asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the EEC since 1st January 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the percentage increase in British exports to the European Community since 1st January 1973.

The crude trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports fob and imports cif—was running at an annual rate of £2,000 million in the first half of 1974 following a crude deficit of £1,167 million in 1973. Over this 18-month period exports were, on average, 51 per cent. higher than in 1972.

Does the Secretary of State recall paragraph 45 of the 1971 White Paper in which the then Government said quite clearly that they were confident that the effect on our balance of trade of entry into the Common Market would be positive and substantial? Has not that prediction turned out to be rather misleading? In the light of the distressing trends shown by the figures, apart from the increase in exports, is there not a danger in concentrating too much trade in one trading area, and would not it be better to go for a wider free trade area?

I agree that the judgments on the trading advantage contained in the paragraph of the White Paper quoted by the hon. Gentleman have been shown to be seriously out. As for concentrating on a single trading area, I have taken the view—I have spoken recently to this effect—that we need to remember that we are world traders and that more than two-thirds of our trade continues to be with countries and continents outside the EEC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of the figures is a little removed from the dreamy-eyed prophecies of some Common Market zealots before our entry? As we were taken into the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the British people, ought not the British people to be asked before too long to give a final verdict on the matter?

There is no doubt that the trading reality of membership is wholly at variance with the confident prospects dangled before this House and the British people only two years ago. I have no doubt that this, among many other matters, will be taken aboard by the British people when they get the opportunity, as they will get it, to decide whether they wish to stay inside the EEC.

Do not the figures suggest that the British people are anxious to buy continental goods, and is not the purpose of the Government's renegotiation to cut off supplies of goods from the EEC—or do they think that renegotiation somehow will expand our exports?

It indicates an interest by British consumers and British industry in European goods, but whether we can continue, and for how long, to run a trade deficit with the EEC of the order of £2,000 million is a question which will be and should be exercising us all.

What proportion is this of our total world deficit, and is it in line with our trade with the EEC in comparison with our total world trade?

I willingly give my hon. Friend that information. Although the EEC accounts for about one-third of our trade, it has accounted in the past 18 months for more than half our non-oil deficit, and this has happened in a period when commodity prices in the rest of the world have gone up to an extent that we have not known probably in our lifetime.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now announce the outcome of his Department's inquiry into future air traffic needs and, arising from this, the Government's decisions affecting the development of existing and projected airports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet completed his review of the Maplin project; and if he will make a statement.

I shall be making a statement shortly about the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the debates in Committee on the Maplin Development Bill it was stated that a great deal of the demand for airports in South-East England was due to the fact that it was cheaper to send package tour passengers from the North of England to the South by motor coach than to fly them direct from their local airports? Will he ascertain whether this is confirmed? If it is found to be correct, will he take it into account in the statement that he is to make?

One matter that has to be looked at very carefully in future is the part—I hope the increased part—that regional airports can play in handling our total air traffic.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of reaffirming the decision by the previous Government that Luton should be phased out of international airport operations by 1982 as it is thoroughly unsatisfactorily sited?

It would be wrong for me to give that assurance at present and it would certainly be wrong for me to make a statement of that or any kind in advance of the statement that I hope to make on Maplin.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he must have given some remit to the inquiry which is now taking place and that included in that remit would be a direction at least to look at the possibility of Luton being phased out?

The inquiry has been asked to look at a number of reasonable options, including the option of the retention of Luton.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions he has had with British Airways about the entry of Concorde into service with that airline.

I continue to keep in close touch with British Airways on their plans for Concorde services.

Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of British Airways that he now wants Concorde "the sooner, the better"? In those circumstances, may I ask whether he has discussed with the Chairman of British Airways the possibility of setting up a joint operation with Air France which would enable Concorde to come into operation many months sooner than is at present expected?

I have seen the observations of the Chairman of British Airways. The operation of Concorde as between Air France and British Airways is a matter for their commercial judgment.

In view of the observations of the Chairman of British Airways, will the Minister give an undertaking that further subsidies will not be paid to cover the operation of this aircraft?

When British Airways ordered Concorde the previous Government said that they would be prepared to review the board's financial position at the appropriate time in the light of the outcome of the board's operations and that, if necessary, steps would be taken to ensure that the board maintained a sound financial judgment. This Government stand by that undertaking, but I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to discuss its implementation in detail.

