asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the cost of a new four-lane road access and a rail link to London/Heathrow will be included in the review of the factors relating to the need for a third London airport.

The question of surface access to airports will form part of the review, but whether and to what extent new routes may be required for Heathrow, or any other airport, and at what cost must await the outcome of the review.

Is the Minister aware that the M4 access to Heathrow is already accepted by the Department of the Environment to be congested, if not saturated? Clearly, therefore, the road needs to be broadened, if not a new access provided. Will the Minister publish all the factors which will be included in the review for the third London airport?

The question of publication will be dealt with in due course and there will be full publication. We are aware of the congestion, and of course that is a factor which will be taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend let us know the latest position on the extension of the Piccadilly Line from Hounslow West to Heathrow, which would do much to relieve some of the traffic congestion?

The new underground railway link is being constructed, and the question of a surface rail link is also being considered.

The House wants to know the factors which are being taken into account in the review. Will the Minister publish them now so that people may see what information will be made available before a decision is taken on the third London airport?

We have already dealt with this matter a great deal. It is under general consideration, but we shall give further thought to the point the hon. Member has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will introduce legislation to make illegal the practice of shipping companies which retain the services of, and make additional payments to, retained pilots of their own choice.

The system of "choice pilotage" has for long been in operation in many pilotage districts and I have no proposals to introduce such legislation.

Admiralty counsel and other learned lawyers consider that the retained pilot system is an offence under existing legislation. Is the Minister aware that it has been largely abolished by many other countries? The United Kingdom Pilots Association does not consider the practice to be desirable and has made strong recommendations that it should be ended immediately.

The question of its illegality is a matter which could be tested in the courts by means of a private prosecution. The system in other countries is subject to varying factors within individual countries and I cannot comment further in that respect. There is a difference of opinion among United Kingdom pilots. We are aware of that situation. As for the hon. Member's constituency interest, I am advised that only a minority of pilots are taking an objection.

That may be true, but is the Minister aware that those objections are widely held among pilots? As the representative of one of the country's largest ports, I know that there are strong objections to the practice among the pilots there.

I can only repeat that a minority interest has made these objections. The information before my Department does not suggest that the practice is objected to by the majority.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of imported motor components in the last year for which figures are available.

£124 million in 1973.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that British component manufacturers such as Lucas Industries are contributing to this high figure because of their vast increase in investment in the Common Market instead of in the United Kingdom in recent years?

I am well aware that there has been a tremendous increase in investment in Common Market countries in the last few years. However, the argument for restricting United Kingdom investment abroad is not made out to the satisfaction of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. While it is possible that the establishment of United Kingdom factories overseas could lead to the import of items which could be produced here, the consideration is balanced so far by investment in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree that if the component manufacturers had had fewer strikes in the past few years there would have been less need to import products from other countries?

I do not believe that this country's industrial relations record is any worse than that of any of our major overseas competitors.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the value and volume of trade with South Africa over the latest available 12-month period; and what are the prospects for the maintenance and improvement of this trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the amount of trade presently conducted with South Africa ; and what prospects he envisages for its future.

United Kingdom imports from South Africa in 1973 were £400 million and exports £374 million. Volume figures by country are not compiled. There are good opportunities for exporters, subject of course to the ban on military goods.

In view of the undoubted magnitude of this trade, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that it enhances or diminishes the impact of apartheid?

That is a difficult question to answer, in all fairness and seriousness. Some people undoubtedly take the view that the pressure on South Africa for change, which hon. Members on both sides would like to see, might be enhanced by adopting a policy of lesser trade with South Africa, but others take the view that on the whole one of the advantages of continuing trade with South Africa is that it will help the whole population as well as simply those who are clearly in a powerful economic position there. My own view is that, apart from military supplies, we should continue with the policy of trading in ordinary civilian goods.

Will the Minister pay an early ministerial visit to South Africa and thereby give encouragement to our business men who are contributing so much to our balance of payments?

I have no present plans to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the balance of trade deficit with the Common Market since Great Britain joined.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the present balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EEC.

In 1973 our visible trade deficit with the EEC was £1,119 million.

While I do not wish to rub salt into the festering wound of the Common Market, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to identify invisibles in our trade with the Cmmon Market? It seems to me that without their being brought into account in our trading with the Common Market the figures do not present a very true picture. The last time invisibles were detailed, there was a deficit with the Common Market.

