asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on Great Britain's current trading position.

The figures up to April show that the worsening caused by increases in the price of oil had been partly offset by improvement in the balance of trade in other goods.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a large part of our current trade deficit is with the rest of the EEC. Does he think that that is a permanent or temporary situation? Further, will he tell the House why the much prophesied export boom consequent upon Britain's entry into the Community has not yet come about?

My hon. Friend has made a fair point. There is a massive British trade deficit with the EEC. That deficit stands in sharp contrast to the confident expectations which were held some two years ago about how our trade with the EEC would benefit and improve. I now turn to the longer-term prospects. I hope that our visible trade with the EEC and with all other trading areas will improve now that the general strength of demand in the economy has been regulated. There is now a considerable possibility of increasing our exports to all markets.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that last year, unlike what was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), exports to the Common Market rose by 37 per cent. compared with a rise of exports to the rest of the world of 26 per cent., and that now nearly a third of our exports goes to the Community?

The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. Our exports to the Common Market rose last year, but what the right hon. Gentleman should know, and what he so persistently ignored when he had ministerial responsibilities, is that our imports rose even faster. Our deficit with the EEC grew from £500 million in 1972 to over £1,000 million in 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek discussions with leading British exporters on the effect that a British withdrawal from the European Community would have on their European sales.

I am ready to discuss export prospects with British industry at any time.

Is the Minister aware that there will be some surprise that such discussions have not already been taken further with exporting firms? Will he get his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to undertake to have discussions with ICI, whose chairman recently reported that his company's exports to the EEC increased by 63 per cent. during our first year of membership of the Common Market? I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State not to be deflected from having these discussions by the certain knowledge that the verdict that they will receive is that it would be disastrous for British exports and employment if we were to withdraw from the EEC.

I shall deal first with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am aware of the claim that is made by the CBI. However, I think that British industry is sympathetic towards the Government's declared intention of getting improved terms. There is also the point that the views of the British people will have to be taken into account before the issue can be resolved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what assessment he has made of the likely effect on trade with Commonwealth countries which would result from British withdrawal from the EEC.

Such an assessment would be premature, but I have no reason to believe that our trade with Commonwealth countries would in any way suffer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has asked the Commonwealth countries for their views on the merits of Britain's remaining in the Community and whether any Commonwealth country has expressed a preference for our leaving it?

What I have discussed with a number of Commonwealth countries is the question of the access of their goods to Britain as a result of Britain's membership of the EEC. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nearly all the countries to which I have spoken are very anxious that that access should be broadened and that Britain should therefore be able to achieve under this Government a fundamental renegotiation of the terms.

The right hon. Gentleman seems peculiarly evasive this afternoon.

Order. That was a statement, not a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my hon. Friend's question, namely, have any representations been received from Commonwealth Governments requesting Britain's withdrawal from the EEC?

I think that Commonwealth Governments very correctly take the view that just as it would be improper for them to express the view that we should stay in so it would be equally improper for them to express the view that we should leave. What they wish to do is to leave it to the British Government to handle the renegotiations. They hope that their interests will be better looked after than they have been in the past few years and that the matter will be finally resolved by the British people.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to visit Brussels to discuss British trade with the European Economic Community.

I have no immediate plans for trade talks with the Commission, but I hope to attend the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 25th June.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the recent statement by the French President and the West German Chancellor expressing opposition to the protectionist trade measures taken in the Community? If it should prove necessary to negotiate British withdrawal from the EEC, does not that type of statement offer further encouragement of the belief that free trade in Western Europe could be retained?

Regardless of the weight one puts on the declaration by the German Chancellor and the new French President, I have always taken the view that it is in the interests of all Western European countries, and, indeed, more widely, to establish as near as possible genuine free trade in the modern world. Whether Britain is in or out of the Common Market, I hope that we shall have success in the forthcoming multilateral trade talks and that we shall move forward to that international free trade régime which the hon. Gentleman wants to see.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in his talks with the OECD that opinion was expressed?