Does my hon. Friend still stand by the figures given in this House on 18th March by the Secretary of State for Industry? If not, which other figures does he stand by?

I stand by the figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the investigation by his Department into the collapse of the London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

The inspectors' inquiries are continuing and I have not yet received the report. I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Perhaps I ought to give my hon. Friend something to tell the investigating team to further its inquiries. Does he recall that the Leader of the Liberal Party, as a director of London and Counties Securities Group Limited, had 10,000 incentive shares for little or nothing? Will his investigating team try to establish whether those shares were sold before the inevitable crash? Will the investigating team also take into account the question of the appearance money that was paid to the right for Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and whether he should be morally bound not merely to resign his directorship but to pay that money back to the distressed shareholders of the London and Counties Securities Group Limited? Will he also ask the investigating team to look into the desperate take-over bid that was launched by the discredited London and Counties Securities Group Limited just before the coalition collapsed to take over this group at a time when it could be argued that that was a criminal offence?

The fullest inquiries are being undertaken into the activities of this group. It would be improper for me to interfere at this stage. In any event, I should have thought that it would be wrong to castigate the activities of any one individual at this moment. Moreover, the Leader of the Liberal Party is more in need of sympathy than obloquy at present having taken on free transfer the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister said in the early part of his reply, is it not an abuse of Question Time that a wholly improper attack should be made upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) when the matter is under investigation?

I very much regret personal imputations against right hon. or hon. Members. Whether at this stage I am entitled to stop them altogether is a different matter. It is more a matter of taste and convention than of the rules of order in most cases.

I have had my share and I can stand them.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek powers to prevent directors of companies which are compulsorily wound up engaging in the subsequent formation and operation of corporate bodies and partnerships.

It would be unfair to impose an automatic penalty on directors simply because they had been involved in the affairs of a company which had been compulsorily wound up. However, when new legislation comes to be prepared we will consider widening the powers of the courts to disqualify persons from taking part in the management of companies.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in July 1970 my local paper, the Telegraph and Argus, pressed for some kind of company reform following some cenral heating frauds in the area? Is he aware that millions people would welcome firm action by a Labour Government to tighten company legislation and stop firms operating on the fringe of legality?

Not being an avid reader of the Telegraph and Argus, I was not aware of its interest in the matter. However, I am aware of the concern which has been expressed throughout the nation about abuses of this kind. It would be unfair to assume that every director who had been involved in a liquidation was necessarily culpable. We must retain a balance. There are quite extensive powers under the 1948 Act to deal with this situation and more extensive powers were envisaged in the Companies Bill which the previous Government were proposing to introduce. We shall certainly look carefully at those provisions and I think that we would wish to implement them.

When reviewing company legislation, will the hon. Gentle- man bear in mind the serious problem of liquidations of financial groups which have taken money from the public and that people, many of them elderly, do not know their rights and cannot get any answer to the situation? This is particularly evident in the National Life Insurance Company Limited affair. Will the Minister consider whether his Department or some other agency might set up an office which could answer telephone inquiries or letters from members of the public who want to know whether they have lost their money and what their rights are?

We would have to look carefully at that suggestion. It would not be right for a Government Department to act as a legal adviser. Nevertheless I will take on board the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman and look at it. We would welcome in new legislation wider powers of disclosure which might go to the very heart of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied with that reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will pay an official visit to Paris to discuss matters of common interest concerning trade policy.

I hope to visit Paris after the holiday period as part of a series of visits to my opposite numbers in other Community capitals.

When the right hon. Gentleman goes there, will he take with him a list of this country's traditional customers who have been affronted by the refusal of the present Government to supply arms, so that the French, who are willing to do so, can get on with the job and the right hon. Gentleman can then see even more people in this country out of work as a result of the loss of arms orders and the loss of other orders that will follow from these rebuffs to foreign Governments?

The hon. Gentleman must take on board the counter-possibility that there might be an exchange between Ministers on how far they can agree on limiting arms supplies.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the French Government, in order to keep up the price of meat, have banned lamb imports into France from Southern Ireland? As that is contrary to all the rules of the EEC, may I ask why, if the French can break these rules whenever it suits them, we cannot act similarly?

I am not absolutely certain about the legalities of the French Government's position but I hesitate to say more about this because I think the matter is currently being discussed—with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in attendance—in the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will put the British position with great force.