An area breakdown of our invisible trade with the EEC is not yet available, so I am advised. I assume, however, that if invisibles are interpreted broadly they will have to take into account the contribution we make to the EEC budget. That is a large and growing deficit factor.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British export trade with Common Market countries is twice as much as our export trade with the whole of the Commonwealth? Will he be careful, in his zeal for renegotiation with the Common Market countries of terms for our continued membership, that we do not irreparably damage such an important part of our trade?

I assure my hon. Friend that, regardless of the final relationship between Britain and the Community, I shall always wish us to have a growing and sensible trade access and relationship with the Common Market countries. I ask my hon. Friend not to minimise the still very substantial importance to us of our traditional Commonwealth trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now designate Luton airport under the Civil Aviation Act 1971, in view of the excessive volume of flights both by day and night.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take powers to control the volume of air traffic using Luton by designating the airport under the Civil Aviation Act 1971.

As I said on 1st April in reply to a similar question by the right hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Lord Balniel), I see no justification for designation at present.—[Vol. 871, c. 287.]

Has the Minister studied the report of the inquiry on Luton airport in 1972, when the inspector found that the volume of traffic in 1971 was intolerable? The traffic is now so much greater that, unless designation takes place, as it continues to grow it will be more and more intolerable.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that designation in itself will solve the problem of noise. That simply will not happen. My Department constantly confers and considers the situation with the Luton authorities. I have no reason to believe that they have not undertaken their responsibilities properly in this respect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Hertfordshire County Council has withdrawn its representatives from the Luton Airport Consultative Committee because Luton Corporation does not consult?

My information is that that is not so. What the Hertfordshire County Council decides to do is entirely a matter for that council.

Is the Minister considering' the expansion of Luton beyond the present level as an alternative to development at Maplin?

That is a matter which falls within the scope of the review.

Is it in the review?

It is a matter which falls within the scope of the review. I have already said, in an answer to an earlier Question which the hon. Gentleman apparently chose not to hear, what the Government's position is.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's consideration of whether to establish a Royal Commission to examine the commodity markets.

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade told the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) on 28th March.—[Vol. 871, c. 209–10.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that somewhat indecisive reply; but may I urge on him the need to make up his mind in this connection? While he is doing so, will he bear in mind that the commodity markets are primarily a reflection of the international value of commodities at any given time? Will he consider the benefit to Britain of that international value being decided in markets in London in sterling, which in 1972 represented about £45 million in invisible earnings, and that there are rival markets in Paris and Hamburg, for example, which are ready to take over from London if given the opportunity?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but he should not exclude from his consideration of the benefits of having international commodity markets in London that there has also been a great deal of unwelcome and damaging commodity speculation. I have nothing to add on this matter to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question some time ago.

What can be done about the current practice of the commodity markets of building an expected rate of inflation into their prices, thereby helping to bring about that very inflation?

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we must give careful thought to a further inquiry.

I appreciate that the Government are very concerned about issues of speculation. Does the Secretary of State agree that foreign Governments are primarily responsible for this in oil, phosphates and copper? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to find, by any Royal Commission, a sanction which will bring foreign Governments to heel?

The benefit of an inquiry would be, first, to help ascertain precisely where the main forces for speculation exist. Some will undoubtedly exist in this country, and some abroad. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he answered a Question on the subject originally, however, an inquiry will of course consider both the international and the national aspects of commodity speculation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with current trading arrangements with Japan.

British exports to Japan continue to expand rapidly, and I look forward to further balanced growth in our trade with this important market.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we stand absolutely no chance of balancing our trading books with Japan while the Japanese offer all kinds of obstacles to British trade with Japan? Will he tell the Japanese that unless those obstacles are removed quickly we shall retaliate against them and put obstacles in the way of Japanese goods coming to this country?

There has been substantial liberalisation in Japan with regard to imports over the past few years. With a few exceptions—computers, leather and footwear—there are now no quantitative restrictions on products of interest to British exporters. The average level of tariffs in Japan is about equivalent to that of the common external tariff in Europe. With a few exceptions, even controls on foreign investment have been removed. We shall continue to press for the removal of the few remaining restrictions. I no longer regard them as a barrier to the expansion of two-way trade.