The OECD is very much in favour of creating and broadening international trade. We are pleased that in the past fortnight there has at last been settlement of the Article XXIV.. 6 negotiations affecting GATT, opening the way for the American trade reform legislation and, one hopes, the multilateral trade reform talks later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about British trade with the EEC.

In January-April 1974, on a seasonally adjusted basis, exports to the other members of the EEC were £1,681 million fob and imports from them £2,310 million cif.

Is there any reason to expect that if we had a free trade area instead of the Common Market there would be much difference in our trade with Common Market countries? Is the Minister aware of the campaign that is being built up by the European Movement and its supporters in various places that for this country to withdraw from the Common Market would be disastrous to us? Is he further aware that the European Movement in Norway, and its supporters, said precisely the same and were proved wrong? Will the Government take action to counter this totally misleading propaganda by the European Movement and its many supporters.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, and I shall yield to temptation. I deeply deplore the propaganda efforts that are being made to resurrect this European dogma. The people who embarked upon that dogma in the past did this country no service. I very much hope that in the period that is now beginning British industry will put far more effort into winning markets in Europe, whether in a free trade area or in the Common Market, than in trying to persuade the British people that it is in their interests to become part of a European union.

Will my right hon. Friend observe that with the original EEC Six —the great home market which we were exhorted to join—in the first four months of this year our visible trad': deficit has been running at an annual rate of £1,600 million a year.

I am only too deeply aware of that. This is part of a progression, from £500 million a year in 1972, to over £1,000 million a year in 1973, and at the rate of £1,600 million a year in 1974. One simple equation is that if any Conservative Front Benchers thought, during the negotiations, that we could somehow manage to shoulder the burden of our membership fees of the EEC out of the improved balance of payments position which they hoped we would get from our trade with the EEC, they must now be profoundly disillusioned.

Will the Secretary of State confirm, after the consultation which he has no doubt had, that British industry, almost without exception, is opposed to withdrawing from the Common Market?

It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to confuse British industry with the CBI. British industry also consists of many millions of workpeople, who do not take the same view about the advantages of membership of the EEC.

Will my right hon. Friend consult the steel industry before he says too much about the attitude of British industry? Is my right hon. Friend saying that the skill of British management and men is so inferior that we cannot stand on our own feet before the Germans, the Italians or anyone else? Why are we doing so badly, if my right hon. Friend is saying that we are doing badly?

I very much hope that we can and will stand on our own feet. It is like the old business of swimming the Channel. We are not afraid of swimming the Channel, but if we put the ball of the CAP round one ankle and our budgetary contributions round the other we should not be surprised if we sink.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that about one job in seven in British industry is dependent on exports to the Community? Is he aware that all his anti-Common Market remarks this afternoon are in complete contrast to the most recent statement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary?

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads with rather more care what my right hon. Friend had to say.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will examine ways of speeding up the deliveries of British exports to Australia.

I am aware that in recent months there have been delays in shipments of goods to Australia. This is a problem that can be solved only by the commercial interests involved. They are already in close touch with each other but my Department has had discussions with the United Kingdom/Australia Conference and the lines concerned to ensure that everything possible is done to resolve the present difficulties.

Is the Minister aware that the Export Times today described this matter as the "Scandal of the 'shipping shambles'"? Will he be having any discussions with the British Shippers Council to try to alleviate the problem in the next three months?

The Government appreciate the difficulty. We have had many letters expressing concern. The fact remains that we have no powers which enable us to force anyone to do anything. As I have already indicated, we have discussed the matter with the United Kingdom/Australia Conference and with the lines concerned. I believe that everyone is fully aware of the situation. It is not wholly of the making of British interests, because there are difficulties in Australia which have led to congestion in the ports, about which the hon. Ge leman knows.

