asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made towards the agreement of the EEC draft directive on independent commercial agents.

In May and June 1975 officials of my Department had useful informal talks with Commission officials, who, we understand, are now reviewing the provisions of their draft proposal. My Department is keeping in touch with developments.

I am glad to hear that things are moving now, although I realise that events are taking place only at official level. What precisely is the objection of the Department? As I understand it, all other eight countries have agreed to the draft before the Commission.

It is a matter of difficulties rather than of objection, and some of the difficulties are significant. As drafted the proposal would cover a much wider range of activities than the Commission intends. We are obviously seeking solutions for our part, and we believe that Commission officials are doing the same. We are considering the draft sympathetically in the light of problems in agency relationships.

Among the interested bodies with which the Department has had discussions was the United Commercial Travellers' Association, which felt that far from being consulted it was merely being questioned on aspects of its work. Would it not be sensible for the Department to have full discussions with people vitally connected with this work before going on to negotiations with the other members of the Nine?

I have seen the United Commercial Travellers' Association in talks which took place on the 17th July. I had a long and useful discussion with the parliamentary agent and the general secretary. I left them in no doubt that we had been consulting them in the way we had been consulting other interested bodies. The consultations go back as far as the middle of 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further steps he is taking to help small exporters.

The British Overseas Trade Board, of which my right hon. Friend is President, offers a wide range of export services which are available to both large and small firms. These services are widely and successfully used by small firms.

Will the Government take one other step, bearing in mind the important part which small exporters, of whom there are many in my constituency, have to play in restoring our balance of payments? My exporting constituents are general satisfied with the services of Customs and Excise and of our posts overseas, but they complain about the slowness of communication with Government offices in this country. Will the Under-Secretary therefore try to speed up this communication?

I shall look into any complaint, whether from large or small firms, about delays in communication in this country.

Does the so-called "piggy-back" system still exist whereby small exporters are encouraged to break into export markets with the assistance of larger exporters? If it does not, can it be revived?

Several schemes were in operation until recently. One was called the Group Export Representational Unit, which was designed to help small firms to market jointly overseas. This scheme had to be discountinued through lack of support, and there is no evidence that industry's views on the usefulness of such schemes have changed.

What is the Minister doing to promote the export information service which collates market information from Her Majesty's consulates and embassies abroad? It is of very great use to small exporters. Can the Minister do something to ensure that more companies use it?

I am grateful for the hon. Member's comments. The Export Intelligence Service, with the computer, is a useful service. The Small Firms Division of the Department of Industry has recently commissioned a special booklet for small firms offering basic advice, particularly to those new to exporting, on the use of British Overseas Trade Board services.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to improve the volume of trade with the USSR; if he will seek to renegotiate the 1969 long-term trade agreement with the USSR before the end of September, with the view to increasing this level of trade; and if he will make a statement.

Following the meeting of the Anglo-Soviet Joint Commission, which I attended in May, discussions are continuing at official level on the implementation of the two long-term co-operation programmes and I hope to make a further visit to Moscow in September. Notice to terminate the 1969 trade agreement will be given before the end of September 1975. The 10-year agreement which I signed with the Soviet Deputy Premier in May 1974 and the credit agreement and co-operation programmes recently signed in Moscow by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister provide an adequate framework for extending our economic relations with the USSR.

I appreciate everything that the Government are doing, but will my right hon. Friend accept the need to stimulate East-West trade in view of the recession in the West? Will he take this opportunity of dissociating himself and the Government from the fanatical cold war pose adopted by the Leader of the Opposition during the weekend?

I have certainly no fanatical cold war sentiments. I hope, however, that I have a realistic and determined approach towards British-Soviet trade. I am most anxious to encourage it in every way possible. Exports in the first half of this year to the Soviet Union are up 100 per cent. in value over the first half of last year.

Dissociating myself from the hysterical observation of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on the objective speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the realities as opposed to the wishful thinking of international relations, may I ask the Minister how, apart from the volume of trade, the balance is getting on?

The balance is improving considerably, because whereas our imports from the Soviet Union have remained stable on the whole, our exports have increased in the way I have described. Therefore, the gap is significantly closed.

In view of the current difficulties of the motor car industry in the West Midlands, can my right hon. Friend say whether the rumours are true that such cars as the Polski Fiat and the Soviet Lada are being imported into this country at much-subsidised prices?

No official complaints of that kind have reached me, but if my hon. Friend has any information that he wants to bring to my attention I shall certainly look at it.

Will the right Gentleman confirm that, while we all accept in principle the value of trade with Russia, it would be extremely dangerous for us to depend on that country for our imports of chrome ore? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of welcoming the decision of the British Steel Corporation to invest in South Africa in chrome ore?

It is not for me to comment on a particular deal, but it is clearly in the interests of Britain to have a supply of chrome ore, and if possible a diversified supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current trade balance in manufactured goods at the latest available date; what considerations have been given to the application of selective import control on these manufactures; and if he will make a statement.

In the four months March—June 1975 the United Kingdom had a crude trade surplus in manufactured goods of £350 million a month. As regards the second part of the Question, we are prepared to consider action against dumped imports and other special cases on their merits.

In view of the considerable economic debate which has taken place over the past two or three weeks, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there will be widespread support for his decisive rejection of die Tribune Group philosophy of import controls? Can he assure the House that he will be equally robust in repelling those who wish to enslave our trade with a fixed system of sterling exchange rates?