Does the Minister agree, and will he inform his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), that taking invisibles and visibles together we have a surplus in our trade with Japan? Does he agree that the enormous increase in our exports to Japan during the past year—I believe of at least 60 per cent.—was a tribute to the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, whose lack of influence on trade the Secretary of State mentioned only a week ago?

I confirm the right hon. Gentleman's point. We now enjoy a surplus on our total trade with Japan, by virtue of invisibles, and last year exports went up by a record 60 per cent. compared with a 41 per cent. increase in imports into this country. I and the Department regard Japan as one of the major growth markets of the world to which we are devoting a great deal of time and attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work for the ultimate elimination of the common external tariff of the EEC on industrial goods, in the interests of the further liberalisation of world trade.

Yes, Sir. But the immediate task is to work for as large a reciprocal reduction as proves practicable in the current negotiations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the discussions for the preparation of the GATT negotiating position the French Government insisted that for political purposes the common external tariff should not be allowed to fall too far? Do the Government reject this inward-looking attitude and do they expect ultimately to see the elimination of the external tariff?

I speak for this Government and not the French Government vis-á-vis the future of the common external tariff. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes, we do wish to see the elimination of the tariff in the long term." We now have to consider what is immediately practicable in the forthcoming multilateral talks which we hope will soon be under way.

Is it my right hon. Friend's long-term aim to stay in the Market or to get out of it?

That will depend not only on the results of the renegotiations but, as my hon. Friend well knows, on the decision of his fellow countrymen.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the recent crash of the Turkish Airlines DC10 near Paris.

The French authorities investigating the accident have indicated that they expect to produce the report within about 10 to 12 months from now.

Since it will be some time before the report is published, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider—in view of the alarming news coming out of Washington about the links between an aircraft manufacturer and appointees of the Nixon Government—the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to examine the whole question of airworthiness certification and safety procedures for foreign aircraft?

I will give thought to that suggestion. I put to my hon. Friend the point that the major sources of information on this must reside in the country where the original accident took place and with the manufacturers. I believe that we shall probably get all the information we need, not only from the reports of the Federal Aviation Authority and other authorities in the United States but also as a result of the special hearings now taking place.

Since the action taken prior to the accident by the Federal Aviation Agency was advisory rather than mandatory, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Civil Aviation Authority in Britain has taken any mandatory action in the interim period until the full report of the accident inquiry is available?

My information is that the CAA insisted, at a time when the FAA was still making a voluntary recommendation that the DCl0s bought by the one firm in Britain which possesses them should have embodied within the doors all the changes advised by the FAA.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ban all jet take-offs from Heathrow airport by night.

Night jet departures from Heathrow in the summer months from April to October are already severely restricted. A total ban would pose serious problems but the possibility of applying restrictions in the winter months is being considered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the summer months when people object most because that is when they have most windows open at night? Is he aware that it is intolerable that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people are disturbed at night so that a few hundred people can derive the benefit of cheap night fares? Is he aware that my constituents warmly welcome the progress made by the last Government in cutting by five-sixths the number of night flights, from 1,638— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am only reading the figures. The last Government cut the number of night flights from 1,638 in the summer months of 1971 to 261 in the summer season of 1973. Cannot the present Government try to make further progress in the same direction?

This is a continuing process, as the hon. Gentleman will realise. It does not help his case when he tries to make rather small party points. The take-offs are permitted at present only in exceptional circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that last summer the number was reduced to 265. There are real difficulties in imposing a total ban, as he knows. He is well aware of the exceptional circumstances which cause these night flights.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has said, the volume of complaints about planes leaving and arriving at Heathrow has increased considerably in the past 12 months? Can he look into the reasons for this? Will he also consider having discussions with the local authorities in the area to see what help they can give, together with him, in trying to alleviate the problems of certain sectors of the community who are grievously affected by this noise?

The matter is under constant review. I have decided to confer not only with the local authorities concerned—this is an on-going process—but with the London Boroughs Association, which has a real interest.

Does not the Minister realise that a large number of people living in West London will be greatly dismayed by the way he treats the question of aircraft noise? Will he now tell the House why he is not prepared to let hon. Members know details of the reviews he is carrying out of Maplin, upon which the only possible method of alleviating noise in West London depends, when we are told by other members of the Government that it is necessary to give all possible information for a full discussion before decisions are made?