In view of the Minister's answer and the breakdown of negotiations in the port of Liverpool last Friday between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the port authorities, will he indicate what steps he intends to take to get the grain terminal working in the port of Liverpool?

That is not a matter for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's negotiations with foreign Governments concerning supersonic flight paths.

My Department is pressing forward as rapidly as possible in discussions with the countries concerned. We are making progress, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not desirable to specify details of these discussions while negotiations are proceeding.

I accept the latter point, but has the hon. Gentleman seen the reports in weekend newspapers that certain American politicians, notably in Boston and New York, seem again to be trying to use Concorde, by opposing it, to further their own political ends? Will he have discussions at an early date with his colleague in the French Government so that the Americans can be left in no doubt that playing this game is dangerous?

I cannot be answerable for the actions of certain American politicians. The House has sufficient difficulty with some British politicians. Discussions of the nature to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and not for my Department.

What representations have we made to the American authorities about allowing Concorde to fly into New York, for instance?

I have already indicated that at this stage we are not prepared to divulge such details of discussions which are proceeding. I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to accept my assurance that discussions have proceeded and that my Department is in no way dragging its feet.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, on this one aspect of Concorde, we are told nothing, whilst all the unfavourable aspects are widely publicised?

The hon. Gentleman should know better, having been involved himself in this form of discussion, but he seems to have learnt nothing from his own experience. For me to embark now upon detailed disclosure of the proposals which have been made could only harm the situation, and could not possible benefit it. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman really thinks that it would be helpful for me to go into greater detail now.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a further statement about the reform of company legislation.

My Department is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of companies legislation and of the machinery for enforcing it, and will take account of recent studies, including the proposals in the report on the reform of company law published on the reform of Party. This review will extend to the arrangements for supervision of the securities market, about which there have already been consultations with the Bank of England, and also to my own Department's policies and powers on enforcement; it will be undertaken on a wide scale in consultation with interested outside bodies, and will be published.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that if, as he has indicated, the Government's policy in these matters is going to correspond to the views of the left wing of the Labour Party, all they will be doing is erecting such a mass of complication in this country that no foreign investor will conceivably contemplate investing here in future and every Englishman, if he possibly can, will seek to invest abroad?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the degree and scope of the criticism that there has been from many sources—including, certainly, the Labour Party—about the way in which a number of these matters have been looked after in recent years. There is a widespread view that there is need for change and for increasingly vigorous enforcement in this sector.

Does not one of the reasons for company law reform lie in certain examples in recent months, including the rather strange case of London and County Securities, bailed out in an exercise in community politics by the leader of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and the equally strange subsequent affair in which the First National Finance Corporation, which assisted in bailing out. London and County Securities by taking over some of its debts, has now found itself in almost as difficult a position? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that, when we hear an important group chairman talking about investing in cash, something badly needs doing?

Many criticisms could legitimately be made about certain aspects of affairs in the City, including the secondary bank problem. The range of matters on which we are now starting an inquiry does not, however, include secondary banks, which are being looked at in a different context. In my view, this will lead to serious consideration of proposals which should bring about significant improvements.

What special provision in company legislation will the right hon. Gentleman make for small firms?

The question of small firms in terms of the securities market, the Stock Exchange and other matters, does not come first to mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we are concerned with is the way in which take-overs take place and the way in which the present machinery of investigation is operating.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what consultations he has had with the Confederation of British Industry with regard to improving British exports.

I have discussed a number of matters with the Confederation of British Industry, including exports and related trade issues. The British Overseas Trade Board has had similar discussions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions about arms sales to Chile? Will he come clean, stop hiding behind a smoke screen of secrecy and tell us how many hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of exports are being lost by the Government's silly ban when we need all the exports we can possibly get at present?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are grossly exaggerated and are based upon his own rather heated imagination rather than upon any facts available to us. He knows the situation with regard to arms sales to Chile. It has been stated in this House.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many millions of pounds in trade this country might have lost if arms sales to Chile had gone ahead?

That is another aspect of the matter.

