asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will have consultations with British ship-owners to ensure that wherever possible British ships are repaired in British shipyards.

The Government urge British shipowners to have their ships repaired in this country whenever possible. We recognise, however, that they themselves compete in an international market and that therefore they should be free to repair at home or abroad according to their commercial judgment. We notice with satisfaction that British shipowners at present buy nearly three-quarters of the capacity of the British ship-repairing industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest example is the Southern Ferries ship "Panther", which sails from Southampton and is now to have its annual refit in a French shipyard? Will he hold an inquiry into the extent to which foreign Governments are directly subsidising tender prices?

I will look into the point made by my hon. Friend. Regarding the specific case he has mentioned, I understand that the French quotation was the best.

Very much less.

Our shipowners are obliged to compete in an international market and must exercise their discretion within that compass as to where they will have their repairs done. We must always be on guard about any pressures that we might invoke, because this might result in retaliation from foreign interests.

How much higher a proportion of the output of our yards will be directed to British shipping after nationalisation has taken place?

That is a matter that we hope will flow as a direct result of nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the ship-repairing industry is excessively fragmented at present. Desperately important changes are necessary in the structural and modernisation programme which has to be introduced, and public funds are an important part of that. Unless public funds are injected, we cannot get the necessary improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he still expects to fulfil the promise he made to members of the public, who had advanced deposits for travel with Court Line, for a full refund; and when such refunds will be received.

The legislation foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech will make provision for repayment to help these holidaymakers and others travelling abroad by air who lost money this year as a result of the failure of their air travel organiser. It is too early to say when the refunds will be made.

If the ombudsman confirms that the Secretary of State for Industry was guilty of misleading the public concerning the Court Line travel arrangements, who will pay the money?

That is a somewhat hypothetical question, but it is open to the ombudsman to make recommendations about such matters in his report.

On the question of repaying the money, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Court Line directors must be held responsible, especially as they were so lavish in the way they threw their money around that they were prepared to allow the jet "Halcyon Days" to be used by the Leader of the Opposition in the February election seemingly without any payment until about six months later? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General what he is doing about my letter regarding the misuse of funds during the election period and non-payment of those moneys after the 35 days' completion date?

I think that the House is aware of the statements that were made by the directors of Court Line in the period preceding the collapse. I think that my hon. Friend, like others, would be best advised to await the report of the inspectors who will be going into the matter in, I hope, a thorough and full way.

If the reports are true that it is proposed that future clients of travel companies should pay in the price of their holidays for the liabilities of another travel company which has failed in circumstances in which the Government's rôle is so dubious as to be the subject of an official investigation, is it not unacceptable that such a principle should be established? What are the grounds for it and what possible precedent could there be?

That is a matter that deserves serious debate and examination. I hope that the opportunity will be provided before long when we present the Bill. There is here a question of fairness and of whether we should draw a line arbitrarily and abruptly between an arrangement which I hope will give genuine security to future holidaymakers and those holidaymakers who had expectations of reasonable security under a statutory bonding system which proved to be inadequate.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with representatives of British Caledonian about the company's future; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on his policy on the future of British Caledonian Airways.

I saw the Chairman of British Caledonian Airways on 4th October and again on 14th October. He outlined his company's plans for the future, which have since been put into effect. The position of British Caledonian will be considered in the course of the review of policy which I have set in hand.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is every need to maintain the viability of this airline? What discussions has he had with this airline and with British Airways about the rationalisation of routes? Are the Government prepared to put up financial assistance to help in any such rationalisation?

I should not wish to prejudge the results of the inquiry to which I have referred. On the question of rationalisation of routes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were continuing talks between British Airways and British Caledonian on this matter but agreement was not reached.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that this is the third time in the history of British civil aviation that a privately-owned second force has been artificially created for doctrinaire reasons to compete with the publicly-owned flag carrier, and that each time it has done damage to the flag carrier without doing any good for the airline concerned and it has got into trouble and had to be bailed out? Is my right hon. Friend aware that no country, not even the United States of America, can now afford two flag carriers, and is it not time that the Labour Government carried out Labour Party policy in this field if in no other?