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. When the hon. Gentleman suggests that anything I have said this afternoon has dismayed people, he should realise that I have in no way departed from his policy in dealing with these matters. As I understand the position, he, too, consulted. I propose that consultation shall be an on-going process throughout.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because of my hon. Friend's reasoned response I have decided not to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. The hon. Member knows that that is a waste of time, which will be remembered against him.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider the possible use of temporary and selective import controls as a means of reducing the balance of payments deficit.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech.—[Vol. 871, c. 277.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that import controls have been used in other countries whose balance of trade deficits have not been as bad as ours?

I am aware of the occasions on which import restrictions have been used in the past.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he intends to meet the Ministers of overseas trade of the Commonwealth countries.

I have already had a very useful meeting with the New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade and look forward to meeting the Canadian Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in London this week. I hope to meet other Commonwealth Trade Ministers in the not very distant future.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in this country are deeply concerned about the decline in our trade with our former Commonwealth partners—just as concerned as they are over the staggering deficit we have with the Common Market countries? Will he bear in mind that we would like to see an improvement in our trade with the Commonwealth countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, for which we are still the largest market for dairy products and meat?

I wholly concur in my hon. Friend's sentiments, and I shall be doing my best to improve our trade with Commonwealth countries in the years ahead.

When the right hon. Gentleman has his meeting with the Ministers, will he make plain the Government's view about taxes on food imported from the Commonwealth, particularly on the kind of foodstuffs which we are told are now scarce?

Yes, Sir. If they are not already informed, I shall ensure that they realise just how critical we are of the necessity of imposing taxes on imported food from traditional Commonwealth suppliers.

In reply to this and other Questions the right hon. Gentleman has said that one of the prime objectives of the Government is increased exports, and that meets with the approval of both sides of the House. Will he remind the House, because it may have escaped our attention, what specific proposals to increase exports were contained in the Budget?

That question might—

Order. How that supplementary question can possibly arise out of Question No. 16 I do not know.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ensure that no final decision on any new airport in South-East England is reached until the Civil Aviation Authority has completed its current studies on and search for a national airports plan.

The Civil Aviation Authority is participating in the review which I announced on 21st March. The authority's regional studies are well advanced and the work on them will be available in the review.—[Vol. 870, c. 1334–40.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it never made sense, and still does not, to pre-empt a decision about one particular airport—particularly as it is the biggest decision likely to be taken for generations in this context—until the search for a national airports policy is completed? Will the Government insist that regional policy plays an important part in this search?

I can certainly give the latter assurance, but it is odd for the hon. Gentleman to rebuke me for a policy which was precisely the one followed by the last Government, which he supported.

Will the study include the possibility of a central Scotland airport?

It will consider all airports which serve the regions and the nations outside the south-east of England.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. Jocelyn Stevens, managing director of Beaver-brook Newspapers, and Sir Hugh Fraser on the future of the Glasgow Evening Citizen and the Scottish Daily Express.

I made a full statement to the House on 27th March.—[Vol. 871, c. 467–9.]

Is the invitation given by my constituent, Mr. Alistair Mackie, father of the chapel, for departmental participation in the meeting on Wednesday morning between employees and representatives of Scottish industry likely to be accepted?

I was not aware of this meeting until a short time ago. My regional director in Scotland is in continuing touch with the action committee there.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to support or co-operate in the feasibility study which the redundant staff have asked for?

As I told representatives of the action committee when they came to see me, we are prepared to consider seriously and sympathetically any proposals they put forward. That obviously would also cover a serious proposal for a feasibility study, in which we would be prepared to help if we could.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a specific request has been in the hands of the Government for a week and that it would be irresponsible to have an official at the meeting on Wednesday unless there is something to announce by that time?

I will take account of that point and I will see to it that we are in a position to make a proper response then.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from tour operators with regard to fuel supplies for charter flights.

Since the announcement on 21st March 1974 of the suspension of the allocation scheme for aviation jet fuel, no representations have been received from tour operators about fuel supplies.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, in the light of the fuel supply position, there is no reason for the public to expect that any holidays booked now will not be honoured? In view of the difficulties which the travel trade has been passing through since the fuel problems emerged, will he encourage people to book now?

