint Steering Group on 8th May. The group was wound up on completion of its report.—[Vol. 836, c. 909–23.]

What about the future development of the industry? What about the questions being freely raised in the Press where it is being said that development will taken place at Hunterston or be concentrated at Redcar or lead to a further apportionment to the Grantham or Scunthorpe area? Those are the questions which have still to be answered before they are no longer within the prerogative of the hon. Gentleman's Department to answer, and 1st January is only just round the corner.

I am well aware of the general concern about an announcement of the British Steel Corporation's plans. The final plans were submitted to the Government at the beginning of last month and they are now urgently being considered in the context that I have already described to the House. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Has not my hon. Friend given an assurance that there will be no cutback in the steel investment plans? Is it not more important to get decisions right, even if that means delay?

My hon. Friend is right. It is essential that, when they are finally approved by the Government, the plans are right and that as much consideration as possible has been given to them. Investment by the corporation is now going forward at record levels. It stands at £265 million for the current year, while £200 million has been approved on account for next year.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in announcing the corporation's strategic plan is causing great uncertainty and foreboding, increased by today's report that a further 50,000 redundancies are in the pipeline? Will he give an assurance that when the strategic plan is announced, at least the Government will have adopted the corporation's target of 36 million tons production by 1980? May we have an assurance that the Government will go for that?

I know that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to com- ment on speculative and completely unauthorised reports of employment levels and so on. The level of investment and the tonnage will be part of the announcement to be made to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to give financial assistance to the National Coal Board.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the result of his consultations with the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board.

As I said after my talks with the industry, I found them particularly useful and constructive. I hope to present my proposals shortly.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on the eve of entry into the Common Market it is becoming urgent that the coal industry should have its accumulated deficit written off and that there should also be a capital reconstruction? Would he bear in mind the practice of West Germany and certain other Common Market countries which give their coal industries subsidies for coking coals for steel, for power stations and for stocking?

Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman will probably have read that there have been lengthy discussions within the industry and between both sides of the industry and myself. Those discussions have covered all these matters and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement to the House announcing our decision before too long.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in bringing a coal industry Bill before the House is breeding suspicion in the mining industry? Is he aware that in an article in the financial section of the Sunday Times yesterday it was alleged that the Government were playing politics with industry? Is it the Government's intention to play snakes and ladders with this great industry before introducing a coal Bill?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. What the Government are endeavouring to do is to make sure, after consultation with the industry, that we are able to produce proposals to enable the industry itself to become strong and viable and to provide the sort of employment opportunities that I know the hon. Gentleman would wish to see. Those consultations have been lengthy and detailed. Proposals will come forward and we hope that they will be in the best interests of the industry, the nation and the consumer, all of whom are important in this matter. The announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that after we are members of the Common Market the National Coal Board will be free to charge the prices it thinks fit for its coals in the market and that it will be exempt from any Government control of prices?

The controlling factor in the price of coal is what the consumer will pay for it. The constraint on the price of coal is not Government intervention but the resistance of the consumer in the face of competition from alternative fuels.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is widely known throughout the coal industry that a statement about the future finances of the industry was prepared and was ready to be made before the Summer Recess and that it was only the Prime Minister's petulant intervention which prevented its being made? Will he confirm that the calendar imposes a timetable on a coal industry Bill, whenever it comes, so that it would be better to have the Bill now so that we may get discussions going and get matters under way?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has repeated remarks that he made to the Press of his view of the reasons why the statement was not made earlier. It was contemplated that a statement would be made before the House rose for the recess. However, in the meantime there were opportunities for full and useful discussions with both sides of industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe it right that we should have taken advantage of those consultations. This was the first time that both sides of the industry sat round the conference table with the Government to discuss these matters. I think it right that this should have been done and that the result of those discussions should be considered before a statement to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the net gain to the British economy arising from the export of live animals for slaughter, allowing for the import of meat products, hides and skins required to replace such exports.