I think that there is good sense in the present arrangements for floating sterling, and I shall certainly not advocate any change in it, although another Department invariably takes the lead in this matter. On import controls, the short answer is that it is not so much a matter of looking to one philosophy or another. What we need to have always in mind is where the best interests of the United Kingdom are to be found.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for controls of imported textiles is now overwhelming, and that other textile manufacturing countries which have implemented import controls have not suffered from the retaliation which we alone are said to expect if we were to continue the same course of import controls?

As I have said many times, if there is evidence of dumping we shall, of course, take up any such complaint very vigorously. Beyond that, however, we must consider the balance of advantage. Whilst it is true that some countries have imposed import controls on textiles, my hon. Friend should be aware that an extensive system of controls on imported textiles is operated by this country. The problem, as my hon. Friend and the whole House well know, is that there has been a collapse of demand for textiles on a large scale, certainly in the major consuming countries. The result is that we are all under pressure.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his future plans for the radio distress frequencies at sea.

On 1st January 1976 VHF Channel 16, which is the present maritime "calling and safety" frequency, will be internationally designated as the "distress, safety and calling" frequency. No changes are involved in the respective responsibilities of Her Majesty's Coastguard and the Post Office coast radio stations for search and rescue communications, but modifications in procedural instructions are being discussed with the Post Office.

Does the Minister agree that the effect of the plans he has just described is that from 1st January there will be three distress frequencies operated by two separate organisations? Is he aware that anxieties have been expressed by the two main professional groups responsible for safety at sea about the possible risks and confusions arising from that division? As the professionals who operate the services seem to be worried, will he please consider looking very carefully at the whole matter again?

We have looked very carefully at the whole situation. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There will be three frequencies operating, but the new VHF Channel 16 frequency, which is to be regarded, I think, as complementary to the other two, will be of considerable assistance in co-ordinating certain rescue work, particularly in inshore incidents. I am aware that some anxieties have been expressed, though I do not accept that they are as widespread as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I think that they are misplaced.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he plans to attend the Association of British Travel Agents convention at Miami Beach in the autumn.

I have no plans to do so.

While I understand the Minister's natural anxiety that a journey to Miami Beach at this time might be misinterpreted, may I ask whether his failure to go is perhaps rather due to his unwillingness to face the full force of the resentment of retail travel agencies at their exclusion from representation on the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on their threat not to co-operate with the Court Line liquidator, and report on progress in making repayments to holidaymakers who lost their cash last year?

I am aware that the retail agents are at the receiving end of complaints from last year's disappointed holidaymakers, and I have every sympathy with them. It is our task as a Government Department and the task of the Association of British Travel Agents to work together as speedily as possible not only with the trustees of the respective bond moneys but with the new Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency to ensure that payments are made as speedily as possible. Nevertheless there have been some legal complications, which I mentioned in my Press statement in May. I am hopeful that they can be overcome in the next few weeks.

Does the Minister approve of the ABTA meeting in Miami, bearing in mind the foreign exchange costs? Presumably the customers of the industry will be paying for the visit and convention. Is that something that the Minister thinks to be a good idea? Why should it not meet at Bournemouth, Scunthorpe, Blackpool or even Harrow?

I remind the House that a number of bodies, political bodies included, always prefer to hold their annual conference at places such as Blackpool. Whilst it is not for me to contrast the delights of Blackpool with those of Miami Beach, the location of its annual conference is a matter for the association to decide. I understand that it is not unusual for the ABTA convention to be held overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether any approaches have been made by his Department to the importers of textiles with a view to reducing the quantity.

Discussions which officials of my Department and the Department of Industry have had with leading retailers and manufacturers have explored the possibilities of their buying more of their textile requirements from United Kingdom sources.

In view of the nonsense which is being talked about the dumping of textiles, will my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that these textiles have been bought by people in this country before they leave the country of origin? If, for legislative reasons, it is not possible to limit the imports now, surely my hon. Friend could speak with some force to the people who are exploiting the situation and consequently killing off our own textile industry.

I am well aware of the force of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members. The discussions were held to discover whether any possibilities were left unexploited in terms of the purchase of United Kingdom textiles as distinct from imported textiles, and to make sure that manufacturers and retailers were exerting themselves positively. Although I cannot give a quantitative estimate of the results of the discussions, I can say that the reactions of the retailers and distributors were constructive and can only have been helpful.

Did the hon. Gentleman point out to these gentlemen that the Government themselves were to change their bad habits in the matter and that the Defence and Health Departments were to buy more British textiles than in the past?

There was a reference to Government and other public purchasing in the statement on 23rd July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Can my hon. Friend explain what has happened to the only anti-dumping application about textiles so far? This is the application by the West Riding textile spinners and was apparently made in November last year. My hon. Friend may recall that on several occasions Ministers have said that urgent, immediate action would be taken if evidence were presented. Evidence has been presented, and I wonder on what urgent, immediate action the Government are about to embark.

I must make one thing clear: there is no formal anti-dumping application in respect of the worsted spinners' federation of the West Riding. Such an application was made and dismissed a long time ago. More recently the federation has complained to the EEC, although not in the form of a formal anti-dumping application, about the imports of acrylic yarn from South Korea and Taiwan. This complaint has now been overtaken by discussions between the EEC and those countries—and some of them have already been successfully concluded—about voluntary restraint, which will certainly help that industry.

Can the Minister say what rates, if any, will be applied to Portuguese imports?