There is no evidence with which I have been presented to suggest that that allegation is likely to bear fruit. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific complaints to make, I am sure he will draw them to my attention.

Will my hon. Friend refrain from encouraging people to book with holiday tour companies until the Government are satisfied that these companies are printing the truth in their brochures?

That is not a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to be in a position to announce his proposals for the reform of company law.

The issues involved in the reform of company law require thorough consideration and we are not yet in a position to say when our examination of them will be completed.

The Conservative Government's Companies Bill dealt with the specific abuses of insider dealing, late filing of company accounts and the warehousing of shares before a takeover. These abuses will not go away. What will the Government do about them?

We were not satisfied that those provisions dealt appropriately with the situation. There were other provisions in the Bill which had our support, but one must look at it as a whole. We are considering whether administrative reforms—affecting, for example, Companies House—should be separated from the general principles relating to the reform of company law as a whole. As I have said previously, we take the view that the framework of the Conservatives' Bill was far too narrow and contained rather a lot of window dressing.

When the Government produce a Companies Bill, will they remember that small private companies are different animals from big corporations, and legislate accordingly so that they are not penalised?

We shall consider these matters very carefully.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on the Second Reading of the Companies Bill in the last Parliament, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that it was the Labour Party's view that there should be a Royal Commission to look into company law reform? When is that commission to be set up? Was that a pledge or a lightly given promise?

My right hon. Friend was putting forward a suggestion. We do not consider, as at present advised, that a Royal Commission is necessary, but the Department is considering the entirety of company law including the provisions contained in the Conservative Government's Bill and our view as to the widening of the total scope of company law so that workers' interests and individual interests are properly considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of United Kingdom imports from Namibia in 1973, and the nature of the materials or goods imported.

Published figures show that imports totalled £33 million ; the main items were fur skins, meat, fish, fish oil, fish meal and lead.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Is he aware that I was under the impression that uranium was also an import from that part of the world? Will he assure me that his list is complete? Does he agree that while Namibia is controlled by South Africa, the removal of any resources from that country by way of imports represents the plundering of the resources of the native people of that country which should not be allowed to continue until the territory is under the control of the United Nations?

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, we do not at present import any uranium from Namibia. The list I gave was complete and correct. In reply to the second part, we import mineral resources from many parts of the world. If my hon. Friend takes that view about Namibia, he may equally take it about a large number of other areas of the developing world, where it might be said that by taking minerals from them rich countries are exploiting natural resources which should belong to the people concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that enough young men are volunteering for training as officers in the Merchant Navy ; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. As in other maritime countries, there has been a shortage of suitably qualified Merchant Navy officers for some years. The industry is at present engaged in a recruitment campaign which is having some success.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not agree that this is a serious state of affairs? Is it not regrettable and also surprising that at a time like this HMS "Conway", which for 100 years has trained officers for the Merchant Navy, should be under threat of death? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give a full answer this afternoon, but will he look at this matter carefully within the next few weeks?

It is true that the shortage of young men to train as officers is a matter of concern. The British Shipping Federation and other interested bodies are taking this properly into account. As I said in my answer, this is not a matter which affects this nation alone; it is a worldwide problem. HMS "Conway" recently provided only 20 cadets a year for the Merchant Navy. Training in the Merchant Navy can now be provided more readily elsewhere. Questions about the closure of HMS "Conway" are in any event for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has received the report of the investigation into the affairs of London and Counties Securities Ltd. ; and if he will make a statement.

I have not received the report of the inspectors appointed under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 to investigate the affairs of London and County Securities Group Ltd. I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Department's inspectors do an absolutely thorough job on the affairs of the company, especially in the period after 31st August 1973, when one of the company's auditors resigned mysteriously, and during the period when the Leader of the Liberal Party, as one of the co-directors, was touting for investors' money by opening banks in supermarkets and offering high rates of interest to pensioners who were gullible enough to assume that because the Leader of the Liberal Party was opening the banks the company had a lot of credibility when in fact it was in the financial gutter?

I am sure that the report of the study by the inspectors will be a thorough one. The accounting inspector —who, I am told, has 24 members on his staff—is carrying out a wide-ranging inquiry. This is a complex matter and no fewer than 20 subsidiary companies are involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy towards trade with South Africa, Chile and Iron Curtain countries, respectively.

Apart from military supplies it is the Government's policy to encourage British exports to these and other countries.