I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a particular knowledge of this industry, will accept that we shall seek to carry out all the policies on which we gave pledges in our manifesto.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the one thing British Caledonian and other independent airlines require is commercial security for their operations? Will he, therefore, undertake that the present airline routes operated by British Caledonian will remain undisturbed?

I am not prepared to give any assurances in advance of the result of the review to which I have referred.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread demand, particularly among British Caledonian employees, that the implication of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) should be carried out, namely, that this company should be nationalised as soon as possible in accordance with the Labour Party manifesto?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. There are many factors that we shall take into consideration in the course of the review.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long the review will take? Secondly, does he accept that while the review is taking place there is no purpose in British Caledonian's developing or investing in any of the routes that are the subject of the review?

The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that British Caledonian is not so much developing routes as it is contracting them. As for the review itself, there is the usual problem of combining thoroughness with speech, but I hope we shall complete it in the spring.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that adequate shipping space is available for British exports to the Southern Hemisphere; and whether he will make a statement.

I understand that, apart from some delays in containerised cargo for New Zealand, there should be adequate space from now on. If the hon. Member is aware of any other continuing difficulties, my Department will be happy to look into them and bring them to the attention of the appropriate shipping interests.

Has not the hon. Gentleman been told that I wrote to his hon. Friend in May about the difficulties experienced by Hardy's of Alnwick, fishing tackle manufacturers, wishing to export increasingly to Australia and New Zealand? Does he not realise that these difficulties are continuing though his hon. Friend promised that they would be investigated?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter. The point is that the situation has much improved since early this year. The main difficulty is that congestion at New Zealand ports is preventing containers from being returned to the United Kingdom. I am not aware of any further difficulties in any other parts of the southern hemisphere.

Even if there is capacity for shipping these exports, what will the Government do to ensure that there is free passage for this shipping? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the activities of the Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean? In view of the support of Labour Members for the Government's attitude to the Simonstown Agreement, may I ask the Minister whether he is sure that this space can be used in future?

I am not aware of any interference with the free passage of British ships on the high seas. There is a later Question about the Simonstown Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will confirm that the current review of the sound insulation grants scheme is taking account of the effects of aircraft noise in schools and other public buildings as well as on private housing.

The review of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes is continuing. These schemes are financed by the BAA and apply only to dwellings. The extension of the schemes to other buildings is also being examined but there are formidable and far-reaching problems relating to such an extension.

Can the Minister say when he expects the review, particularly as it affects domestic accommodation, to be completed? Is he aware that there is widespread feeling among all those who live near these airports that the present scheme is out of date? In particular, they feel that the requirement that in order to benefit from it people should have lived in the same house for a considerable period ought to be discontinued. Equally, from the point of view of children attending schools which are severely affected by aircraft noise, we would like this extension of the scheme to be brought forward quickly.

I have written to the hon. Gentleman about the review as it relates to housing. I hope to be in a position to make a statement before the end of the year. I hope this will become a reality, but the lion. Gentleman will recognise the problems that exist. I am aware of the anxiety and distress that are caused to many people in the vicinity of Heathrow and, indeed, other airports. This necessitates our dealing with the matter thoroughly but as expeditiously as possible. I cannot say when I shall be able to make a statement on the wider review. Other Departments have to be consulted, and the large expense involved is also a matter of some concern.

Can the Minister say whether the sound insulation grant can be extended to the London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames? Is he aware how much my constituency suffers from aircraft noise? Does he not agree that borough boundaries are an illogical basis for sound insulation scheme grants?

The question does not arise as a result of borough boundaries, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I cannot prejudge the result of the review and say whether the hon. Gentleman's borough will be beneficially affected.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the visible trade deficit of the United Kingdom with the previous EEC Six in 1974 to date at annual rate, compared with the corresponding deficit in 1970.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current balance of trade between Great Britain and the original six members of the EEC for the most recently available six months; and how this compares with the corresponding period before British membership of the Common Market.