It would be extremely difficult to give an economic assessment of the kind which my hon. Friend seeks; however, in the period from January to September, 1972, the total value of live animal exports was only £23 million, while imports of meat and meat preparations, hides and skins totalled £410 million.

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no great harm would be done to the economy if we prohibited the export of live animals for slaughter?

The figure for exports of live animals has to be set alongside the comparable figure for exports of carcase meat during the same period to destinations apart from the Irish Republic, and they amounted to £28 million. I appreciate the reasons which cause my hon. Friend and other hon. Members concern, but this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the export of live animals for slaughter, as recently illustrated by the RSPCA, leads in some instances to the most fearful cruelty? Will he take note of the fact that the former Minister of Agriculture in a reply to me recently stated that there were innumerable contraventions of the Balfour Agreement, one of which led to the slaughter of a batch of British calves on the continent by the use of a joiner's hammer. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there are 63 slaughterhouses in this country which are up to export standard and which are now under-used? Will he consult the appropriate members of the Government to see what can be done to slaughter more animals for export here rather than to export them alive?

I know the extent to which this matter is causing concern both inside and outside the House. I have studied, as of course has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the recent report by the RSPCA. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture saw a delegation from the RSPCA on the 24th of last month. I am sure that his successor will bear in mind the points made to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a review of the labour subsidy elements in the Government's regional development policies.

No, Sir: the Government's new regional policies were decided after a full study of all the relevant factors.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is still a large question mark over the future of the regional employment premium? Bearing in mind that the premium injects £100 million a year into development areas is it not disgraceful that there is still no decision on its future after 1974? May I remind the Minister that in 1970 the Government said that they would abolish it in 1974, and then that they would phase it out? What assurances have intending developers moving into a development area that £100 million of Government aid is still available under Government policy?

The regional employment premium cannot be considered in isolation from the whole of regional policy. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extra steps we have taken to assist the areas. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be discussing the phasing-out of the premium with industry in due course.

During those discussions will the Chancellor consider not only the position of the regional employment premium, about which there may be considerable reservations, but also the imposition of a congestion tax to cope with over-employment of labour in congested areas? Is my hon. Friend aware that such a step would be taken against the background of regional development policies which are in many ways more capital-intensive than they were?

I am certain that the Chancellor and the Government will consider all the relevant factors.

Is it not a fact that continuity of regional policy, above any other factor, is what determines the investment decisions of industry? If £100 million is likely to be withdrawn in the near future, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this will not only have an effect on future investment plans but could accelerate decisions by existing firms to rationalise out of development areas and into capital-intensive areas, particularly in the context of the Common Market?

These are all matters which will be considered carefully by the Government and discussed in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Governments of Australia and New Zealand propose to continue after January, 1973, the free entry and preference rights hitherto enjoyed by British exports to those countries.

Both the Australian and the New Zealand Governments have indicated that as from 1st February, 1973, when the trade agreements according certain margins of preference to our exports will have been terminated, they expect to eliminate these margins in a progressive reconstruction of their tariffs which will extend over a period of years.

Does that answer mean that the preference for British exports in these important markets is now to disappear altogether?

The answer expounds precisely what was outlined as the consequences of accession to the Community on the terms negotiated and involves—

The answer is "Yes."

—variations in the tariffs of the two countries in question over a period of years.

When we are in the Community will Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to increase trade between Australia, New Zealand and the Community of which we shall form a part? Do the Government have definite plans in mind for this?

The extent to which the Government were concerned to increase and maintain trade between Australia, New Zealand and the Community was apparent from the terms arrived at in the negotiations which went a long way to protect important elements in the trade of both countries with the Community and this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what part his Department played in bringing about the changes in the senior management of Rolls-Royce, leading to the departure of Mr. Ian Morrow and Lord Cole, and the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Wilkinson.