Will the Minister confirm that his future policy will be dictated by Britain's overall trading interests and not by minor party political considerations?

The hon. Gentleman should not minimise the important political issues involved, particularly in the supply of arms. That is why I deliberately began my answer by putting that on one side. That apart, it is in the general interests of the country—and of all other countries—to encourage the maximum amount of trade on equitable terms between us.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear, because it needs to be emphasised, that we do not export arms to countries behind the Iron Curtain?

Yes, it has long been the established policy that there should be very strict control on the supply of arms to countries in Eastern Europe.

Are there any objective criteria for determining to which countries arms will be sold? If so, what are those criteria?

This has to be decided, and has been decided by successive Governments, very much on a case-to-case basis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that deliberate encouragement of trade between South Africa and the United Kingdom may seriously prejudice the trading interests of the United Kingdom with the rest of Africa?

That is among the factors that have to be borne in mind. I do not believe that the present volume of our trade with South Africa is having any deleterious effect on our prospects of trade with African countries to the north.

When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to visit these countries, and in which order?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previously announced plans. I am visiting Canada and the United States in the near future, and I hope to visit Australia and New Zealand thereafter. Beyond that, whether I can get away will depend greatly on how well the Opposition behave in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to strengthen the appropriate international agreements in order to protect the name "Shetland" in foreign knitwear markets.

I think that the provisions of existing international agreement on fair trading are adequate. These depend for their enforcement upon domestic legislation in member countries, and the onus is on complainants to establish that a description is being misused. It would be impracticable to remove this onus in respect of any particular name, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any specific suggestions to make I will certainly consider them.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely difficult for a small industry to keep track of all infringements of the agreements? Will he give an undertaking that the Department will resist all the attempts which we believe are being made to deprive the word "Shetland" of any territorial significance?

I understand that it is extremely difficult for a small industry to keep track of infringements, but the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Department to assume a great responsibility. There is real difficulty in determining exactly what is a Shetland product. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in making that determination, but I am advised that it is a problem in world trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from representatives of, and individuals concerned with, industries adversely affected by the increase of fuel oil prices.

There have been few recently but earlier this year my Department received representations from and on behalf of various industries and companies including horticulture, bricks and building materials, glass products and light engineering. Oil price increases are scrutinised by the Price Commission, which I understand has also been approached by consumers affected.

Is the Minister aware that I have not had a reply to my telegram on behalf of the Lea Valley Growers and the glasshouse industry generally? What helpful action will the Government take before these growers are ruined?

The Government recognise that this is a serious matter. It is a specific industry and it is thus the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is now looking urgently at this matter.

As there is a considerable difference between the price of fuel oil and coal, will the Minister recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the removal of the tax on fuel oil?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman has made an important observation on the relative cheapness of coal compared with oil at the present time.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future price levels for electricity and gas.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement concerning electricity and gas prices.

Has the Minister seen the astonishing figures in the regional survey published last Friday which show the average fuel costs of the average Scottish householder as 7½ per cent. more than the national average and 20 per cent. more than the Midlands average? In view of the widening differential between Scottish coal, electricity and gas prices and the national figures, will the Minister seriously consider the possibility of a national price for the products of nationalised industries?

The Government look seriously at any proposition presented by Opposition Members, but the strictures made by the hon. Gentleman would have had greater credibility if while the Conservatives were in power he had managed to put his arguments to his right hon. Friends.

Has the Minister any idea of the hardship that will be caused to old people living alone by the forthcoming increase in electricity prices? Is he also aware that these are the same people who are being hurt by the Labour Government's juggling about with the rate rebates? Will he have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether the people to whom I refer can receive some form of rebated assistance towards electricity charges or rates, or both?

If the hon. Gentleman has any proposition to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I suggest that he tables a Question on that item. In regard to his point about the suffering of elderly people, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to deal with that matter in his Budget Statement when he announced a substantial increase in pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give appropriate general directions to the Central Electricity Generating Board to improve the efficiency of fuel conversion on existing and new power stations by applying energy now wasted to district heating and other useful purposes.

The CEGB already has statutory duties under Section 50 of the Electricity Act 1947, as amended by the Electricity Act 1957, and under Section 2(5) of the latter Act, which bear directly on the efficiency and economy of its operations and on the use of waste heat.