The "crude" trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports valued fob and imports valued cif—in the first 10 months of this year was £2,075 million expressed at an anual rate compared with £69 million in 1970. In the six months ended October the deficit was £1,076 million compared with £246 million for the corresponding period in 1972.

Does not this enormous swing into deficit throw a remarkable light on the promise that this great home market would solve all our economic problems? Is not our trade deficit with the EEC this year equal to, if not greater than, the whole of our non-oil current balance of payments deficit?

It accounts for the greater part of the non-oil deficit in trade with the rest of the world. On the first point raised by my right hon. Friend, the answer is that those who so misguidedly believed that there would be benefits to Britain's trade from entry into the EEC cannot possibly have had their hopes more massively ruined than they have been by the figures that have emerged since 1st January 1973.

Are not these figures evidence that the general pattern of British trade as a whole is likely to be less favourable to the interests of this country inside the EEC as it is at present than outside it?

This is a very serious question, which has certainly been giving me a great deal of anxious thought. I cannot yet say. Part of the difficulty in dealing with the situation is that one has had only about 22 months or, if one allows for the pre-accession year, 34 months, to be certain about what the facts themselves purport to show.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the reason for the deterioration of the trade balance with the Community has been the diversion of cereal purchases from North America to the European Community and that this has represented a net benefit to our balance of payments?

It is a little difficult to establish that this is so. It might be so exceptionally in the case of cereals, for which, as we know, world prices have been above Community prices. On the other hand, it also reflects a diversion of trade in terms of dairy products. I know that my hon. Friends would not wish me to pretend that dairy products are not more expensive inside the Community than they are outside it.

Does the Minister think that people on the Continent work a little harder, perhaps, than we do? Has that anything to do with the figures?

I do not accept that at all. But if that was what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends thought two or three years ago, perhaps they should have warned the British people of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current rate of trade deficit with the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current rate of trade deficit with the Common Market; and what percentage this represents of our total non-oil deficit.

The trade deficit with the other members of the EEC, on a balance of payments basis and seasonally adjusted, was £1,368 million in the first nine months of 1974. Excluding trade in oil, the deficit with the EEC was 63 per cent. of our total non-oil deficit.

I acknowledge that exports to the Common Market have risen marginally since we entered, much in line with the way they rose before we entered, but how long can Britain continue with a trading deficit like this? Is there any unilateral action which the Government could consider in order to put right this terrible state of affairs, or would it offend the mandarins of Brussels if we were to do so?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that no concern about giving offence to the mandarins of Brussels, as he puts it, will dictate my attitude towards this question. I remind him—it is a serious point—that in May, for the widest pos- sible reasons, we subscribed as a Government, under the auspices of the OECD, to a declaration not to interfere in the direct regulation of imports for at least the next 12 months—that is, from May onwards. That is an extremely important pledge, because I should greatly fear in the present climate of world trade that one action by us, however much the figures might on the face of them justify it, would lead to a chain reaction which none of us would wish to see.

In the light of these staggering deficit figures, and since M. Chirac stated publicly last Friday that it would be impossible to renegotiate such a young treaty and that if Britain did not like it she must make other arrangements, does my right hon. Friend think that there is any point in trying to renegotiate the treaty?

I think that renegotiation as such has only just begun. It has only just begun because of the uncertainties in the Community about whether there was a continuing Government to deal with, and that matter could not be made certain until the voters made their decision clear in October. Now, however, we are entering a serious period of renegotiation, and I would only say to my hon. Friend on this matter that I expect we shall have the answer quite clearly and unmistakably in a few months.

Are not the figures so bad for Britain and so good for the Six that, if in the context of renegotiation it were to be proposed that Britain should leave the Community, it would plainly be advantageous to the Six to continue some form of trading arrangement with this country? Would the presentation of such an alternative be part of the renegotiation package so far as the British people are concerned?