The appointments were made by the board. The Government, as sole shareholder, were concerned in the appointments which were made with their approval.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is evasive to the point of being untruthful? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Was Mr. Morrow at any time given the opportunity of working with Mr. Wilkinson, and if not, why not? This is an absolute cover-up.

What could have happened if certain decisions which were not taken had been taken poses a hypothetical question. In view of the circumstances, I do not think that there is any point in trying to answer such a question.

What caused the dispute between the board and the Minister?

Any company in which the Government have an involvement is bound to have discussions with the Government about changes of the sort that took place. It is right that such discussions should take place; they did on this occasion and the board came to its decision.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was widely reported in the Press that there had been a disagreement between Mr. Morrow and the Minister and that Mr. Morrow had complained about too much ministerial interference in the affairs of the company? Was there a disagreement and, if so, what was the nature of it?

Answer.

I am not aware of any suggestion that there had been a disagreement on policy matters between Mr. Morrow and the Government.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that such changes cause uncertainty among senior personnel and the staff of Rolls-Royce? Has the Minister assured himself that senior staff and workers have had the reasons for these major changes explained to them?

I do not believe it is the Minister's responsibility to explain matters of corporate policy—

It is a nationalised company.

—to the staff of a company. That is a matter for the management. The House knows and welcomes the fact that Rolls-Royce is now achieving a record turnover and has just landed—

That is not the question that was asked. Answer the question.

—has just succeeded in negotiations—

Answer the question.

—for the sale of TriStars to All-Nippon Airlines—

Answer the question. This is of no relevance.

Order. This is not a time for debate. Questions must be answered fairly briefly.

I merely wished to make the point that in terms of confidence the company has just landed one of the most important contracts it has ever achieved through the sale of TriStars to All-Nippon Airlines.

Wriggler!

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to make a statement about workers' shares in the pre-1971 Rolls-Royce Company.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 17th July.—[Vol. 841. c. 28–9.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, whereas the debenture stock holders have been paid in full plus interest, those who invested their life's work and savings in this company have been treated in a shabby way? In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon about the continued prosperity of the company, which we all welcome, will the Government look again at the question of workers' shareholdings?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have looked at this matter with great care and attention. It is extremely difficult. It has been the subject of an Adjournment debate, and the arguments have been fully deployed. There is no other way round the very difficult decisions we have had to take.

In view of the lip service which the Government pay to the principle of worker consultation, will the hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had with the trade unions whose members are involved with workers who own shares in the company? If he has had no consultations, does not the Government's attitude make a mockery of the whole principle?

I think there have been consultations, but there are clear issues of principle involved. There is no way of dealing with the problem of a limited liability company in which people own stock which goes bankrupt. The shares have become valueless.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the contract value of components and materials supplied to Rolls-Royce Limited for which no payment has been received by the suppliers and which have been used by Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited in jet engines supplied to Her Majesty's Government.

That is a matter for Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and the receiver of Rolls-Royce Ltd.

I was intrigued with the rapidity of my hon. Friend's answer, because this matter covers a very substantial sum. I hope he realises that a sum running into several millions of pounds is due to employees and shareholders of companies who have not the full ability to complain about the amount outstanding because Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. is frequently their main customer and the Government, in turn, are often their main customer. It is 18 months since Parliament agreed that the money should be paid to these companies and some settlement should have been reached.

I am sure my hon. Friend understands that this is a matter to be dealt with between the two parties concerned. The Government are not a direct party to it.

Is it not a shocking state of affairs that after 18 months this matter should still be going on? The company is already profitable and there have been several changes of management. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are still firms hovering on the edge of bankruptcy because of this situation?

I realise that it is a very difficult situation. Whenever I have been asked to help in this matter—for example, in the appointment of the expert—I have done what was necessary to speed up the process. But the Government do not have a standing in it. It is a matter between the two parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's policy is in relation to the building of oil rig supply vessels for use in North Sea oil fields.