Does not the Minister agree that that is a most unsatisfactory answer, because it is simply an excuse for saying that nothing is being done to improve the efficiency of our electricity industry? Does he not know that every house and building in the country could be heated from waste products which at present are being poured into rivers or which go up chimneys?

I do not accept the introductory part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He has asked the question many times, and the answer is that this subject is the statutory responsibility of the CEGB. As for the question of waste heat, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the CEGB is always looking into this matter and takes opinions and views on the subject from all over the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he will announce plans for ensuring greater participation of British firms on the production of equipment for North Sea oil development.

As my right hon. Friend announced on 2nd April, we are planning a substantial expansion of the efforts of the Offshore Supplies Office and we intend to establish the headquarters of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow with representatives in other parts of the country and in London.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent British firms are inhibited by shortage of steel and trained personnel? In respect of the latter point, will he consider the possibility of establishing in Glenrothes, Fife, the Petroleum Industry Training Board?

My hon. Friend has raised a number of very important matters, all of which I am currently examining. With regard to the steel situation, on Friday I visited two of the most important platform fabrication yards in the United Kingdom, namely, Brown and Root at Nigg Bay and McAlpine at Ardyne Point, and I took the opportunity to discuss with them the very important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of training, I am sure my hon. Friend is as delighted as I am that we are establishing a drilling technology centre in Scotland. I have taken note of the other points he made.

Is the Minister aware that the extent of British participation in this great development will depend largely on Government policy towards the oil industry and its North Sea operations? Is he aware that he was reported as declaring that the Government propose to seize 51 per cent. of that oil industry? Is that still his view, has he modified it, or what are the Government's latest intentions?

I cannot hold myself responsible for Press reports, particularly in some of the newspapers that circulate in the hon. Gentleman's area. I can however, assure him that the Government are proceeding with their plans for the oil industry in the North Sea as announced in the Queen's Speech. We shall be bringing them forward shortly, and we shall stick to our commitments with regard to public ownership, participation and control.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he can now make a statement about the Government's decision on the next generation of nuclear generators.

My right hon. Friend intends to make a statement as soon as possible, but not before the House has had an opportunity to debate the issues.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a number of his Labour colleagues have expressed a wish that this decision should be reached with the greatest speed? I welcome the fact that there is to be a debate on this subject, but will he assure the House that if there is any further delay he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a decision about the interim situation, even if they cannot make up their minds about what they want to do in the final analysis?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman concedes the fact that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate this issue. I assure him that the Government appreciate the need for decisions, but it is important to get those decisions right. Therefore, the Government must weigh carefully all relevant factors on this complex issue.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the recommendations made on this sensitive matter by the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Will he give an assurance that no decision will be taken by the Government on any proposal for a light-water reactor until the House has had an opportunity to debate the subject?

I have pleasure in giving my hon. Friend that assurance. This has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and no decision has been taken. The House of Commons will have the opportunity to debate the issue.

Will the Minister make sure that the House has an up-to-date forecast of the demand for electricity from the CEGB before we debate the subject? Does he agree that it will be exceedingly difficult to debate a programme involving a choice of reactor without our having the information about electricity demand?

I will convey that view to my right hon. Friend.

What is happening in the discussions with the Canadians on the SGHW Candu reactors?

Discussions are taking place all the time. As I have told the House on other occasions, no decisions of any description have been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will outline his plans for ensuring that Dundee will receive a greater number of oil related jobs from the development of Scotland's offshore oil resources.

My Department acknowledges the efforts being made by local authority and development bodies in Dundee to provide facilities for offshore oil-related activities. The Offshore Supplies Office has drawn the attention of potential oil-related developers to Dundee and will continue to do so.

In view of the interest expressed by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that when an itinerary for editors of oil journals was drawn up last week Tayside was left out and was included only after protests? Since only 250 jobs or so will come to Dundee out of the development of the offshore oil industry, what further plans has the right hon. Gentleman to increase the proportion of jobs?

I note the hon. Gentleman's observations about a trip by journalists, but he will acknowledge that in this context journalists are relatively trivial. I can assure him of my determination to see that Dundee starts to get a real share of the jobs that are being created as a result of North Sea oil development. For that reason I am visiting Dundee during the Easter Recess and I hope to take my Secretary of State with me.