It is a little early at present to think about the alternatives, although I have never disguised from the House or anyone else interested my own view that the most acceptable alternative would be a form of free trade area agreement with the countries of the EEC. But, of course, the hon. Gentleman scores a perfectly fair point. The British market has always been of considerable value to the countries of the Six, just as we also have a great interest in their market, and I should not imagine that they would be prepared to take action which would lead to their loss of access to the British market.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is misleading to compare the figure of deficit in this year with the figures for 1970, as he did a few moments ago, when to do that is to compare what is happening at a time when we are in grave deficit—£4,000 million in total—with what happened in 1970 when we had a considerable balance of payments surplus? Is it not, therefore, a misleading comparison? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge also that it is not true to assert, as he did just now, that many people have stressed that there would be short-term trading benefits from our entry into the Common Market when what most of us have always argued is that there would be a difficult period of readjustment, after which we should find ourselves in the long term in a more favourable trading position?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that he was in the House when we had our long and detailed debates about entry into the EEC. I remind him that a large part of the case which was argued by the present Opposition in favour of the proposition for entry was the immense gains which would accrue to Britain straight away in terms of membership of the Community, with a home market of 250 million people, as they used to say. Indeed, I remember that during the White Paper campaign in the country it was actually put to the British people that the decision to go in was worth about £5 a week on the average wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seven."] As always, I understate my case I did not deliberately choose the year 1970 for comparison with 1974. That was embodied in the Question I was asked. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the major point in my reply, which is that of our non-oil trade our deficit this year with the EEC accounts for 63 per cent. of the total, while our trade with the EEC is no more than about 30 per cent. of the total.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has received the report of the special investigation by his Department into the collapse of the London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. of November 1973.

The inspectors are making good progress with their inquiries and we hope to receive their report early next year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is being shown daily that the scale of this collapse has had a domino effect throughout the whole of the banking system? Does he realise that the UDS set aside £5 million as a rescue loan and has now had to write it off, and that Keyser Ullman and First National Finance Corporation are now lingering at the bottom partly as a result of this rescue operation? Does he agree that those cardboard directors, such as the Leader of the Liberal Party, who got involved in these squalid operations should be made to foot the bill?

Of course I am concerned about the collapse of this or any other company, with its effects on the rest of the finance world. It would be quite wrong of me, however, in any sense to prejudge the result of the very complex investigation that is being undertaken. It would not be right for me to cast aspersions on any of the directors at this stage. We shall review the evidence when it is available.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will open negotiations with the Japanese Government to facilitate the export of British vehicles to that country.

The Japanese Government are well aware of our desire to expand sales of all British products, including vehicles, to Japan. But I am ready to consider making representations whenever specific evidence of barriers to our exports is brought to my attention.

I accept the Minister's assurance and I shall be happy to supply him with that information in a particular case. Does he accept the general point that if we are to make a success of the diversion of our resources into exports, about which the Chancellor was talking last week, his Department must pay attention to non-tariff barriers in general?

Yes, indeed. Allegations have been made recently about hidden barriers on car exports, in particular to Japan, but the evidence available so far does not bear this out. There are, for example, the new motor regulations dealing with anti-pollution controls which the Japanese have introduced. These are available in English and, what is more, they will apply to imported cars one year later than to domestic Japanese-produced cars, so there is no hidden barrier to imports there.

Despite what my hon. Friend has just said, is it not a fact that there are frequent changes in the regulations applied by the Japanese Government to imports of motor vehicles and that this is making it extremely difficult for foreign exporters of motor vehicles to obtain adequate access to the Japanese market? Is it not a fact that the Japanese import only a tiny proportion of all the motor cars on Japanese roads whereas they are exporting very heavily all over the world? If they wish to continue to enjoy the benefits of markets in Europe and elsewhere, should they not make their own markets more easily accessible to British exporters?

That might have been true up to about two years ago, but I can no longer accept the premise of that question. Japanese imports of motor vehicles totalled 18,000 in 1971 but 40,000 last year. They are currently running at an annual rate of 50,000. Furthermore, United States and German motor car manufacturers now control nearly 90 per cent. of the imported car market in Japan and have seen their sales increase threefold in the past few years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the affairs of the Court Line.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to publish the report of his inspectors into the collapse of Court Line Ltd.