An announcement was made recently in a parliamentary answer—I shall see that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy—to say that we are to reimpose import duties on Portuguese textiles. I shall let the hon. Member have full details.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on his review of civil aviation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is yet ready to announce the results of his consultations following his review of air transport policy guidelines.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement on his review of civil aviation policy.

I expect to make a statement very shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as most international airlines on international routes are losing money and as British Airways on its domestic routes is losing money, it does not make sense to go on having a policy of double designation of British-operated international routes or competition on our domestic routes? Does he not think that the time has now come to bring to an end the policy of a mixed economy in British civil aviation?

What my hon. Friend says about double designation and its effect is one of the matters to which I have had to give careful consideration. However, my hon. Friend would not wish me to anticipate my statement by saying any more now.

Apart from observing that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) is talking nonsense, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that as his statement is so imminent and as we have rehearsed the arguments before, I at least will wait until he makes it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for showing an unusual degree of self-restraint.

During the course of his review, will my right hon. Friend take account of the report of the Civil Aviation Authority in connection with the location of airports in this country? If so, will he accept my assurance that the Civil Aviation Authority was right to reject the consultants' recommendation in connection with an airport in the North-East?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not be making a statement on this occasion to cover airport policy. I hope to have something separate to say about that a little later.

I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to anticipate the content of his report, but can he say whether he has seen suggestions in the Press that the rôle of his Department in civil aviation is likely substantially to increase as a result of publication of this report and that at the same time the rôle of the Civil Aviation Authority is likely to diminish? Is he in a position to confirm or deny that that will be the situation and to comment on the matter in any way?

Both the CAA, which was established in 1971, and the Department of Trade have indispensable rôles to play in the evolution of British civil aviation policy and its implementation, and I certainly envisage a continuing part for both organisations.

Contrary to the statement of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), is it not the case that on some of the routes where British Airways has had competition from another airline the British Airways share of the market has gone up as well?

So have the losses.

I know that the hon. Member has a keen interest in this subject, but he should look with great care at the figures for particular routes. It may well be that that has been the result in one or two cases, but he may reach different conclusions about other and rather more important routes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance before making his statement that he has consulted the EEC Commission, because any change in British civil aviation guidelines will have implications for the Commission? As he knows, the Commission itself is preparing a civil aviation policy for Europe which it hopes to publish next year.

The answer to that question is "No, Sir."

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many trade missions will visit the countries of North Africa during 1975.

The British Overseas Trade Board has approved three trade missions to North African countries for support in 1975.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to send 16 trade missions to South Africa this year and only 15 to the whole of the rest of Africa? Is it not time on both economic and political grounds, that we reorientated our trade effort to Africa at large?

I assure my hon. Friend that the determining factor in all trade missions is the commercial judgment of companies. Although our trade with North Africa is relatively small, it is a fast-growing trade. In the first five months of this year our exports to North African countries were up by 72 per cent. over the same period of last year.

As I have the privilege of leading one of the forthcoming missions to West Africa, may I support the Minister and tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that his knowledge of selling in any part of Africa is absolutely abysmal?

Does my hon. Friend agree that another determining factor, as he put it, in making decisions about trade allocations is the Labour Party manifesto, with which he is at least as familiar as I? What is the application of that same manifesto to the decision announced by the British Steel Corporation about the chrome smelter in South Africa, especially as the information is that the chrome ore originates in Rhodesia so that, far from being locked up in South Africa, as the Department of Industry has put it, the dividends resulting from investment in this process could in fact be repatriated?

This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I am sure that he will be answering a number of Questions on this subject in due course. I assure the House that there is no question of any ECGD facilities being involved in that transaction.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is yet in a position to relax some of the requirements of the Export Credits Guarantee Department cost inflation insurance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

We are still considering industry's various comments on the scheme. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an early announcement.

Is the Minister aware that, apart from the representations of the manufacturers in Redditch, about which I wrote to him on 26th June, the whole construction industry in this country attaches the greatest importance to this scheme, which is an essential aid to its export effort, which is vital at a time when domestic construction is so lamentably low? In particular, will he pay attention to covering the total inflation cost, which I am given to understand is the practice in France and West Germany?

I fully understand and sympathise with the case that the hon. Gentleman is making on behalf of his constituents. It has been made to us by the CBI and a number of major firms. However, primarily we have to have regard to public expenditure considerations. Although in the best possible world open-ended cover would be eminently desirable, consistent with our international obligations, that is obviously impossible for the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the implementation of the Government's policy on export credits.

Yes, Sir.

When will the hon. Gentleman be able to give details of the new ECGD scheme to cover pre-shipment finance?

We hope that an announcement on this matter will be made fairly soon. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there have been a number of difficulties with the clearing banks. The problems are not with my Department but with the clearing banks themselves. I am hopeful for a successful outcome to the discussions and that we shall be in a position to make an early announcement.

What are these difficulties?

My Department wants some assurance that the clearing banks will not regard the provision of pre-shipment finance by the Government as a reason for cutting back on their own overdraft lending to the particular industries concerned. That is a major difficulty which must be overcome before we can put forward an acceptable scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if Concorde will be further tested for noise.

Yes, Sir. Special arrangements have been made to monitor Concorde's noise on take-off and landing at Heathrow throughout this summer's endurance flying programme.