In view of the highly developed sense of elegance and fashion among the French, may I ask my right hon. Friend to draw their attention to the fine worsted suiting and dress materials which this country is willing to sell them at a very profitable price to ourselves?

I guarantee that if and when I have a dialogue with the French Trade Minister I shall draw his attention to the need for this country to export more to France or, in other words, for France to import more from this country than it has been doing in the last two or three years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his estimate for imports and exports of motor vehicles in 1974 and 1975; and what proportion exports of motor vehicles are likely to represent United Kingdom total exports in those years.

It is not the practice to venture such estimates. However, in January to May this year 174,000 motor vehicles and chassis were imported and 297,000 were exported, the latter representing 4·3 per cent. by value of total United Kingdom exports.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless our export trade in motors cars is kept up this year there will be a serious decline in domestic production, with consequent results on employment? Is he further aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry gave a most misleading reply in the House a fortnight ago and published a bullish estimate of production the following week, to which I took great exception?

Questions about production in the motor car industry should rightly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there is scope for further exports in world markets. At the same time we have to bear in mind that world demand is not expanding as rapidly as it has done in recent years, partly because of the oil crisis and partly because of the general economic situation, but we feel that our motor car industry, with its wide range of smaller cars, is well placed to meet this demand.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the needs of our own coach-building industry, with particular reference to public service vehicles? In connection with the export of chassis, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that for a long time coach-builders in this country—and there is one in particular in my constituency—were on short-time working because so many chassis were being exported that the home demand was not being met?

It is of advantage to our balance of payments to export complete vehicles rather than merely the chassis and have the body put on overseas. I take note of my hon. Friend's point and I shall look into it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the volume of United Kingdom trade in 1973 with Russia and Chile, respectively.

Published figures show imports from Russia and Chile as £331 million and £57 million cif respectively and exports £97 million and £17 million fob.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by their postures, the present Government are increasingly identifying themselves with the Communist views held by, for instance, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that there is every indication that they are anxious to trade with Communist countries and not with other countries which happen not to appeal to their political prejudices?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, apart from being offensive, is in a sense inaccurate also. The fact of the matter is that our trade with many countries is and always has been decided by the basic consideration of the ability of countries to trade and whether they have the kinds of goods that we need.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever else the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) had to say in his suplementary question, the answer to his comment about myself is that I, unlike some hon. Members, have never been a member of the Communist Party but have always belonged to one party only, and that is the Labour Party?

I think that it was a somewhat unworthy remark by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon), and I hope he will withdraw it.

As Chile is the main supplier of copper to this country now that Rhodesia has been turned off, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he is taking to safeguard our supplies of copper now that he has quite gratuitously and unnecessarily insulted the Chilean Government?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his information, but the fact is that our trade in copper with Chile is continuing. The limitation on our trade with Chile arises basically from the fact that since 1972 Chile has been in a serious state in regard to her international payments and has been very much a debtor country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any plans for meeting members of the Surrey County Council to discuss the siting of London's third airport.

I am well aware of the views of the Surrey County Council. They have been taken into account in the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anger of residents in Surrey and other places near Gatwick and Heathrow airports at the possible consequences of the expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick if Maplin is not proceeded with? Will he get on and give us the statement that he promised in writing to give before the recess, and put these people out of their agony?

I am aware of the anxieties of and real inconvenience experienced by thousands of people who live near airports, but I repeat my assurance to the House that I still have every intention of making a statement before the recess about the future of Maplin.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government's proposals for Maplin, which were not discussed in a White Paper because one was not issued, included proposals for a new town to service this proposed airport? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a new town would prejudice employment and the social fabric of areas of East London? Will he assure me that the proposal for a new town is not being considered by the Government?

I think that the relationship between the new town and Maplin airport is a close one, and a decision on the one would almost certainly be bound up with a decision on the other. As I am not yet in a position to make a statement, I must leave my hon. Friend somewhat unsatisfied.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents in Windsor and Maidenhead suffer considerably from the noise of aircraft and are very annoyed at any idea that there should be an increase in movements in and out of London Airport? Rather there should be a decrease, and they look forward to an early decision on Maplin as the third London airport.

I fully understand the worries of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others, but even if a decision to go ahead were made there would still inevitably be a substantial build-up of traffic in the existing London airports over at least another decade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the rôle which he proposes that Ringway Airport should play in the long-term future of civic air traffic in North-West England.