In discussions with the CBI, what was the right hon. Gentleman able to say about any ideas he has for promoting British exports?

I have had considerable talks with the CBI, both directly myself and through my officials and officials of the CBI. One of the main focuses of our talks has been how far the British Overseas Trade Board's activities can promote British exports and how its work and the work of the CBI can be brought closer together and made more effective

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on reports that among the activities he has been indulging in is to tell the ECGD, two weeks ago, that it should not give further support to certain countries of which he disapproves? Does he think that such activities help our trade?

The hon. Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in the Press.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the financing assistance available to the purchasers of British exports.

Yes. Sir. The financial facilities available for British exports are at once extensive and broadly competitive.

In view of the oblique reply to my right hon. Friend a few moments ago, will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that it is not the Government's intention to make ECGD finance available on a politically selective basis?

If I am asked for a categorical assurance in relation to an article that appeared in the Economist alleging that I had asked for a list of export deals covering a number of countries and that I had prevented them from going ahead, the answer is "No".

Answer the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question? Will he give a categorical assurance that no instructions are being given affecting credit facilities for exports to countries of whose Governments the right hon. Gentleman does not approve? Will he answer that?

I am not prepared to give an answer in those terms. As the Minister responsible for the ECGD, it is not right for me to limit my rights in relation to the ECGD. What I am able to give the House is a categorical assurance that the article that appeared in the Economist was false.

The right hon. Gentleman can clear up this matter quite easily if he will assure the House that he will make a statement to the House about any individual case in which he decides to take political action against an exporter or importer. If not, by administrative action he will be doing what he is accused of doing by the Economist. If he will assure the House that he will tell us if he takes such an action, we shall be able to debate it.

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. If, with my colleagues, I decide to restrict ECGD transactions in relation to particular countries, I have no doubt that I shall want to make a statement to the House about that.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that successive Conservative administrations have taken decisions about financing and about trade itself on the basis of political opinions, and have done so over the whole postwar period?

Of course there have been many occasions when Governments have had to intervene in trade matters. Anyone who knows the ECGD Act and who studies it carefully will appreciate that certain provisions provide that there has to be an element of judgment about what kind of credit facilities should be available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has had conversations with officials in the ECGD in order to put himself in a position to take action enabling him to discriminate against countries of whose regimes he disapproves?

I shall certainly not tell the hon. Gentleman about conversations that I may or may not have had with members of my own Department.

Open government!

Not at all: that does not relate to the issue of open government. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) made the perfectly reasonable request that if we made changes in ECGD we should inform the House. I shall be glad to do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will publish the latest figures for trade with China; and if he will make a statement.

For the four months ended April 1974 exports were provisionally estimated at £22 million fob and imports at £25 million cif. Our trade with China continues to grow.

Is the Minister aware that as I was present when my right hon. Friend opened the exhibition in Peking last year, I naturally welcomed that improvement Will he bear in mind the conversations between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Chinese leaders recently, when the Chinese made it clear that our membership of the Community was an important factor in our relations with China? As the hon. Gentleman wishes our trade to improve, will he bear that in mind in reference not only to China but to other countries?

That is a matter not of Chinese trade policy but of Chinese foreign policy. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind. We all want an expansion of trade with what may be one of the most important markets for our exports.

What is the Government's attitude to the supply of Harriers to China?

No firm proposals have yet been put to the company, but we hope that there are longer-term prospects for the sale of other types of aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate has been made of the effect on the balance of trade of recent Government measures discouraging foreign firms from establishing themselves in Great Brittain.

The Government have taken no measures to discourage foreign firms from establishing themselves in Great Britain.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of what was in the Budget? That was an extraordinary statement when, in fact, there are international companies which feel that the Budget acted against them—and I shall be happy to provide the right hon. Gentleman with a full list. In the light of the views of these companies, will he now listen to representations and, if he then thinks that the companies are adversely affected, will he consider alternative proposals and make amendments in the autumn Budget, to which we all look forward?