When the next test takes place, will the Minister or the Secretary of State stand under the flight path within about five miles of the airport so that he is personally aware of what people living near the airport will have to suffer? Why is there so much delay in publishing the results of the tests which have been carried out so far? Is the Minister aware that the Greater London Council, which has very great experience in carrying out noise tests, has already published the results of its own tests on Concorde showing that it makes a noise which is seven decibels louder than the next noisiest aircraft?

On that last point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the GLC has indicated that it is premature to come to any conclusive verdict about the matter at this stage. I resent the suggestion that there is any desire on the part of the Department to suppress the facts about these endurance tests. It is essential to look upon the tests as a whole, to analyse the results carefully and in accordance with international scientific standards, and then to announce the results. That is the Proper way to proceed. As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I propose to witness the take-off and landing of Concorde at the earliest possible opportunity.

Will my hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in a report appearing in a French periodical, Le Sauvage of 19th January, saying that during the course of one Concorde flight over the British Isles a Scottish farmer lost his whole herd of cattle, half the animals being said to have died on the spot and the remainder having to be put down because they had gone mad from the effects of the supersonic bang? The report adds that Her Majesty's Government decided to grant the farmer the sum of £14,000 in compensation for the damage.

I know of no such reports. In any event, the aircraft does not fly at supersonic speeds over the United Kingdom.

Although I respect the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), and although I have great sympathy with people who live near airports, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that Concorde has met two out of the three required guarantees on noise for certification, that the third will probably be mastered by improved techniques, and that in New York the tests proved conclusively in the hands of American pilots that the aircraft could meet the requirements for noise take-off profiles in New York?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him entirely. He speaks with considerable expertise.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that my constituents suffer just as badly as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel)—

That is not a point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what rôle his Department will play in implementing the Government's counter-inflation policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's rôle in implementing the Government's incomes policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the rôle of his Department in the Government's counter inflation policy.

As a Minister responsible for a Department whose interests cover exports and important industries in both the public and private sectors, I have been closely involved in the formulation of the policy. My function in implementing it will include the supervision of the nationalised and public bodies for which I am responsible and the control of increases in the scheduled rates of premium for certain insurance business.

Can the Secretary of State say what advice he is now giving to American companies seeking to make new investment in this country? Is he telling them that the Government's wage policy is voluntary on employer or statutory? If they should fail to understand his answer, will he then give them the details of the secret powers Bill so that they may know fully the Government's intentions?

I think that that was a little laboured. Any advice which I give to a company in this position is that, like anyone else, it will be expected to observe the agreed guidelines of Government policy.

If there were any question of import controls on a generalised basis, would not they serve to damage the Government's counter-inflation policy by forcing up the cost of living in the short run?

Yes. The impact of import controls is not helpful to the cost of living, although, as my hon. Friend knows, that is not the only argument put forward by those who advocate import controls.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency very many small traders and business men earnestly hope that the Government's counter-inflation policy will be successful? Is he aware, further, that some of them are particularly concerned about the variance between the Government's view and the TUC's view on the £6 limit? Will he give urgent consideration to clearing up this point, because none of his right hon. and hon. Friends has yet done so?

I was not aware that there was, after our recent debates, any serious doubt about the matter. If there are further points which need clarification, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends principally responsible will see that the clarification is made.

Will my right hon. Friend press the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider seriously what is now being done in the Republic of Ireland, where large subsidies are being given for essential foods and for services like electricity and gas so that prices may be kept down, and where the Government recoup themselves by imposing a surcharge on income tax?

The policy of giving large subsidies through nationalised industry prices and directly in the form of food subsidies and rent subsidies has been practised by this country long in advance of the Irish Republic. I say additionally to my hon. Friend, whose deep concern I appreciate, that the success or otherwise of the latest Irish measures has yet to be demonstrated.

What will be the right hon. Gentleman's attitude if firms with large order books from overseas are forced out of business by unions trying to breach the present counter-inflation policy?

I should be very upset about any such outcome to the Government's incomes and prices policy—of course I would. All those concerned have to weigh the consequences of their actions. This is one reason why it was so right to seek to get the maximum of agreement and understanding of all those concerned.

Can my right hon. Friend say what effect import controls on television glass manufactures would have in relation to Japanese exports to Britain?

If we were to restrict Japanese exports to Britain in the industries mentioned by my hon. Friend—certainly in the case of television tubes—undoubtedly this would improve the British balance of trade. As my hon. Friend knows, however, there are many other factors to be taken into account before drawing too simple a conclusion from that proposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further action he is taking to promote the export of British books and periodicals.

Since the hon. Gentleman's earlier Question on this subject, my Department has continued to col- laborate with the publishing industry in promoting its sales overseas.

Does the Minister recognise that in January British publishers for export will have to pay postal charges which are 50 to 98 per cent. higher than those paid by their American publishing rivals? Does he recognise that the British Book Development Council believes that these new charges will have a calamitous effect on British book exports, and will he have discussions with those most affected?

As regards a meeting with the British Book Development Council, I have written assuring its representatives that I should be happy to meet them but that first they should make positive proposals. If they have any suggestions, I and the British Overseas Trade Board will be delighted to receive them. I understand that the industry is looking after itself in the light of the increased postal charges, not only those of which it has had a first instalment, but those represented by the second instalment which comes in in January next year—quite a large increase—and it is investigating quite positively and successfully further and cheaper ways of exporting books.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what results to date have followed the trade agreement with the Government of the USSR announced during the Prime Minister's last visit to Moscow.

