asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about Concorde's noise levels, in view of the conflict of evidence produced by different reports from his Department and elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the reported noise levels of Concorde during its take off and landings at Heathrow Airport during the summer.

The Concorde noise monitoring results which I gave to the House on 13th October are now being studied by the manufacturers to see whether there is any possibility of further reductions in noise levels being achieved by modifications to operational procedures. The Department's results are broadly comparable with data so far published by the Greater London Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why in that answer on 13th October he gave only the maximum readings, and why the readings were shown in a unit of measurement not commonly used internationally for measuring aircraft noise? Will he see that the professional Concorde-knockers do not get assistance from his Department in the production of one-sided figures? Will he give an undertaking to call a meeting with the manufacturers and trade unions in Britain and France to see what action they could or should take in the event of the Port of New York Authority using distorted or incorrect figures to prevent Concorde from landing at Kennedy Airport?

I do not accept that the unit of measurement employed at Heathrow is in any sense unconventional. It is a recognised unit of measurement and indeed tests were carried out, particularly as to siting of noise checkpoints, mobile as well as fixed, in association with a number of interested bodies, including environmental groups and local authorities. Of course there is a distinction between the measurements at Heathrow and generally agreed international measurements as set out in Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention. It is an internationally agreed level which is taken into account by the manufacturers in planning engine performance in relation to noise, and in my view it will be closely studied by the United States and other authorities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that publication of these figures was ill timed at a moment when people are trying to sell the aircraft around the world? Was the British Aircraft Corporation right to say that strict noise procedures were not being carried out? Does he agree that inexperienced pilots have been flying the aircraft? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the British Airports Authority about new take-off and landing procedures for supersonic aircraft in view of the problems they face?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. He said that publication of results was ill timed. I can only answer by saying that the procedures in a democracy often result in matters being published at moments which various interests may consider to be ill timed. Nevertheless, there has been a proper public interest among hon. Members on both sides of the House in demanding that noise measurements of Concorde's proving flights should be monitored and made known. I take it as my duty not to suppress information but to make information available to the House and to the public.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that current investigations into Concorde noise levels will not hold up the first commercial flights of Concorde out of Heathrow?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will understand that the certification of Concorde has to be decided by the CAA, an independent authority.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recommendation by the Noise Advisory Council that Concorde should not be allowed to take off and land at night? Will he confirm and enforce the strict ban on Concorde being allowed to manoeuvre at night over residential areas?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I appreciate that he lives in an area greatly affected by aircraft movements. I assure him that there will be no taking off or landing in any normal circumstances of Concorde after the appropriate night-time period begins.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that, had the figures that were released after the tests at Casablanca been available at the same time, they would have put a rather different picture on these alarmist figures? Therefore, will he have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Industry, to see why the copy of the report on the Casablanca tests, which is stated to have been placed in the Library, is still not available?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—whose presence on the Opposition Front Bench I note with interest and pleasure—for his, as usual, well-informed intervention on this important question. It is true that a separate set of tests has been conducted under Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention and that those tests were conducted at Casablanca. Those tests, which are internationally accepted tests, produced the general conclusion that we had ourselves previously affirmed—the expectation that Concorde's noise would be broadly comparable not with the most modern of subsonic jets but with the Boeing 707–320C and so on, and those results have been confirmed.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the endurance flights of Concorde; and if he will state when he expects the British Government to grant the aircraft its certificate of airworthiness.

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Industry expressed on 13th September his appreciation of the hard work done by all concerned in bringing to a satisfactory conclusion an intensive programme of endurance flying. The issue of a United Kingdom type certificate is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The Chairman has told me that, subject to the demonstration of a revised cruise technique satisfactory for all expected atmospheric conditions, the issue of this certificate will be possible in ample time to avoid any delay in introducing the aircraft into airline service.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for the success of this project that the certificate should be issued as soon as possible, especially as the French already have their certificate? Is he aware that there will be a delay between the operations of Air France and British Airways unless this certificate is issued quickly? Will he use his good offices to make sure that the Government urge the Civil Aviation Authority to issue the certificate as soon as possible?