Naturally, the Government will consider reasonable criticisms, but this matter has been debated in the House on a number of occasions in the context of the Finance Bill, and certain amendments have already been made.

I dissociate myself entirely from the incoherent rubbish mumbled by the hon. Member. However, will my right hon. Friend remember that his Department is responsible for the film industry and that if we lose markets in countries whose nationals have contributed greatly to our cultural life and who have often come here precisely because at home they were subject to political pressures, we shall badly damage our own interests? I hope that my right hon. Friend will impress on his colleagues in the Treasury our fear that we may, unfortunately, lose some of these great opportunities if some provisions in the Finance Bill are not changed.

I always listen to my hon. Friend with attention. If there are specific matters affecting the film industry that she thinks should be brought to the attention of myself and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I invite her to make sure that we receive her submissions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that if he had defended his actions, at least we should have been able to question them, but that it is far more serious when he does not understand that the Government's actions have harmed our trading position? May I help him? Is he not aware that the dramatic increase in taxation, the threat to withdraw from Europe, and the incredible antics of the Secretary of State for Industry have had the most damaging effects on the prospects for investment in this country by overseas investors?

Not for the first time, the hon. Member is talking a lot of nonsense. The plain truth is—

Look at the investment figures.

—that the increase in investment in Britain for last year and the year before shows every sign of continuing in 1974. To date, I have received no information to show that anything we are alleged to be doing is discouraging investment in British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what general advice his Department is giving to British exporters about difficulties caused by the Italian import surcharge.

Details of the import deposit scheme were sent to subscribers of the Export Intelligence Service on 7th May, and were also published in Trade and Industry on 9th and 23rd May. General advice was likewise published on 6th June.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and for the advice that has been given by his officials to my constituents. What is his Department doing to get this unfortunate and discriminatory measure removed as soon as possible?

We have made our views clear through the Council of Ministers of the EEC. At the same time, we understand the severe difficulties imposed on the Italian economy by the tremendous rise in oil prices in the past six months. We must hope that the measures currently being taken will enable the import deposit scheme to be ended as quickly as possible in the interests of a further expansion of world trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Italy about their new import deposit scheme.

These measures have been discussed at meetings of the EEC, OECD, and elsewhere, where the views of the United Kingdom Government have been put.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the main danger is that other countries which do not have Italy's grave problems will nevertheless follow their lead, and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies will be adopted by developed countries trying to pass the results of their balance of payments problems on to their trading competitors? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, will he give an assurance that there is no question of the British Government's contemplating equivalent measures to deal with their present balance of payments situation?

There is a grave danger this year, probably more than in any year since the war, that if nations begin to restrict their trade for balance of payments reasons in the face of the incredible oil deficit, which virtually the whole of the developed world faces, this could produce a downturn—indeed, a slump. It is therefore absolutely essential that nations should not follow the example of the Italian Government—although I understand their very special difficulties— in pursuing policies which restrict trade. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks in respect of this country for at least this year.

Is it not a fact that when any of the States within the Common Market finds itself in extreme financial or other difficulties it tends to do its own thing, and that that applies not merely to Italy, with its import deposit scheme and import surcharge scheme, but to France and some of the other so-called giants of the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he should not be dogmatic in his replies about what Italy has done, because in the not too distant future he may well have to adopt physical and financial controls which may be similar in effect?

I said that I was not considering this matter primarily in the EEC context, because I do not believe that the Common Market provides a substantial enough forum for solving major international trade and monetary questions. My answer was couched within the context of the international trading community as a whole, in respect of which we have to restrain ourselves this year in the interests of all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said? The oil situation is only one factor affecting the Italian economy. What marks the Italian economy off from other European economies is the extreme rate of price inflation, the avariciousness of its trade unions and the lack of profitability of its industry.