Our exports to the USSR are rising and there are good prospects for an improvement in Anglo-Soviet trade.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is an extraordinarily vague answer which seems to belie the great noises of triumph which the Prime Minister made when he returned with this agreement? May we have a few more facts?

If the hon. Lady had come in earlier, she would have heard me answer a similar Question in which I gave figures indicating that there had been a 100 per cent. increase in the first six months of this year compared with the first six months of last year. We are starting from a very low base of trade with the Soviet Union. Therefore, we have a considerable way to go before we can begin to be satisfied about the volume of trade.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct for the right hon. Gentleman to upbraid me, because I gather that the two Questions were not linked?

The hon. Lady, whose sensitivity I well understand, must not feel that she has been upbraided, I was trying to help her by giving a little bit of additional information which it was her bad luck and misfortune not to hear earlier.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether Great Britain is importing Greek Cypriot-owned fruit from Turkish-occupied Cyprus.

Fruit is imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Cyprus and disputed ownership is not a ground for refusing entry. Decisions on ownership are not for Ministers but for the courts.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a guarantor of a free and independent Cyprus, it behoves this country to treat this matter with considerable caution? Will he be prepared to consider setting up a working party to see what more can be done to exercise greater control?

There are some complex problems involved, but I am not convinced that the setting up of a working party would be helpful. What is needed in Cyprus is a proper political settlement, and that must spring from the two communities in Cyprus meeting together. That is why we are giving our full support to the inter-communal talks in Vienna.

Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to ensure that payment is made to the legal owners of these exports and not to the people illegally in possession of them and exporting them to this country? Will he agree to the dispatch of a Select Committee to Cyprus to ascertain the facts?

On the question of disputed ownership, I understand that a High Court case is pending in which four farmers' co-operatives in the north of Cyprus are seeking an injunction to prevent certain British importers from handling fruit from that part of the island. Obviously I do not think that any further action is called for at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give the number of Japanese cars imported into the United Kingdom over each of the past 10 years and the value of such imports in sterling; and if he will also give comparable figures for British cars exported to Japan.

I shall have the detailed figures for which my hon. Friend has asked circulated in the Official Report. They show a large and increasing adverse balance in our car trade.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures will most likely prove that for every car exported to Japan from this country at least 50 cars are imported? Is he quite certain that dumping is not taking place? What is the latest evidence that he has received from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on this issue? What action will he take in the near future to ensure that the British motor car industry is able to supply cars in this country and not allow Japanese cars to come in? If cars can be produced in Japan and shipped to this country to compete with cars produced here, some fiddling must be taking place.

My hon. Friend will know that we have been considering the charge of dumping and there has been an investigation. But the Japanese success in the British market has been due first to the unparalleled opportunities which they had for selling in this country in the 1972–74 period when British supplies were curtailed and limited, and secondly to the fact that in the last year or so the type of car which the Japanese have been selling tends to be of the small variety and, therefore, has a particular attraction in these days of much higher fuel costs. Those are advantages which the Japanese have. We cannot blink the fact or try to dismiss the Japanese success on the ground that they are trading unfairly. If I were to hear evidence of that, I should act on it. The problem is the more serious one of the present strong competitiveness of the Japanese car industry.

Is it not a fact that the French and German industries are looking after their home markets much better than we are looking after ours and, therefore, Japanese imports into Germany and France are not nearly as high as they are into this country? The salvation of our car industry against Japanese imports depends on our own industry and not on the Japanese.

I have no doubt that the salvation of the British car industry lies basically with the British car industry. If our industry is to prosper, which I believe is the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House, we must give it considerable aid and support in the period ahead. I do not have the figures relating to France and West Germany, but I will check them. Those who tend to single out Japanese car imports as being a problem of special moment should bear in mind that our net trade in cars with France and Germany is worse than it is with Japan.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, continuing logically from what he said, leaving out of account the fleet users and company sales, only one in three of British private motorists is buying a British car? As the figures for the first six months of 1975 show that imports have increased in value by 50 per cent, but exports have increased in value by only 19 per cent., even if my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to introducing import controls will he recognise that there is serious concern particularly among hon. Members such as myself who represent car manufacturing constituencies? Is it not about time that his Department made a definitive statement on import controls?

I note and share my hon. Friend's concern about the trend. I offer him one modest solace in the light of the figures that he has mentioned. Taking the car industry in its broadest sense, including not only made-up cars but components and spares and associated vehicle industries, we are still substantial net exporters. Do not let us lose sight of that fact, because it is important to this country and to the future prosperity of the areas which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members represent.

I take the point that hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens prefer to buy cars which they know come from countries whose balance of payments situation is stronger than ours. I repeat what I said in the country some time ago: all of us who are concerned about the future of this country and its industry should search our consciences very carefully indeed before deciding to buy foreign cars.

In the light of the interesting reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), can the Secretary of State assure us that there are no artificial technical barriers to prevent the export of British cars to Japan?

All the obvious technical trade barriers are either non-existent or lower in the case of Japan than they are in the case of many other countries. For example, their tariff is 6.4 per cent. as against our own 11 per cent. There have been changes in various procedures which the Japanese practised in the past in relation to imports which have been to the advantage of our exports. It is difficult to pin on the Japanese industry any specific measure which it is using to protect its home market which would be disadvantageous to our exporters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will introduce an import levy on tea, the proceeds of which will form a welfare fund for the benefit of workers on tea estates.