The inspectors are pursuing their inquiries energetically, but the investigation involves some 70 subsidiary companies and it is not possible to say when the report will be received or published.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we should usefully use the time between now and publication of the report to ascertain whether the Leader of the Opposition has paid his bills for the October General Election, in case he gives the kiss of death to another troubled company in a year's time?

I leave that to the Leader of the Opposition.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government, in advance of the inspectors' report, have taken on board the lessons of this private enterprise collapse in relation to the need to strengthen employees' protection, the need to increase worker participation and the need to strengthen the rôle of the Civil Aviation Authority?

There are many lessons, some of which I hope we have already learned and some of which I hope we can apply towards giving greater security to holidaymakers in the future. But there is a great deal that we shall learn, and can only properly learn, when we get the full report into this complex matter.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that one lesson that we should learn is that Ministers should be very careful before making statements in the House about the viability of companies? Will he confirm that the inspectors will be deciding whether the evidence upon which the Secretary of State for Industry made his statement was adequate and available within his Department?

When the hon. Gentleman offers the advice that Ministers should be careful about making statements in the House, I must say that there is probably no one sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, even when it is full, who is less qualified than the hon. Gentleman to make such a comment. As for the other matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, it is better indeed, now that we have thoroughgoing inquiries, to leave these matters until we have the results from people who are not seeking to make points but are seeking to establish the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the annual expenditure of his Department directly related to the promotion of exports; and how many staff in his Department are directly involved in this aspect of the Department's work.

The Department of Trade expects to spend £11·1 million directly in support of export promotion during 1974–75. Some 1,200 staff are involved in providing a wide range of services and promotional support for exporters.

While welcoming that answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that £11 million in relation to a total export value of £12,000 million is not a very large sum? Is he also aware that, although a good deal of effort is being made by his Department in the traditional Western European and North American markets, I am not altogether satisfied that sufficient effort is being made in East European markets, the new oil States and certain other markets which could in future be even more lucrative?

On the first point, the support given by the Department is wide-ranging. It is limited in the main by industry's willingness and ability to take advantage of particular schemes. To increase the level of financial support would not, therefore, necessarily increase exports. But my Department is always ready to consider new ideas for export promotional activities. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are definitely switching the emphasis to these newer markets, particularly in the oil-producing States, which could well become our major markets in a few years' time.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what instructions he gives to his Department about the current Australian import controls, which are causing a considerable cutback in orders in this country? At least one firm in my constituency is on a four-day week as a result of this.

We are naturally very concerned about import controls imposed by any country anywhere, particularly at a time when world trade looks as if it will slow down almost to recession pace. We have made representations and are still awaiting the outcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that the export credit terms made available through the Export Credits Guarantee Department are comparable with those made available by our trading competitors.

The facilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department stand comparison with those of any other country. The Government's policy is that the Department should continue to match the credit terms available from our competitors.

I welcome the reply by the Secretary of State last week that there are currently only two countries for which the ECGD facilities are being denied—namely, Rhodesia and Ghana—but is the hon. Gentleman aware that British exporters of heavy plant are experiencing considerable difficulty in competing successfully for fixed price contracts in respect of heavy plant because of the lack of availability through the ECGD of a system of insurance against inflation, such as is available through the French export credit agency? Will he take energetic steps to bring ECGD practice into line with that of France?

A number of representations have been made to us on this and we have had a number of meetings with the manufacturers concerned, but the problem of inflation is common to exporters in all countries. If we were to support cost escalation it would constitute a subsidy which is not generally available, to our competitors. Where it is available, as in France, and perhaps in Italy with the newer scheme, we are doing our best to press for withdrawal or modification of such schemes. We do not want to get involved in wasteful subsidised international competition in protecting exporters against inflation.

On that point, is it not a fact that what the Department is doing is what we always do when we find our competitors breaking or bending the rules of the game? We go to them and say "You naughty fellows, you should not do this. We want you to stop it." Does not my hon. Friend agree that meanwhile, until our competitors stop the practice, our exporters are greatly disadvantaged by the fact that their West European competitors get facilities which they do not have? Is it not time that the Government pressed the French and the Italians to withdraw their scheme and told them that until they do so we shall provide similar facilities for our exporters?