No doubt we can all produce our own list of reasons for marking the Italian nation off from other countries. But the avariciousness of Italian industry and Italian capital——

Trade unions.

—not just of Italian trade unions, and the great internal political difficulties of the Italian State, are important factors which affect the whole situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to bring forward legislation concerning flight time limitations, following upon the report of the Committee of the Civil Aviation Authority published in June 1973.

The Civil Aviation Authority has conducted wide-ranging. discussions about the recommendations of the Bader Committee and has prepared drafts of revised legislation and related requirements. It is circulating these drafts to interested parties for comment, and proposals for changes to the legislation will be submitted to my right hon. Friend as soon as this process is complete.

While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I urge upon him the necessity for taking early action? Unless legislation is introduced into the House this year it will not be possible to put it into effect in time for next summer's schedules of British airlines. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I believe that this is necessary and long overdue?

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who, I know, has a real interest in this matter. It is hoped that the legislation will have been introduced and implemented by the end of the year. The CAA has already followed one of the recommendations made by the committee, by the setting up of the Flight Time Limitations Board, which I think will be valuable.

Will my hon. Friend accept that many of the problems of flight time limitations for the flight deck also affect cabin staff? Is he able to say anything about the progress of the committee which is reviewing the flying schedules of cabin staff?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the working party which was established following the recent dispute is looking carefully into questions affecting cabin staff. It would be premature for me to make any statement at this stage about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage trade between Great Britain and Chile.

Apart from military supplies, which are embargoed, the normal range of services to exporters is available in respect of trade with Chile.

Some encouragement can be taken from that answer but will the right hon. Gentleman undertake. in connection with Chile, to advise his colleagues in the Labour Party and the upper reaches of the engineering unions that before involving themselves in other countries' affairs they should have regard not to their own personal and highly selective prejudices but more widely to this country's interests as a trading nation?

What my hon. Friends have to balance and what, as a Minister, I have to balance, are the interests of this country as a trading nation with our views about unacceptable political behaviour on the part of some other Governments. This becomes a matter of major concern when it affects the supply of armaments.

Have not every Government of this country since the war maintained a list of countries to which they did not sell arms?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current practice relating to the searching of passengers and their baggage at London Airport, Heathrow.

Passengers and baggage at Heathrow and other United Kingdom airports are being searched by both British and overseas airlines to the extent recommended by the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the staff morale situation was considerably aggravated by the previous administration's being favourably disposed to the employment of private security firms? Will he accept that there is now an acceptance that he is taking a more helpful attitude? Can he also see that the best boost to staff morale and to public accountability generally would be if there were no private security firms at Heathrow?

My hon. Friend will recognise that I have asked for a departmental examination of the role of private security organisations employed at Heathrow by the airlines. It would be premature of me to make any observation about this examination at this stage. Since it involves questions of security, the report will not be published. My hon. Friend will realise that I shall be taking the appropriate action when the report is in my hands.

What action is being taken about the failure of whoever conducted the search to inform the police in time that within the last couple of days a passenger was found in illegal possession of ammunition and was allowed to continue on a flight to Dublin?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to pursue his inquiry I shall certainly do so if he will write to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the increase in visible trade, both in and out of the United Kingdom, arising out of the activities of the Price Commission, since November 1972 to the present date.

No estimate has been made but I think it unlikely that the activities of the Price Commission have had more than a marginal influence.

Since the price of many goods is much higher on the Continent, is it not obvious that price control is causing a large diversion abroad of goods which then have to be bought back at higher prices? Why do the Government not realise that there cannot be price control of industrial materials in a world which is free and where goods can move freely? Why do they not realise that in the end we have to live in the; world market place and not in a sheltered little island, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends seem to think?

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to prove one way or the other whether what the hon. Gentleman asserts is true. The strong rise in demand in 1973 and three-day working in part of 1974 have had such a large impact on the levels of trade that they mask the influence and significance of the small factors which he has mentioned.