I expect to receive the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority on the Central England Airport Study, which included airports in the North-West, later in the year. In considering the authority's advice I shall take account of the future rôle of Manchester Airport.

Does my hon. Friend agree that such a statement only increases public anxiety in the area around Ring-way and in the rest of the North-West that other people may have to suffer from noise pollution? Does he also agree that much more should be done around Ring-way to combat noise pollution?

The question of noise pollution at Manchester is primarily a matter for the airport management, which is a local authority responsibility. Various measures, including the restriction on night jet movements during the summer, and day and night noise limits, are in force there. We have had no cause to believe that the Manchester local authority is not carrying out its commitments. The wider matter will have to await the result of consultations which the Civil Aviation Authority is putting in train.

Will the hon. Gentleman put a gag on people who are always trying to muck about with the North-West? Is it not nonsense to suggest that the North-West's main airport might be moved from Ringway after fantastic sums of money have been spent on it? We admit that it should not have been built where it is, but now that it is there it is irreplaceable.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is the best person to talk about gags being put on people. He is asking me to prejudge the result of consultations, and I cannot do that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what evidence his Department has that goods for export are being delayed at Great Britain's ports; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of complaints from exporters of their goods being held up in ports. In the main these are due to inadequacy of shipping space on certain long sea routes and also to local shortages of containers. The British Overseas Trade Board is in touch with the conferences concerned, which are taking all steps immediately open to them to alleviate the situation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a firm of sports footwear manufacturers in my constituency was unable to send a consignment to Australia within a reasonable time and that the order was lost? While it is admitted that these goods have been sold on the home market, it is at a cost to our balance of payments.

I take my hon. Friend's point. The major problem arises, at a time of increased international trade, from congestion experienced in some overseas ports, Australia being a notable example.

Is the hon. Member aware that one port where there is never any delay is Boston and that it could be used more often?

I am sure that the whole House will note that.

In view of the appalling delays in most of our public sector ports, will the hon. Gentleman say why he feels that nationalising the ports will help the situation in any way?

The delays have nothing to do with nationalisation or private enterprise. The measures to alleviate the congestion in our ports are twofold. First, discussions are going on with the British Overseas Trade Board and the conferences concerned to try to predict more accurately future levels of demand for shipping. Secondly, there will be a meeting tomorrow of the Economic Development Council for the Movement of Exports, which will discuss the problem in great detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what visits he intends to make to COMECON countriese in the immediate future.

I have received invitations to a visit a number of these countries and am looking forward to doing so when my other commitments permit.

In view of the disastrous deficit with the Common Market countries, where the reality has not measured up to the rosy propaganda put out before we entered, does my right hon. Friend accept that the COMECON countries constitute a much-neglected part of the world and that if he were to accept some of the invitations and show a little more interest than his predecessor did we might see an improvement in our balance of payments position next year?

There has been an encouraging improvement in trade, but more with East European countries than with the Soviet Union itself, where I think our trade has remained stagnant and, considering the size of both the Russian market and our own, extremely small. As for the future, we shall certainly try, but this is a two-way business and unless the Soviet Union builds more external trade into its planning there will inevitably be limitations on what is available. I am glad to say that there are signs that more trade is being built into the Soviet Union's coming five-year plan.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in the British horticulture industry about dumped horticultural produce from COMECON countries, notably tomatoes and cucumbers, which in a short time would so depress the British industry that there could be no home-produced tomatoes in two or three years' time?

There have been many anxieties in the horticulture industry arising from many trading arrangements and not just from the possibilities of dumping by East European countries. But I shall certainly examine any particular problem about which the hon. Gentleman cares to tell me.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received since 1st April from people complaining of cancellation or alteration to pre-booked package tours.

One.

Is it not evident from that reply that, notwithstanding a few well-publicised exceptions, the British holidaymaker continues to get a good deal from the majority of package tour firms in this country? In view of the difficulty through which the travel industry has been passing recently, will the hon. Gentleman encourage the continuing development of the package tour industry as the means whereby many quite ordinary people have been able to go abroad since the end of the war?

I can endorse the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the achievements of the British package tour industry, which has done a great deal to give many people a holiday overseas that they would never have been able to afford otherwise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take my reply that we have had one complaint as any indication of Government complacency, because there are from time to time fringe operators where things can go wrong and it is only right that the Government should be concerned about these matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be as well not to be too complacent about the activities of his Department in overseeing the travel industry, as I informed it six weeks before the Court Line disaster that members of the tourist industry themselves were deeply concerned about the numbers of package tours likely to be affected and how holidaymakers would be in grave danger if anything went wrong?