I am not convinced that such a scheme would be practicable. However, as far as Sri Lanka is concerned, we are continuing our discussions with the Ceylon Association following the report produced by the group of Members who visited Sri Lanka at Easter. These discussions now need to take account of the Sri Lanka Government's plans to nationalise all foreign-owned estates.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he accept that many of us will find it somewhat disappointing? Does he agree that something concrete ought to be put forward to help tea workers in Sri Lanka in particular and on many other estates throughout the world where there are British tea interests? Should he not capitalise on the real feeling among public opinion that tea is somewhat underpriced in this country and could bear a modest increase if the proceeds were directed to this meritorious end?

The Government's policy is to work towards international commodity agreements, of which tea would be one. However, the fact is that to impose a levy for this purpose would require new legislation and could be implemented only with the agreement of all tea exporting countries, not all of which are in need of this type of welfare fund and some of which might be reluctant to see a weakening of the competitiveness of tea vis-à-vis coffee.

Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the Governments of the countries concerned would be prepared to accept a fund raised in this way for the benefit of one section of workers only? This applies particularly to Sri Lanka, which has been reluctant to accept any help directed specifically to tea plantation workers.

I cannot speak for the Sri Lanka Government, but I should have thought that other tea exporting countries which would be affected by the levy would be most unlikely to tolerate a levy on all tea exports the proceeds of which were directed merely to one country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if there is any discernible improvement in the balance of trade with the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the impact of steel and food in this context.

The crude deficit, seasonally adjusted, on our trade with the EEC averaged £171 million a month in the four months March to June 1975, compared with £225 million a month in the preceding three months. Between these periods the crude trade deficit in food and live animals was little changed and the deficit in iron and steel was reduced by half.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the true balance concerning goods other than food and steel is showing a slight reduction compared with 1974? Will he give us a more specific answer on steel imports in view of the parlous plight of the steel industry in this country? Why are we continuing to import so much steel when our own industry is capable of meeting the demand in this country?

May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your birthday and hope that those felicitations might help me to catch your eye in future debates?

There has been a lower level of imports of iron and steel. In our judgment, this reflects the easing of capacity constraint and reduction of demand in the United Kingdom. That has been helpful in terms of the balance of trade with the EEC in iron and steel.

As for the overall improvement, this is probably the first time in 16 months that I have been able to report to the House that there has been a slight reversal, which I welcome, in the trend. However, the House must be aware that what I am talking about on the basis of the past three months is an annual deficit of £2,000 million as distinct from a crude deficit of £2,500 million which previously obtained.

The Secretary of State has now admitted that there has been an improvement in the three months to June. During the referendum campaign he categorically said that the situation was getting worse. Should he now apologise for misleading the public?

I do not think so. The referendum campaign ended, as I recall, a month ago. Indeed, the campaign was fought in the main two months ago, and the trend in the figures then was precisely as I described.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has seen a copy of the policy document by the Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council entitled "Relief from aircraft noise"; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards its recommendations.

Yes. I have seen a copy of the document. My Department is already taking action in a variety of ways to provide relief from aircraft noise, but we are always prepared to consider new measures and study their practicability. The council's document embraces many wide-ranging measures and I cannot at this stage comment on them in detail. They will need careful consideration and my officials have arranged a meeting with the council to discuss the document.

May I press the Minister further, despite his answer, and ask him to comment on two facets of the report which are particularly important: first, the desirability of encouraging research into the production of quieter aircraft engines and, secondly, the two operational methods mentioned in the report for reducing aircraft noise on landing?

The hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall that on two previous occasions I have indicated to the House that it is important to continue research into the production of quieter engines. The question of landing techniques continues to concern my Department and those engaged in the aviation industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance on those matters.

Will my hon. Friend study the report carefully and in particular do something to give relief to many of my constituents who are suffering from continuous aircraft noise caused mainly by training flights from Hamble?

I am aware of the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents and by the constituents of other hon. Members who represent areas near Hamble. I have written a number of letters on this matter to them. However, they should make representations to the authorities at Hamble, who, I am sure, are sensitive to these matters and are trying to mitigate the disturbance which is caused.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which the Minister has given on the question of aircraft noise, and in view of the fact that I am unable to address a question—

Order. The hon. Member must make his point of order in the accepted form.

May I make it now in the accepted form? In view of the unacceptable reply which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will conduct an investigation into the practices of motor vehicle insurers in their treatment of persons convicted under Sections 5 and 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

No, Sir. These are matters for the underwriters.

Is the Minister aware that people convicted under Sections 5 or 6 are now being asked to pay premiums of 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. over the normal premium? Is he also aware that the Act was never really intended to punish people more than the ordinary criminal? A man convicted under Sections 5 or 6 is now not only disqualified from driving but cannot get insurance when he regains his licence after the stipulated time. Is the Minister further aware that this tends to drive people who want insurance to get inadequate cover from fairly unscrupulous companies?

I think that a commercial rather than a moral judgment has to be made. Unquestionably insurers regard convictions of this nature as serious and as evidence of a high risk. Therefore, it is right that, in their judgment, they should charge more where such convictions have been established. If a driver is dissatisfied with the premium charged, he is at liberty to seek other quotations, but I do not accept all the assumptions made by the hon. Gentleman.

In view of my desire to preserve the sanctity of Question Time, I forbore from doing so earlier but I now take cognisance of the compliment paid to me by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). There comes a time in one's life when one does not wish to be reminded of one's age. However, I accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was made, even though the spirit was perhaps one designed to turn away wrath.