There are no schemes of Government assistance specifically for oil rig supply vessels, but the builders of such vessels are eligible for construction grants and the ship owners to credit on the normal terms. The prospective market for supply vessels in the North Sea is among the subjects considered by consultants in a report recently submitted to the Government to which consideration is now being given.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is inadequate? What positive steps can he now take to assist British shipbuilders to build these vessels?

These vessels are in exactly the same position as other vessels in that they are entitled to the assistance available to the shipbuilding industry generally.

Are not the number of orders placed in British yards for these vessels extremely disappointing? Will my hon. Friend give his attention to this matter because demand for these vessels must increase?

We are already giving consideration to this as a result to the report which has been submitted to the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the IMEG report and will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the nature of subsidies given by other countries, particularly by the United States, for the construction of similar vessels?

We hope that a form of this report will be published, leaving out the confidential information, and that it will be available probably next month.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the devices which his Department proposes to use in order to evaluate the amount of expenditure in the United Kingdom by oil companies operating in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf.

My Department is in close touch with oil companies engaged in offshore development so as to assess the extent of British industry's participation and to decide what additional measures may be necessary to help such industry obtain an increased share of this market.

Is the Minister aware that we are becoming increasingly dissillusioned by the nature of ministerial replies? How can the Minister of State, Scottish Office, say that our devices are all square with those of the Norwegian Government when the Minister refuses to disclose how he evaluates what the oil companies spend in this country? If it is not intended to put a clause of this nature into future contracts, will the Minister call in the companies' invoices every three or six months?

The oil companies have agreed to provide detailed returns of their purchases and to give such information as is necessary and desirable to enable the Government to assess the contribution that the companies are making to the United Kingdom economy, in accordance with the terms of the licence.

As the Government have made it clear that they will be expecting and exhorting companies to give work to British firms which charge a fair price and can deliver on time, will the Government announce figures showing the improvement which it is hoped will take place in the next few years? Will my hon. Friend provide to the House information about the number of contracts placed with British firms and their value?

I do not know whether it would be right to give that undertaking today; much of the information supplied is confidential. I will take account of what my hon. Friend says and see to what extent more information might properly be given within the confines of confidentiality.

When shall we have the White Paper about the general question of North Sea oil and its implications for the Scottish economy?

As I have said on previous occasions, it is right that we should produce information about North Sea oil more attractively and, I hope, more fully than we have in the past. I cannot go further than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has yet calculated the percentage of the total expenditure in developing British Petroleum's Forties field which will be devoted to United Kingdom equipment, manpower and bases.

British Petroleum's assessment is that for the complete project about 60 per cent. of expenditure on equipment will be for British equipment and about 70 per cent. of expenditure on labour will be for British labour.

I am much obliged to the Minister for that answer, which squares with his previous one. If that information can be given in respect of a company which has a large element of public ownership, cannot similar information be given in respect of other companies? Does not this make it all the more important to consider the White Paper which is being published, if not in relation to Scotland, at least in relation to the United Kingdom?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that we are breaking into a technology which is new to British industry. Countries which have long experience and skills in this technology will contribute a significant part of the plant and skills in the early stages. We should not read too much into the initial figures. I have under consideration what further information might be published, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in reply to an earlier Question about the need to preserve confidentiality.

Is not that the very point, that because this is a new technology substantial support will be needed from the British Government to enable British industry to compete? The publication of the figures would give the public an idea of how quickly we are able to meet this rapidly growing market.

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Because it is a new technology the Government are doing exactly what he says they should be doing, under the Industry Act and by the employment of consultants to ensure that British industry is given every opportunity to compete and to maximise the contribution that North Sea oil will make to the economy of the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimates he has made of United Kingdom companies' abilities to construct drilling rigs and production platforms for use in the North Sea.

Several British shipyards have the technical capability but the decision whether to build must be a commercial one. We are well placed for future orders.