Account was taken of my hon. Friend's advance warning. It was one of the reasons why we were able to react so quickly when the Court Line business came to a head.

If the hon. Gentleman's Department had six weeks' advance notice, why was there not time to consult the industrial advisers?

Until we had spoken to Court Line—

Six weeks?

We were concerned about the holiday side of the business, not the shipbuilding side. It was only when the firm came to us that we had to take account of the whole of its operations and not merely the holiday part, which is the direct concern of my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what advice and assistance was given by his Department to British manufacturers in tendering for the nuclear plant now ordered by Iran from French firms.

We have kept in close touch with the Iranian authorities about their plans. These orders were not put out to tender.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that his Department appears to have completely underestimated the industrial potential of Iran, particularly in desalination, and that when the British trade delegation went to Iran five months ago—I think under the previous Government—it discussed everything except reactors? Has not a great opportunity been lost to this country? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to see that such opportunities are not lost in future?

I believe that last September the head of the Iran power generation and transmission company was informed about the various types of reactors of which British manufacturers had experience. There was also, I believe, a promise to make available to the Iranians certain studies that the then Government were conducting about our own nuclear reactors. But as the House will know, and as my hon. Friend well knows, we have been reappraising our nuclear policy, and it is only as a result of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy a few days ago that we have been able to announce our conclusions. I hope that this will make it much easier for us to go ahead with possible export orders.

In view of the announcement of substantial orders being placed by Iran with France and the hesitant nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies about what is going on, may I ask him what he is doing to make sure that we get a fair share of the orders that looked possible under the previous Government and now seem to have disappeared?

One of the first and most important things was for the British Government to go firm in choosing a nuclear system. We have done this. I very much hope that we will join with the Canadians as there appears to be a very good possibility of pushing what I am sure will be a good reactor in our export drive.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general agreement on both sides of the House with what his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has said, namely that Iran, a Right-wing Government, represents by any measure a great and growing market for British goods? Is he aware that before the Labour Government took office there was good reason to suppose that a useful proportion of the $4,000 million worth of orders recently placed by the Shah in France would come to this country? Will he also recognise that the two things that have done most damage to our prospects of securing these orders are, first, the actions of the Government in forcing British companies to break their contracts for arms supplies abroad and, secondly, the actions of certain trade unions in preventing goods that have been promised from Britain going abroad?

The hon. Gentleman is simply making propaganda. I have no reason to believe his assertion that the Shah had made up his mind—

I said "there was good reason to suppose".

Well, there may have been good reason to suppose. There might have been good reason not to suppose. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a continuing and substantial effort is made by my Department, in association with others, in all the markets of the Middle East.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we left office in 1970 we had the highest surplus this country has ever had, which in three and a half years was transformed into the highest-ever deficit under the last Government? Will he ignore what the previous administration did and carry on the good work?

We certainly have very good reason to believe that during the period of office of the party opposite this country plunged from a substantial surplus into a massive deficit. We shall be doing all in our power to get the country back on the level.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet had estimates from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and other companies of the cost of the compensation due to overseas customers as a result of contracts broken on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government; and what proportion of such compensation will be provided by Her Majesty's Government.

I have had no such estimates and the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Is that not a disgracefully unsatisfactory answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any precedent for a British Government forcing the cancellation of a commercial contract between British companies and foreign Governments without offering full compensation both to the foreign Governments and the British companies? What possible benefit can this be to the British export trade? What encouragement can it give to people to place orders with British industry?

The hon. Gentleman has not been properly briefed. The answer to this is that on many occasions Governments have for one reason or another had to introduce export or import licensing, both of which have frequently led to breaches of contract. To the best of my knowledge no Government have ever paid compensation in such cases.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that apart from compensation for overseas customers in the panic winding-up of Rolls-Royce by the last Government there arose the question of compensation being administered on a niggardly level to a number of long-service employees, some of whom were my constituents? Is he further aware that this makes me suspicious that there was a breach of contract there? If such cases are brought before him will he undertake to look into them with great despatch?

I was not aware of that point but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. If he wishes to bring any particular cases to me they will be looked at with care.