The difficulty is that if we were to introduce such a scheme there would be a heavy cost to public funds because it would involve massive subsidy. That would be completely contrary to our international obligations in OECD. In addition, if the ECGD gave cover in these circumstances all our major international competitors would follow suit and, therefore, our last state would be no better than the first. Last but not least, it would encourage overseas buyers to seek fixed-price contracts, and at the moment there is some leeway for our firms in international competitive markets to bargain for cost inflation.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider that the ECGD is already tending to bend the rules of its own game by seeking to impose credit limitations before they have been internationally agreed and certainly before those limits have been put before the House and agreed by the Government?

The hon. Member had a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th November. I remind him of the answer that we are not proposing to act in the way suggested. International discussions are at present in progress. I would not want to reveal the stage which they have reached because they are still going on and are obviously confidential until we can make a public announcement about them.

On the subject of international obligations in terms of credit, could the French and Italians be reminded of their obligations? There is a good deal of evidence, as my hon. Friend knows, that the present difficulties and the redundancies in Honeywell involving 1,500 people are related to the assistance given by their Governments to Honeywell factories in France and Italy.

Where one of our international competitors, in a particular market for a particular project, wishes to give excessively subsidised terms, the policy is that we should try as far as possible to enable our industrialists here to match those terms. But there must be a limit to what we can do, and this is not a desirable policy overall.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent discussions he has had with the Life Offices Association regarding protection of policyholders.

I met the Chairman of the Life Offices Association on 9th and 28th October and officials of my Department have had a number of recent discussions with LOA representatives.

On what authority did the Secretary of State declare on 29th October that from that moment additional protection was being extended to policyholders? Did he obtain from the Life Offices Association an undertaking to surcharge policyholders of all companies so as to build up a fund to meet these contingencies, or did he have in mind that legislation which he is to introduce would be retrospective, in which case should he not have added, in making his statement, that what he said was subject to the will of the House?

I am fairly certain that I used those words in the statement I made. It would certainly not be my habit to be discourteous to the House or to make assumptions about the permission of the House before I had gained it. The guarantee I gave that it would become effective from 29th October is, of course, entirely subject to the approval of the House, but I am hopeful that the House will be kind enough to give me the consent I need.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Life Offices Association has decided in principle unanimously to oppose the scheme he put to it?

I do not think I can confirm that, but I will certain check on the matter. If that is so, I must say I would be surprised because in the talks I have had in the past few months with representatives of the life assurance industry there has been a willingness to accept the fact that these are extremely difficult and exceptional circumstances and that help was needed on an industry basis to face the problems.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that on the general matter of supplementary questions hon. Members should declare their interests?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I suspect that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is drawing attention to me, I unhesitatingly declare my interest in the life assurance industry and I apologise for any discourtesy to the House.

It has never been a convention of the House that during Question Time interests should be declared.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that I have no interest in this matter at all? Does he agree that during the debate we had on another matter of insurance two years ago—the V and G case—it was quite clear that the industry not only was incapable itself of policing the matter but did not wish to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that in this very dangerous matter of life assurance he is quite right to proceed on the basis that the industry, with all the best will in the world, cannot protect the interests of the policyholders as much as it would like, whatever it may wish?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman because that is a fair-minded statement of the situation in the insurance industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action is proposed to help those people booking overseas holidays and travel who suffer loss as a result of the failure of travel organisers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give consideration to an inquiry into bonding arrangements and other matters relating to the operation and management of the travel industry.

As already announced, existing protection afforded by travel organisers through their bonding arrangements for customers booking overseas holidays and travel is to be strengthened by the introduction of legislation. I doubt whether a further inquiry would serve any useful purpose at this stage. Our first priority must be to put our proposals into effect.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, in view of the loss of confidence in the travel industry and the need to avoid a repetition of the Court Line disaster, is it not urgent that he should look at this matter soon and bring legislation forward? In the meantime will he encourage the British travel industry to cater for holidays at home, as people are now thinking twice about going abroad next year?