Does the Minister realise that his replies are so vague as to be completely unsatisfactory and that the only answer would be to publish a White Paper as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)? When the hon. Gentleman produces the expurgated version of the IMEG report, will he take the opportunity to include, as an addendum or otherwise, the number of people employed in Scotland on the pro- duction of oil rigs and their equipment and the proportion of Scottish steel going into their manufacture?

We will certainly consider that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that it is an IMEG report, and we are considering it carefully. I give the hon. Gentleman a positive assurance that several fixed production platforms are being fabricated in this country, one indeed in Fife, which will cheer him up.

As the Minister is anxious for the maximum amount of work to be done by British firms, will he say what progress has been made by the British Steel Corporation in providing the underwater pipes which are imported from North America and other countries? What opportunities are being afforded to the BSC to keep open one of its obsolescent plants to produce these pipes which the BSC has stated categorically it is capable of doing?

With respect, that question does not arise directly out of the main Question but I will see what I can do to inform the hon. Gentleman in due course.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the construction of rigs is well outside the normal work of an ordinary shipyard? Most firms feel themselves to be unsuited to cope with it, and special support is needed to encourage them to do so.

Yes, I accept that. With that in mind, the Government will study very carefully the report coming to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to amend the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, so that, where a special offer on a product is quantified in relation to the manufacturer's recommended price, that recommended price should appear on the label.

I will keep this point in mind in considering future legislation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that without this measure double pricing abuses of the Trade Descriptions Act will continue to undermine the benefits of the abolition of resale price maintenance by misleading shoppers with bogus "special offers" and by people taking unfair advantage of those shopkeepers who make genuine reductions? Will he not agree that, despite the excellent criteria set down by his Department for the duration of the freeze, this proposed measure is crucial?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that there is no reason to doubt that in most cases phrases such as "so much off" indicate a genuine reduction which is of value to the customer. I agree there is a risk that labelling and phrases of that kind can be used to mislead the customer into thinking he is getting a bargain. The difficulty is that for many goods there is no recommended price. It is difficult to be certain how to devise a remedy in such a case.

While we are awaiting the legislation, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge retailers to display their price lists for the week commencing 6th November and urge house-wives to boycott shops which do not?

And may we have a clear answer this time?

Obviously the suggestion can be looked at. But it is not necessarily easy for retailers to carry it out.

Is there any reason why the Minister should bear the point of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) in mind for future legislation when he has power under the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill to ask for this information and then, presumably, to make it available publicly?

I have explained why the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) has raised deserves consideration—[Interruption.]. It is a question of the strength of the point. It is not easy to devise a remedy when it is not clear whether there is a recommended resale price attached to the goods. It is not a question of the power; it is a question of the desirability of the remedy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what appeal he has received regarding the refusal of an air transport licence for the operation of day-return scheduled flights between Teesside airport and Amsterdam.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern on Teesside at the refusal of a licence? Can he give a firm assurance that there is no intention to reduce or to curtail services from Teesside for the benefit of Newcastle airport, because any policy of running down Teesside will frustrate the vigorous efforts which the airport authorities have been making, efforts to develop services from Amsterdam?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that matters of that sort are for the Civil Aviation Authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of a major machine tool firm, details of which have been sent to him, of licensing sub-contractors to build machine tools in India which are then shipped back to the United Kingdom for resale by the parent company: and what action he proposes to take.

I am aware of this long-standing licensing arrangement which is of benefit to the company concerned and results in a net addition of work for the people of Coventry.

Is the Minister aware of the intense resentment felt by machine tool workers at the deplorable practice by which wages at home are undercut and Coventry workers are deprived of work? Will he intervene to end this practice, which has extended to Spain as well as India?

I am given to understand that Coventry benefits from the licensing arrangement as a result of the large volume of spare parts which go to the Indian company. The machines are imported in such numbers that it would not be economic to produce them here.

Does the right hon. Gentleman care at all about the machine tool industry? Does he not realise that we are here concerned with one of the most important machine tool manufacturing plants in the country? Does he understand that his Department, which gives grant to the machine tool industry, does not even know how much of the grant goes on imported machine tools? Will he do something about this matter?