Is the hon. Gentleman really asking us to believe—to take one example—that the increase of two thirds in the volume of imports of excavating machinery last year and the increase of one third in the volume of exports of excavating machinery last year had nothing to do with the distortion created by price control?

I thought it was generally accepted that an expansion of international trade is a two-way process and that one country does not exclusively export goods of one type and import goods of another type. We export motor cars but we also import motor cars. We export excavators and, equally, we import excavating equipment. I see no reason to be concerned about the figures the hon. Gentleman quotes.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that the navigation charts available to the Merchant Navy for territorial and international waters are adequate.

Yes, Sir, although all charts have their limitations, as is pointed out in "The Mariner's Handbook" issued by the Hydrographer of the Navy. My Department is continuing to keep in close touch with the Ministry of Defence and the Chamber of Shipping on the needs of merchant shipping in this respect.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he recognises that this situation does not permit complacency? Is he aware that most navigation charts were drawn up at a time when no one could have envisaged the colossal draught of the modem super tanker? Does he not realise that there is a serious risk of a major collision incident as a result of a tanker colliding with an uncharted hazard? Does he not agree that if oil companies are to inflict super tankers on the world for reasons of economy they should be compelled to plough some of their obscene profits into the preparation of charts which would protect the world from these tankers?

I have said that the question of the preparation of these charts is a matter for the Hydrographer of the Navy. There is no doubt that he is fully aware of the factors to which my hon. Friend has alluded. This has been fully exemplified by the statement he has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the operation of the Insurance Companies Act 1973.

The Act will not be fully operative until a number of detailed regulations have been made, but good progress is being made in the complex task of preparing them. While in many respects the Act appears to be working satisfactorily, it is premature to come to a conclusive judgment.

Is the Minister satisfied that the main purpose of the Act, namely, to protect policy holders from insecure companies, is being achieved without preventing the formation of viable new companies or unnecessary control of existing institutions?

With the co-operation of the British Insurance Association and of the whole insurance business, policy holders have been protected—for which, in the present very difficult situation, we should be grateful. Obviously risk-taking is involved in this business, and no form of supervision can eliminate the chance of failure, but the fact that this co-operation has taken place has been most satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the percentage increase in air passenger transport movements at Luton Airport in 1973 over 1970 and 1971, respectively.

On the basis of the figures I gave the hon. Member in my reply of 7th May, the percentage increases in commercial air transport movements at Luton Airport in 1973 over 1970 and 1971 were about 37-5 and 10 respectively.—[Vol 873, c. 141.]

Does the Under-Secretary of State recollect that at the Luton public inquiry in 1972 the inspector said that the 1971 figures for aircraft noise were excessive? Therefore, with a 10 per cent. increase in traffic, they will be even more unacceptable. What are the Government doing to reduce air traffic pollution, which is causing so much misery to people around Luton?

The question of a breach or otherwise of an undertaking given by Luton Corporation is a matter not for my Department but for the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 7th June offering a meeting to discuss these matters, in the hope that some of the difficulties and complexities which have arisen, perhaps due to misunderstanding, can be erased.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions he has had with British Airways about operating Concorde.

I discussed British Airways' Concorde appraisal with representatives of British Airways and of the British Aircraft Corporation on 17th May. Copies of the appraisal have since been made available to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern arising from the fact that the British Airways figures seem to suggest that that airline is firmly convinced that it cannot make a profit from Concorde, whereas Mr. Freddie Laker seems equally convinced that he can? In view of this disagreement between the two operators, will the right hon. Gentleman give either an assurance that no subsidy will be paid to British Airways without an impartial inquiry into its figures or a promise that if the aircraft goes into service with British Airways no subsidy will be paid until it has been in service for at least a year?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. We have not yet reached the stage when we need to consider whether assistance is needed for British Airways to fly Concorde—nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, which preceeded his supplementary question, that British Airways is being wholly pessimistic about the prospects of Concorde. British Airways had to put forward a range of estimates and, naturally, put forward that central esti- mate which it felt obliged to put forward as a result of its present studies.