If the Secretary of State has not received any estimates, may I ask what estimates he asked for from Rolls-Royce and what advice has he received from the company about the impact of the Government's decision on its overseas trading posture?

That information would be relevant only if it had been the practice and was to be the practice of Governments to pay compensation in such cases. This policy is so generally well understood, not only by the present Government but by all post-war Conservative Governments, that most traders have a force majeure clause in their contracts which protects them against the imposition of import or export controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for increasing trade with the Commonwealth.

The British Overseas Trade Board is working for increased trade with our major trading partners, including the Commonwealth. I hope that my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Canada and his forthcoming visits to Australia and New Zealand will reinforce the board's efforts. Her Majesty's Government are also seeking improved access for Commonwealth exports as part of our renegotiation of the terms of British entry into the European Economic Community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that for over 25 years under successive Governments two-way trade with the Commonwealth has decreased by more than half? If he and his right hon. Friends are successful in bringing us out of the Common Market, does he believe that this will have an adverse or favourable effect on Commonwealth trade? More importantly, does he think that we shall get cheaper food as a consequence of coming out of the Market?

Commonwealth trade has declined since the war in terms of the percentage of total trade although it has gone up in value. One of the reasons why it has declined is that British firms have always, until recently, regarded the Commonwealth as a fairly easy market so that their competitors have gone ahead. Everyone would now agree that trading with any part of the world is not at all easy, as we are finding out in our present period of membership of the EEC. We do not anticipate any adverse effects on the Commonwealth in the event of our withdrawing from the Common Market. I would remind my hon. Friend that withdrawal is not the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] To answer my hon. Friend's last question, the issue is not whether we can buy cheap food from outside the Common Market. It is a question of whether we can buy cheaper food from outside the Common Market. We positively believe that we can and that we shall go on being able to do so.

Would not our food be very much cheaper now if we were to take off the import levies or the taxes we impose upon so many foodstuffs, including the exorbitant amount of £800 per ton on New Zealand cheese?

These matters are being dealt with as part of our detailed negotiating brief in the renegotiations. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go into details at this stage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difference between trade with the Commonwealth and trade with the Common Market at present is that Commonwealth trade has given us a favourable balance of trade while Common Market trade has given us an unfavourable balance? Would he further agree that the increasing proportion of our trade with the Common Market is reflected in the enormous deficit we now have on our balance of trade?

I must correct my hon. Friend on the figures. Our true trading deficit with the Commonwealth is currently running at an annual rate of about £800 million. [Interruption.] I am talking about current figures. That compares with the current deficit with the EEC which is running at an annual rate of £2,000 million.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement in saying on behalf of the Government that the Government do not seek cheap food outside the Common Market but rather that they seek cheaper food. Will he tell the House where in the world, without taking food from those who cannot afford to send it at all, he believes we can obtain cheaper food today?

I can think of several commodities straight away—butter, cheese, beef and New Zealand lamb. If there is no cheaper food available outside the Common Market—assuming for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is right—why is it that the Common Market has to impose import duties and levies to make sure that cheaper food cannot get in?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to secure major export orders from Arab countries.

The British Overseas Trade Board is actively engaged in drawing the attention of industry to export opportunities in the Arab world wherever they arise and in implementing trade promotion programmes agreed with industry.

Will the Minister explain why the efforts of French Ministers on behalf of French industry seem to be attended with so much more success than the efforts of his right hon. Friend in obtaining export orders from Arab Powers?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the future of our export effort to Arab countries in the Middle East, if that is what his question is directed to. British firms are engaged in consultations with Arab countries on a number of major projects and we shall continue to give every possible further encouragement as we believe that the Middle East is one of the major areas which can be an effective market for our exports of consumer and capital goods.

In addition to the moves to which the Minister referred on promoting export trade with the Arab countries, will he request his right hon. Friend to attend to the problem of cash for industries in this country which can make the goods for Arab countries but which are desperately short of cash?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions concerning liquidity of companies are basically for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In order to help our exporters, if the hon. Gentleman is too shy to publish a list of Arab countries which are too undemocratic to allow unrestricted trade will he at least go so far as to publish a list of Governments which are sufficiently democratic to allow unrestricted trade?