As hon. Members will know, in view of the dangerous situation in Angola it was decided to evacuate British citizens and to close the Consulate-General. The decision was taken over Friday night, and the Royal Air Force evacuated 26 British citizens from Luanda on Sunday morning. Fourteen EEC nationals, 10 United States nationals and four Commonwealth and other nationals were brought out in this plane. About 12 British citizens decided not to leave. It is hoped that they will have the opportunity if they wish to do so within the next few days to take spare seats under air or sea evacuation arrangements of other friendly countries.

These arrangements were for Luanda only. In other parts of Angola, many have already left independently under arrangements made in consultation with our Consul-General.

Decisions on evacuations and their timing are always difficult. In this case, we were mainly influenced by the importance of using the airport while it remained safe to do so, and while access to the airport through troubled quarters of the city remained feasible.

Our best assessment is that the situation in Angola is likely to get worse and that the capital could become a battleground in which British citizens would be at serious risk. So far, there have been no British casualties, although there has been some damage to property.

We greatly regret the tragic turn of events which made this evacuation necessary.

Is it sufficient simply to say, as regards those who elected to remain, that there will be sufficient accommodation for them under the evacuation arrangements of other countries? Would it not be wiser to make some definite arrangement?

The British citizens who decided to remain knew that the evacuation arrangements were being made. We issued a warning on 24th July, which was broadcast on the BBC Overseas Service, advising British citizens whose presence in Angola was not strictly essential to leave. We then informed them as soon as the decision was taken. It seems that about 12 have decided to stay. There are alternative arrangements—quite apart from those made by friendly countries—if in the event these people cannot leave under the arrangements made by friendly countries in the next few days.

From this distance it would be impossible to criticise decisions taken in Luanda, but will the Minister of State confirm that a number of other European countries have left diplomatic representation in Luanda and that we are the only country to have withdrawn?

The Minister of State said that some British subjects had decided to stay. I think that he was referring to people in Luanda as distinct from Angola as a whole. Were there any British subjects who, far from declining to leave, were unable to get to Luanda because of the speed with which the operation was conducted? How many British people are there actually in Angola altogether? Can the Minister say what is the value of British interests in Angola currently at risk? Finally, which friendly Power is looking after our interests now that we have left?

There are a number of questions there. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, it is always difficult to take a decision. If we had taken a decision too late and it had been impossible to get the plane into the airport, we would no doubt have been criticised because we had not acted quickly enough. We are not the only country which has evacuated citizens. Some have done so by their own arrangements and some have done so by our arrangements. There are still some countries, of which the United States is one, which have not evacuated their citizens.

As the hon. Member deduced, the statement I made about 12 British citizens referred to Luanda alone. I do not think that there were any British citizens who decided to remain because they did not know of the operation or were unable to leave at that stage. As for those in other parts of Angola, it is difficult to be certain how many have left under their own arrangements. Some people live in fairly scattered areas. It is a very big country and it had long been agreed—these people knew it—that exacuation from Luanda could not include citizens in the distant areas of Angola. The number is likely to be few. In some cases they are wives of Angolans or of Portuguese settlers. The number is very small.

I will have to inform the House later as to the responsibility that is held.

I cannot at this stage tell the House the total value of the property that is left there. As I said in my statement, some of the property has been damaged. Most of it has not been. The British consular staff are being looked after by non-British staff; so the consulate is still there.

Can my right hon. Friend say what the attitude of the British Government will be to the parties involved in hostilities? Can we take it that we shall be pursuing a policy of neutrality?

We certainly deeply regret the situation—

Order. I allowed this Question with some doubts because of the safety of British subjects. I do not think that we can get involved in general questions of foreign policy.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it not affect the question of the safety of British citizens to know what attitude the British Government are taking towards the parties involved in the hostilities? As the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) asked such a long question, am I not entitled to have a comment on this matter?

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have a comment if the Minister chooses to make it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In at least two respects I think that the Minister will find that he has not said what he meant to say, through verbal infelicities. On this occasion it is important that we should have on the record what he meant to say, so perhaps he can be allowed the same indulgence as a maiden speaker to alter the record in Hansard to what he meant to say.

I do not regard that as a serious point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I understand your ruling that the Minister must make up his own mind as to whether he answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), in fact you rose before my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had had time to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was about to tell my hon. Friend to take a running jump. Surely my right hon. Friend should be allowed to tell my hon. Friend that for himself.

I had intended to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). We deeply regret the situation in Angola. It is not for us to take sides. I, and, I think, the whole House, would want to appeal to both sides to call off this very damaging armed struggle so that Angola can have a smooth and peaceful transition to independence. I do not think that it would be helpful to us to take sides.

Perhaps I may be allowed to add that I now know that the estimated value of British property in Angola is £60 million.

As the situation in Angloa is now developing into little more than a bloodthirsty shambles, is the Minister of State seriously telling us that he has no precise idea of the number of British residents, that he has no precise idea of where they are, and that he has not given them any instructions as to whom they should contact if they get into trouble? In view of the right hon. Gentleman's obvious and well-known interest in the so-called freedom fighters in Angloa, does he not think that he has a duty to give us some indication of what advice he has given to people whose lives will be at risk?