I care very much about the industry, but to cancel this licensing arrangement or to urge the company to do so would result in a net loss of work to Coventry, which would be a mistake. The machines could not be produced in this country in sufficient quantities to make them economic.

As the imported machines which come to this country under this arrangement qualify for Government grant, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that to the workers involved this looks like a subsidy to the export of jobs? This is a very serious problem. We have seen it in the textile and electronics industries, and we now fear that it may be moving into the metal machinery industry.

I am well aware that it could look like that, but I hope that my answer, which makes it clear that Coventry benefits from this licensing arrangement and that the imported machine would not be produced in this country because—[Interruption.] This is the advice which I am given. I can only seek the advice of the company concerned. I shall always act in what I consider to be the interests of the machine tool industry.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation providing that the users of bank credit cards must pay in full the retailers' costs of administering the service.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory and very unhelpful answer? Retailers are charged between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. for the service given to the holders of bank credit cards. Does he realise that the charges are spread over consumers generally, which affects lower-paid workers and working people in general who have to bear them? They are the people who are always wanting and always waiting because they have no access to bank credit cards. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not so much the workers and trade unions who are causing the inflationary pressures but the banks, which are demanding 18 per cent. for lending money? Will he tell these corporate Shylocks to moderate their demands on society?

I cannot accept the general proposition of the hon. Gentleman that the provision of a credit card service must involve increased costs in the way he describes. Some retailers may well find that the costs of handling credit card trade are offset by additional custom, by the elimination of the risk of bad debts, by a reduction in the amount of cash handled and the security thereby involved, and by discontinuing other credit arrangements which carry administrative costs. I am not satisfied that the matter can be approached in the blanket way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek to place restrictions on the unsolicited issue of credit cards.

I am considering doing so as part of proposed consumer credit legislation.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that that is an entirely satisfactory answer and will he, when pondering over this matter, consider that there are great dangers relating to this practice, partly over the possibility of fraud and partly in the positive encouragement to shopping on extended credit? Will he suggest to the banks that it might be wise to invite customers to show they want these credit cards rather than send the cards out to customers who have not asked for the service?

On the second point in relation to the unsolicited issue of credit cards, to which the Question is directed, and to which my answer is directed, I entirely agree as to the nature of some dangers inherent in the mass mailing of credit cards, which were pointed to by the Crowther Committee, and that is why the matter is now under consideration.

Is not the Minister aware that the public appear to be becoming more and more subject to inertia selling generally and that everything from sex literature to Harry Wheatcroft roses now comes through my postbox? What has happened to the inertia selling Act? If it is not working, can we have amendments to it?

The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act has been on the Statute Book for only a short time and it is early yet to judge how effective it will be. Plainly, the question of unsolicited credit extends beyond the subject of credit cards and all the matters in this field are under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has so far received from the British Steel Corporation regarding price increases to avert disruption of the European Community steel market after 1st January, 1973; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has now received proposals from the British Steel Corporation relating to steel prices after 1st January, 1973; and whether he will make a statement.

It would not be appropriate to disclose the proposals which the corporation had under consideration prior to the standstill. We are in touch with the European Commission about this issue.

I am grateful for that reply. As the British Steel Corporation's prices will presumably be well below those of its competitors in the Community after 1st January, are there any plans for the quantitative control of BSC exports to Europe as long as the freeze lasts? What estimate has my hon. Friend formed of the immediate price increase which will be required the day the freeze ends in order to eliminate unfair subsidisation of the BSC in competition with other steel firms? Will it be 15 or 20 per cent., or what?

There has been no such calculation on the second point. As for the first, this is a matter on which we are now in discussion with the Commission.