The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question opens up a wide area. I am, of course, much concerned with it, and I agree that we should certainly improve our holiday facilities at home, not only for our own holidaymakers but to cater for the enormous and very welcome increased number of tourists visiting the United Kingdom from abroad.

To take that matter further, as we are about to enter another season, will the Secretary of State consider making a further statement with regard to repayment, perhaps on no other basis than an interim basis for those who have suffered loss during the past season?

I shall consider that, but I hope to be in a position at least to introduce legislation before very long.

I note that no review or inquiry is being considered by my right hon. Friend, but will he take into account that months before the Court Line disaster, some of us raised in the House the need for a State interest in this matter? Since market forces are quite incapable of dealing with the present problem, in the absence of legislation will my right hon. Friend give an indication that this is one industry where the State has a real interest?

Not only has the State an interest in the broad sense in the health of the overseas holiday industry but a major State corporation, British Airways, has a considerable actual stake in the whole business of overseas holidays and carrying people to foreign parts. However, I remind my hon. Friend that, while I am in no sense satisfied with the state of the industry—how could I be, after the events of last sumer?—we have in this case a regulatory agency, the Civil Aviation Authority, whose duty it is to examine and keep under review the general health and financial stability of overseas holiday firms.

As the Minister refused to answer my earlier question about whether the Government would honour their election bribe to repay the Court Line depositors, will he do so now?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the election is over, and that was not put forward in any such spirit whatever, as will be made clear when we debate the matter properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Before very long, I hope.

Just before the next election?

I must have received at least 200 letters from Conservative Members during the period following the Court Line collapse all urging me to do precisely what I have done. So let them be quiet on that matter. I hope to bring forward legislation, and when that legislation is introduced I shall hope that it will be possible to get on with the job of repayments.

The Secretary of State will do well to remember that the reason why my hon. Friends urged him to do what he has now done was that his right hon. Friend had given assurances which encouraged people to put their money into holidays which they would not have done if the words had not been used.

Once again I have misjudged the hon. Gentleman. I had actually thought that his question might have been out of some concern for the holiday-makers themselves.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of British oil supplies is shipped round the Cape of Good Hope.

About three-quarters by weight of crude and partly-refined oil imports in the first nine months of this year.

As the security of these oil supplies remains essential to the maintenance of full employment and living standards in Britain, will the Government put the British national interest first and above any emotional prejudice in these matters and make sure that these oil supplies are adequately protected by continuing to maintain a naval base at the Cape?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 30th July in a Written Answer:

"The need for adequate measures to protect British shipping is being taken fully into account in the general review of defence commitments and capabilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 109.]

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to prevent the dumping in the United Kingdom of PVC leathercloth manufactured in Canada, Hungary and other countries, to the detriment of the United Kingdom-based industry.

My Department is ready to consider any application by the United Kingdom industry under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969 supported by reasonable prima facie evidence that imports are being dumped and are causing or threatening material injury to the industry.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the answer given on 5th November which showed that imports in the first quarter of 1974 represented 37 per cent. of home sales compared with 25 per cent. for the corresponding period last year? Is he aware that the industry is very concerned about this increase and that it has led to redundancies in several parts of the United Kingdom?

Imports, by volume, of coated PVC plastics were up by just over 3 per cent. in the first six months of this year. On the second point, the Leather Cloth and Coated Fabrics Manufacturers Association wrote to my Department in December 1973 alleging the dumping of PVC material. The Department offered to meet the association but has heard nothing from it since. The offer to meet it, of course, remains open.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking designed to increase trade with South Africa.

The standard range of the British Overseas Trade Board's services is available for South Africa as for other major markets. Exports in the first nine months of 1974 show a 37 per cent. increase in value over the comparable period in 1973. Imports increased by 29 per cent. over the same period.

Does the Minister welcome this increase? If so, is it not hypocritical on the one side to be encouraging trade with South Africa and on the other side to cut off arms for the joint maritime defence of our sea communications?

The hon. Member has completely confused the two issues. As he knows, the Government's view is that we must scrupulously and rigorously subscribe to and enforce our international obligations in terms of arms trade with South Africa.