The issue in this House has not been non-arms trade but has been arms trade. We trade in arms with a number of Arab countries, although at the time of the recent Middle East war we cut off arms supplies to some of those countries. This has nothing at all to do with the democracy or otherwise of the Governments concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade under what circumstances licences are given to Russian-made hydrofoils to operate in British waters; and if he will make a statement.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Russian-made hydrofoil which is operating on the Thames. This is a British-owned vessel, registered in the United Kingdom, and has complied with the necessary safety requirements for the issue of a passenger certificate under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that this Russian hydrofoil was sold at approximately half the price of similar hydrofoils which are available in the Russian and Eastern European home market and was sold on credit terms that could not possibly be matched by people in this country? As it is in direct competition with British-made products—for example, the hovercraft—will my hon. Friend look at the anti-dumping laws involved in this case?

My hon. Friend has, of course, written to me about this subject. I am aware of his concern about it. The fact of the matter, however, is that we have received no representations from the hovercraft industry alleging that there has been dumping as regards the Russian hydrofoil. We can act only if representations are made to us. We have to assess the evidence that is presented in order to determine whether there has been a breach of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his Department's policy for the tourist industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals he has to encourage tourism in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

Our policy remains to promote the development of tourism both to and within Great Britain. To that end provision has been made on the Votes of the Departments concerned for expenditure in 1974–75 under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 totalling £22 million.

I must first declare an interest in the hotel industry. Is the Minister aware that there is, or perhaps has been until his statement this afternoon, a vacuum in the absence of any definitive policy or statement by his Department on the tourist industry? As he has referred to the Development of Tourism Act, will he now recognise that that Act failed to give sufficient regional incentives in some parts of the country and gave too much incentive in London? Will he, for instance, now consider the proposal that has been put to his Department that tourism development areas as distinct from industrial development areas could be considered?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to mention that he was, unfortunately, not able to be present, although he tried to be present, for an Adjournment debate on this matter early last Wednesday morning when his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) raised this subject. I did my best to reply to the debate.

Is the Minister satisfied with the present division of responsibility between the British Tourist Authority on the one hand and the national tourist boards on the other hand? Does he see no risk in splitting the functions of marketing and development between the two completely autonomous bodies?

I took the hon. Gentleman's point in the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, and I take it again. There is a problem between marketing and distribution. The two major problems which may require—I do not yet know—some reorganisation are tourism strategy and Exchequer support, and these are problems to which we are bending our minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy regarding the development of regional airport facilities in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy for the development of regional airports.

It is my objective to encourage the greater use of regional airports in general. The Civil Aviation Authority is presently undertaking a series of studies of regional airports and I expect to receive its advice on these later in the year.

While that study is being undertaken will the Secretary of State bear in mind the example of France and Germany, where far greater use has been made of regional airports in association with the distribution of industry through- out the country than has happened in Britain? Will he also bear in mind that if regional airports are not developed and if Maplin is not built, this is likely to lead to a far greater flow of passengers through Gatwick than was envisaged when the South-East strategic plan was prepared? The CAA has forecast a figure as high as 35 million passengers a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this were to materialise it would lead to far greater increases in population, with stresses on housing and education, than the strategic plan allowed for?

On all these very large consequences which may flow from a decision one way or the other on the future of Maplin I must resist commenting until I have made the statement about which I have already told the House. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there is undoubtedly a benefit to regions arising from airports. They help industry and industrialists, as we well know. I shall certainly ask my Department to have a look at the experience of other countries, including France, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Will my right hon. Friend realise that rather than concentrating air traffic in the South-East and having a third London airport we should build up airports in the regions? Will he take into account the representations that have been made recently by three Glamorgan authorities about the Rhoose airport in South Wales?

I would indeed wish that more of our air journeys both originated and ended at regional airports. There is, however, a problem that there appears to be an unusually heavy weight of air activity, as it were, originating in the South and South-Eastern parts of Britain. That is the heart of the problem. I shall certainly look at the contribution that regional airports, including the airport mentioned by my hon. Friend, can play in the future.

As the proposals for the Midlands include two large airports rather than six small ones to obtain greater efficiency, is there not a grave danger in the Birmingham case of creating another environmental disaster on the scale of Cublington? Is it not clear that future airports should to a large extent be on the coast?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the report that has recently been published on regional airports in central England. The report has been published, but we have not had the views of the Civil Airports Authority upon it and we are far from reaching any general view as to the future strategy for regional airport policy. We will take account of all points, including those the hon. Gentleman mentioned.