I do not think that the situation is as the hon. Gentleman describes it. As regards those in Luanda, I have already said that our best information is that the number is about 12. It could be 14, but it is roughly that figure. I cannot give a figure for those in other parts of Angola, simply because, as people have been leaving in the course of the last few weeks, we do not know how many have left and how many are there. They all know perfectly well that if they are able to get in touch with Luanda they will be able to make transitional arrangements to get out of the country.

Is it not the normal practice in circumstances as abnormal as this that one of the matters of first priority is to determine who will oversee British interests when we withdraw?

This decision will be taken probably in the course of the next 24 hours. The operation of the evacuation of citizens has been done very rapidly over the weekend. It is a matter of negotiation, and the matter will be dealt with rapidly. I shall answer a Question in the House concerning which country will take responsibility.

Surely our Consul in Angola does not constitute our diplomatic representation in that area. Somebody must be responsible for British affairs in that country.

It is true that the British Consul has been withdrawn. It clearly would have been wrong to have left our small consular staff in Angola after the vast majority of the British citizens had been withdrawn. The Consul returned in the early hours of this morning.

Several Hon. Members rose —

Order. I think this matter must be pursued on another occasion.

I wish to refer to the adjourned debate on the Solicitor-General's motion which took place in the early hours of last Monday's sitting. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this motion would in the normal way have been accepted without discussion, but in the event a vote was called and a number of my hon. Friends were involved in voting in both Lobbies. I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members of the House for this incident.

There are two points that I wish to make. First, I think the underlying issue of whether or not the House should deny the courts the enjoyment of Hansard needs looking at again. It is a very stupid rule. However, I hope that the Patronage Secretary will agree that votes and rules about votes, whether they are concerned with majorities or quorums, are very important matters that should not be tampered with or treated in any way lightly.

On the question of the Solicitor-General's motion and Hansard, that is not a matter for me at this moment. It is a fact that Members have voted in two different Lobbies before now. However, I do not want to go back too far in the past. I can only say, speaking for myself, that I spend all my time trying to get as many Members as I can into one Lobby. I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of those who vote in two.

As the most important aspect of this matter is how the rules concerned apply if the number of people voting in both Lobbies produces a number over 40, could you give a ruling now or at some time, Mr. Speaker, as to the proper interpretation of Standing Order No. 29(2), which clearly says: If at any time it shall appear…that forty Members are not present"? It would seem from that provision that one should not count two votes as two but only as one if they are cast by the same Member. Are you in a position to say, Mr. Speaker, what the position would be if the number of Members who voted, however composed, fell short of the number required for a quorum? If you knew, Mr. Speaker, that that was the case at the time of the Division, is it not the case that you would rule that a quorum was not present? If that knowledge came to you on the day after the vote had taken place, Mr. Speaker, would you declare ex post facto that the quorum had not been present, and declare the decision invalid?

I shall rule upon that matter, but I will first take one more supplementary question.

This is a matter that was raised almost a year ago when some Members of the Liberal Party voted in both Lobbies on a Friday afternoon.

That was because they did not know.

I raised the point on that occasion with the Deputy Chairman who was in the Chair, but I received no ruling. I think it would be appropriate if we could have a definitive ruling from you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall rule straight away. It is clear from Standing Order No. 29(2) that on a Division there must be 40 Members present for the decision to count. Included in those 40 Members are the occupant of the Chair and the four Tellers. If 20 Members each vote in both Lobbies, that does not constitute a quorum. If the matter were reported to the Chair, the Chair might order another Division and would rule, but if that moment is allowed to pass, and if the matter is raised on a subsequent occasion, that must be a matter for the House. It seems that this is the kind of thing that always crops up in July. Last July we had a somewhat similar occurrence, which was resolved by the decision of the House. I hope we can leave the matter there.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House or any Member has reason to believe that on an occasion when the question of the quorum is involved there has been voting in more than one Lobby by certain hon. Members, does it lie within the power of the occupant of the Chair to call immediately for the two Division Lists so that either you, Mr. Speaker, or one of your deputies can examine the lists, or is it necessary to wait until the lists appear in the printed record? This is an important matter, because for the Chair to call for the lists could provide a very much quicker way of resolving the matter rather than waiting for perhaps more than one day, if there is a printing backlog, before the record becomes available.

If there was a difference of opinion about what had happened and if the matter were raised at once, perhaps it would be for me to ask for the Division Lists to be brought to me so that I could examine them and carry out my own count, but the point must be raised at once. The Chair will listen to any representations that are made at once. If there is a difference of opinion, the normal rule is that the Chair asks whether the Tellers agree. If there is a disagreement among the Tellers the Chair orders another Division to take place. That is what normally happens provided that the matter is raised at once.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that there is a difference between dealing with such a question by sending for the lists and ruling, which could result in the adjournment of the House and having a further Division which could give the opportunity for one of the parties to obtain the presence of Members who were not present during the previous Division. That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the matter could be disposed of by the Chair sending for the lists. I believe that this is a point of substance, because the results of the two Divisions would not necessarily be the same.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is on an important point, and I shall rule on it when it happens.

Is it not a dubious practice that hon. Members can vote in both Lobbies? Would it not clear up this matter if it were referred to the Procedure Committee, so that that Committee might determine whether we need to vote in both Lobbies on any occasion? Matters are made difficult from the point of view of recording an opinion, if hon. Members can vote in both Lobbies. Of course, they are not allowed to do so in order to try to secure a quorum. The practice of voting in both Lobbies makes matters difficult for the Chair, and it should be possible for hon. Members to make up their minds as to which Lobby they want to go into before going into one or the other.