Does not the Minister understand that the only reason British Airways published those figures was in reply to the statement made by his colleague the Secretary of State for Industry, largely without consultation? Is not the effect of forcing British Airways to make that statement damaging to the prospects for Concorde wherever salesmen of the British Aircraft Corporation appear?

I do not think so. That is neither what we intend nor how British Airways views the matter. The Government, in the whole matter of Concorde, have started on a policy of encouraging as much informed public discussion as possible, and as part of that discussion it was incumbent upon the Government to ask British Airways to put forward its best estimate of the financial factors——

The worst estimate.

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that we asked British Airways to put forward its worst estimate I can only say that his head should be examined.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he proposes to take to mitigate aircraft noise following the publication of the Noise Advisory Council's report on so-called "Minimum Noise Routes".

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what measures he is considering to relieve those living on the Mole Valley route from aircraft noise.

A consultation document about the recommendation in the report for splitting the Mole Valley route will be circulated very shortly to hon. Members and others concerned. Other relevant recommendations are being carefully considered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to people living under them, minimum noise routes are maximum noise routes and that the concentration of aircraft noise is intolerable? Before deciding whether to split the Mole Valley route. will the right hon. Gentleman enter into the fullest consultation with the groups of people affected—both those who might benefit and those who might suffer? Will he also consider whether the Northolt air space can be used for the Woodley route on the east-bound take-off, and whether sound-proofing grants can be extended to the borough of Richmond-upon-Thames?

The Government are aware that noise constitutes pestilence for many people. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks on the question of consultation. The question of Northolt air space is under review at present. I am aware that some people describe minimum noise routes as maximum noise routes.

Is the Minister aware that the noise is more than a pestilence to my constituents, and has become quite intolerable? They have waited long enough for measures to be introduced to alleviate the noise. Will the change of route which was introduced temporarily in July 1972 and which adversely affects my constituents who live along the Mole Valley now be reversed?

I have already said that this matter is the subject of review and will be the subject of consultation. I can go no further at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he would have been able to give even better answers to the questions on aircraft noise if the previous administration had been prepared to spend one tenth of what it proposed to spend on the third London airport on research and development on quieter aeroplane engines?

The previous administration was irresponsible in many ways. The question of retrofit and other matters to which my hon. Friend has alluded are matters of careful scrutiny by the Government. It is a pity that the previous administration did not do more.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total value of ships exported by British merchant and naval shipbuilders in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous five years.

For 1973 exports of ships and boats, as published in the December 1973 issue of the Overseas Trade Statistics, totalled £123 million; figures for earlier years are published in the appropriate annual Statements of Trade.

Does the Minister agree that these and other recently published figures show that after a major reorganisation, assisted by previous Governments, and improved labour relations, the shipbuilding industry is doing fairly well and providing more secure employment for the men in the yards than ever before? Will the Minister tell his colleagues to let the industry get on with the job instead of going through the upheaval and uncertainty of nationalisation?

One of our objectives in bringing shipbuilding into public ownership will be to make it even more efficient. This will help rather than hinder exports. This is the declared policy on which the Government were elected, and my right hon. Friend is undertaking to go ahead with this. We have no intention of reneging on our election commitments with regard to this issue.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the very disappointing share in the increasing world orders for shipbuilding strengthens the case for a major change in the whole shipbuilding industry?

Yes. The performance of the British shipbuilding industry has not been very good since the Second World War, and other nations have improved their share of world shipbuilding trade to the detriment of our own industry and workpeople. Any reorganisation—by way of nationalisation or otherwise—which can improve it will be to the overall benefit of the British economy and of the British people, and we all want to see that.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how many of those countries succeeded in improving their efficiency by nationalising the' shipbuilding industry?

If private enterprise does not work successfully, nationalisation is the only answer. That is the policy cf this Government.