Will the Minister give the House the assurance that regardless of the diktat of the European Coal and Steel Community the British Steel Corporation will be expected to conform with price restraints imposed on other British nationalised industries and that the Government will recompense the corporation for any shortfall in its revenue because of the imposition of that policy?

There is no question of a diktat from the Commission on this subject. The Commission is as anxious about measures to be taken to stop inflation as any of the individual Governments concerned. What was the other part of the hon. Member's supplementary question?

The shortfall.

We are in discussion with the nationalised industries on this problem.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the provisions of the schedule to the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill provide security for the British Steel Corporation so that it could not be proceeded against in the European courts under Section 2 of the European Communities Act?

Yes, I will make sure of that.

While appreciating that my right hon. Friend is unable by question and answer at Question Time like this to reveal very much to the House, can he none the less assure us that when we are in Committee on the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill the House may be fully informed of the nature of the discussions proceeding with both the corporation and with the European Commission on this point, because it touches the very point of the ability of Parliament to learn and to know and to legislate about measures which very much affect government in this country?

Yes, I will keep the House informed on the progress of these talks. Exactly when conclusions will be reached it is difficult to say, and, of course, the Committee stage of the Bill is this week.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will provide development funding for a new civil airliner project particularly with quiet engines or short take-off and landing characteristics.

The initiative for such a project would lie with the manufacturers. I am willing to consider proposals for financial assistance towards the launching of soundly-based civil aircraft projects.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he would agree that in view of the cancellation of the BAC 3–11 project, and in view of the urgent need for new work within the industry, it is very important to have a project launched swiftly to meet the requirement in and outside Europe of an inter-city transport with short take-off and landing and quiet engine?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am already considering a project from Hawker Siddeley, the HS 146, but I will of course consider any other projects which come in from other aircraft companies.

What exactly is meant by "soundly based" in this context?

That they will be given full consideration and, if effective, will be taken into account exactly as they always have been.

For such major aircraft projects, will the funding be provided in this country or shall we always seek European participation?

It is very important to distinguish the scale of operation which might be envisaged, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the statement I recently made in a speech in Toulouse indicating the Government's very real interest in drawing together the European aerospace industries.

Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's initial reply that, apart from the Hawker Siddeley project, no proposals have been put to him by any other civil aviation firms in this country?

Not on the scale to merit inclusion in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend. There have been smaller research projects, but that major project is the only one of which I am aware.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications for the British economy of the likely world oil shortage within the next 10 years.

Prospects for oil and other sources of energy are kept under continuing review.

Is it not the case that with the growth of demand, and the restrictions placed by some oil exporting companies on supplies, in about 10 years' time there will be a situation in which even with North Sea oil Britain will have to import large quantities of oil at sharply increased prices, placing a big burden on the balance of payments? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that as a matter of urgency the Government should develop policies to make us less dependent on oil?

The less dependent on oil imports this country can become obviously the better. But in the next 10 years there will be a very considerable increase in production of both North Sea gas and oil, and also in nuclear energy and, I hope, a continuing contribution of importance from the coal industry.

Does my right hon. Friend accept or reject the view recently expressed by M. Spaak that North Sea oil belongs to the Community and should be regarded as a Community problem?

If it is in territorial waters it belongs to the country concerned, but there is a need to develop a European policy towards energy, in which the member countries will take a full part.

Has the right hon. Gentleman managed to take a look at the policy statement issued by the National Union of Mineworkers, one of the best policy statements which have been made and which pointed out that all fossil fuels—gas, coal and oil—are wasting assets? In the light of this, will he consider giving the House an energy policy statement, which is badly needed in the interests of the nation?

I have not seen the National Union of Mineworkers' statement, but I will read it immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on approximately what date he expects to receive the advice he has requested from the Noise Advisory Council concerning aircraft flight paths around Heathrow airport.

The council was only asked to carry out this work in October, 1972, and it is much too early to start setting a time-scale as it assesses the scale of the problem that confronts it.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Noise Advisory Council to consider the extent of the suffering caused by aircraft noises to the south-east of Heathrow when there are long bouts of east wind necessitating eastbound take-offs for an exceptionally large proportion of those days? Will he ask the council in this context to take another look at the concept of minimum noise routes?