The policy of encouraging trade with South Africa is unacceptable to Labour Members for many reasons. Is my right hon. Friend aware that by deliberately encouraging this trade we may imperil some of our far more valuable and important trading interests in the rest of Africa?

I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the whole African market. Exports to black Africa are growing in importance. This is one of the many consequences which has flowed from the great increase in the price of oil, which has made Nigeria in particular a most attractive market. On my hon. Friend's other point, we have to consider the question of our trading interests. It is a difficult question but we have to consider it in the context of the trading policies of other countries in relation to South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will indicate what the future prospects are for trade in the domestic television tube industry, for 1974–75, 1975–76 and 1976–77, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Official forecasts of trade in televsion tubes are not made. However, it is probable that, in conditions of less buoyant consumer demand, future growth in United Kingdom production, sales, exports and imports will at best be much slower than the expansion in recent years. Before long, production in the United Kingdom is likely to he confined to colour tubes.

I regret that records are not kept. Is my hon. Friend aware that two firms producing television sets in the United Kingdom will shortly be ordering black and white tubes from member States of the Common Market? In areas like Merseyside this will mean growing unemployment. What does my hon. Friend propose to do about this?

A number of allegations have been made about the dumping of television tubes, and references have been made to the high level of imports which is affecting home production. The situation has improved a great deal, however, in the last few months. Comparing the third quarter of this year with the first quarter, imports of Japanese colour tubes are down by nearly one-half and imports from other countries, including the Common Market, are down by about two-thirds. Therefore, although the situation is not as good as we would hope, it has improved a great deal.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what consultations he has had with British independent airlines in the course of the preparation of his new policy guidelines for civil aviation; and which airlines he has not yet consulted.

The review of policy which I have set in hand will require consultations with airlines and they will be given an opportunity to register their views.

What is the urgency of these consultations, bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has made a statement to Mr. John Cousins, national officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that urgent reviews of civil aviation are going ahead but many British airlines have not yet been consulted at either management or worker level? Is not this scandalous?

Not at all. There will be ample opportunity for airlines to make their views known, but clearly it is necessary to press ahead urgently with the review given the general contraction of air traffic this year and the difficulties facing the entire air transport industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will consider introducing the EPIRB—emergency position indicating radio beacon—as a legal requirement for all sea-going ships.

British ships, subject to certain exceptions related to size and area of operations, must carry portable radio equipment for use in emergency. I am at present carefully examining the need for additional devices, such as EPIRBs, particularly for fishing vesels.

In view of the increasing perils and difficulties facing our rescue services, will the Minister take further steps to ensure that ships are better equipped with distress and survival equipment?

This is a matter which is constantly under review, and we play a leading part in the deliberations upon it at IMCO. Only today I have approved the Merchant Shipping (Radio) (Fishing Vessels) Rules to take effect from 1st January next year. This will significantly affect the safety position for fishing vessels.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he realise that there are two issues which the article in the Sunday Times confused—namely, long-distance search and rescue and near-water search and rescue? There is considerable feeling among people in the fishing industry that vessels should have these location beacons aboard so that even if the ships are lost adequate steps may be taken to trace the wrecks to discover why they foundered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has a considerable knowledge of this matter and he is right. The article was confused in the respect he mentions. As I said, we are carefully examining how important it is to install these additional devices and I shall be prepared to listen to any representations that my hon. Friend may wish to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the improvements in the European Communities' generalised scheme of preferences offered to developing countries for next year.

At its meeting of 12th November the EEC Council of Ministers agreed on improvements to the Community's Generalised Preference Scheme for 1975. I am pleased to say that a number of these will be of help to developing Commonwealth countries in Asia. Furthermore, the Council has agreed to a fundamental review early next year of the Community's strategy for the future development of the scheme. I will circulate the details of these conclusions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in these negotiations? Does he agree that the extension of the generalised scheme to agricultural products represents an important success? Is this not in itself one step forward in our renegotiation of the terms of entry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. While it is welcome that some agricultural products should be included, the House must be made aware that it is a very modest step.