It must, of course, in the first instance be for the Noise Advisory Council to determine its own way of carrying out its work, but I will bring to its attention the questions my hon. Friend has put to me. I will take a personal interest in meeting the council and seeing that within the framework of doing the job as effectively as it must be done, it is done with despatch as fast as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given to moving the positions of noise monitoring equipment at airports.

Monitoring systems at airports where my right hon. Friend has responsibility for noise measures are continually under review.

In the light of the statement recently made by the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers that aircraft are being deliberately throttled back only over noise measuring points, does not that raise two aspects: first, that aircraft are being flown in contravention of minimum noise procedures; and second, that aircraft must be taking off at dangerous weights if it is dangerous for them to throttle back at any time during their climb? Should not my hon. Friend hold an inquiry into this matter?

Naturally I was aware of the allegations made by the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers. However, I understand that the suggestions are without foundation

Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for sound monitoring equipment to be placed, for example, at Dyce airport to see whether the increased noise levels can be included for consideration under the development of air compensation policy?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question to me on that specific point, I shall answer it fully.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a progress report on the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to fufil the policies approved by the Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at Santiago earlier this year.

We have contributed fully to the progress made in the arrangements for developing countries to participate in discussions on international monetary reform and in multilateral trade negotiations, in the achievement of a cocoa agreement and in the agreement in principle on softer terms of aid for the least developed countries.

In view of the Government's declared commitment on overseas aid and the fact that at Santiago the developing countries made it plain that their interests could be served only by the reorganisation of world trade and not by charity, would it not be helpful for the Government to publish a Whie Paper setting out in detail the steps they propose to take?

The Government have already published the report of the summit conference which contains a number of the commitments given in my answer. The Government will publish early next month a White Paper summarising the proceedings of and a number of the submissions made at the Santiago conference. Both these documents will help to make clear the Government's attitude to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the existing security arrangements at British airports; and if he will make a statement.

Security precautions are kept closely and regularly under review. To this end, comprehensive security surveys of our major airports have recently been completed.

Is the Minister satisfied, in view of the evidence which I sent to him, that Luton Corporation will make the necessary major improvements in security at Luton airport?

I am in close touch with Luton Corporation on this matter. I will contact my hon. Friend and give him a full reply when I feel that the discussions have reached a sufficiently advanced stage.

In order to curtail completely the operations of hijackers and air pirates, will the hon. Gentleman consider the proposal placed before him on numerous occasions for a professional anti-hijack squad at our major airports?

That suggestion has been put to me, together with a large number of other suggestions. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am in a dilemma in knowing how much to reveal of the anti-hijacking measures which we have taken without thereby making those measures self-defeating. We have taken and are taking immense steps on a world-wide basis to deal with the suggestions that have been made, and every one is carefully considered.

Could not an assurance be given to the travelling public, in view of the announcement already made that the Government have helped to finance the major British airlines in establishing professional teams to make sure that no arms get on board British aircraft?

I repeat the assurance which I have already given, that the Government this year have announced their decision to spend over £1 million in helping the airlines and the airport authorities with their security arrangements, and a large number of additional steps have been taken. But it is counter productive to spell out in total detail what those measures are. In the end, one must understand that there is an clement of risk simply because of the scale of operation with which we are confronted.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to prohibit the import of coking coals.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that many miners' jobs are involved, and will he tell us what is the burden on the balance of payments? Is it not absurd that the British Steel Corporation should import coking coal into Port Talbot when it could be provided by the National Coal Board from pits in North Staffordshire?

The hon. Gentleman will know that various qualities of coking coal are not available from British mines. It is necessary, and it is accepted by the National Coal Board to be necessary, to import these qualities for blending with British coal which otherwise would not find a market.