This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The concept of type certification is a little different in each of the two countries. In Britain it covers certain aspects that the French cover in operational control rather than by a certificate. I have no doubt that the Authority will note my hon. Friend's observations.

May I press the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the certificate is granted without any further delay? The French are operating the same aircraft by the same methods. Does he not recognise that there is a danger that we shall be in a comic opera situation—not able to operate an aircraft that the French have already certificated?

The Authority is an independent organisation and the matters raised by the hon. Member are entirely its responsibility. I am sure that the CAA will have noted the views expressed today.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from the TUC and the CBI regarding import controls; and what response he has made.

Like other Ministers, I have recently received papers on this subject from both the TUC and the CBI. The Government will obviously give them careful consideration.

Although there would be a general welcome for a tightening up of the procedures against dumping, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of his right hon. Friends, including the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have spoken out against the imposition of import controls in other circumstances? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Tokyo on 18th September he himself said that the British Government saw no attraction in the imposition of import controls? Will he confirm that that is still his view?

We are very willing indeed, as I have previously indicated, to use our powers whenever serious prima facie evidence of dumping is made available. I am perfectly willing to look more widely at the general question of anti-dumping measures, in so far as any suggestions are compatible with the agreed GATT arrangements.

rose—

Order. There are a great many Questions about import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy regarding import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now introduce selective import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he plans to introduce import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is prepared to institute selective import controls in such areas as the field of textiles, footwear and motor cars at an early date.

My prime objective is the early revival and expansion of world trade. But I do not rule out protective measures for particular industries suffering or threatened with serious injury as a result of increased imports. In any particular case we would have to consider all the relevant factors, including the fact that other countries can also use protective measures, before deciding where the balance of advantage lay.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has been looking at this matter for far too long to please workers in this country? While we are in a situation in which the multinational companies in Britain are in effect controlling our exports, we have the right to demand control of imports.

My hon. Friend will accept that the trading relations between countries are, perhaps, somewhat more complex than the policies, although they are relevant to the trading relationships, of particular multinational companies. Although I understand the position of and sympathise with all my hon. Friends who, naturally, have pressure upon them from constituents who are worried about the future, and who indeed are perhaps already affected by the present, we must face the fact that we are in the middle of a world trade recession. We have to consider how we can best handle this situation and overcome it in the interests of our own people as well as of others.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the imposition of selective import controls is the policy of the Labour Party and of the TUC? Will he also bear in mind that, particularly in the textile industry, cheap imports not only threaten the jobs of our own workers, including textile workers in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland and the North of England in particular, but are often the direct result of multinational companies exploiting cheap labour in other countries?

The problem of cheap imports is important, but we have to remember that cheap imports are not by any means the same as dumped imports. We have long understood in the Labour movement in this country that countries that have formerly lagged well behind us in terms of industrial development will inevitably turn to certain ranges of industries where their skills and natural advantages can be used, and will develop them first.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the event of the Government imposing import controls some retaliatory measures are bound to be taken, which will lead to greater unemployment?

There is here a question of the possible international repercussions of particular measures that may be taken by the British Government. Obviously, that is something that any responsible Government must consider and weigh before deciding on any particular action about imports. If I may express my view in these words, I shall at least, I hope, command considerable support on both sides of the House. I would not expect any of my hon. Friends, or any hon. Members opposite, to urge upon me a course of action that, after serious examination and with the best possible information available, would lead to results the very opposite of the results they want. That will not necessarily always be the case, but it is a serious factor that we must weigh in the interests of our own people.

Will not my right hon. Friend accept that it is not sympathy but action that the workers are demanding? Does he not also accept that the threat of reprisals has been overstated too often? Will he not take action before it is too late with imports of textiles, footwear and glass? Will he bear in mind that only last week we have seen Chrysler threatening to withdraw from this country, while a British designed car is to be produced in France and imported here, with the loss of British jobs? We are demanding action.

The question of Chrysler is now being considered, as my hon. Friend knows, and important consultations are being held in a few days' time. Therefore, I should not like to comment separately on that case at the moment. However, it may be that some have overstated the dangers of retaliation, but I equally put to some of my hon. Friends that there is a danger in understating that probability.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of dangerous double talk about import controls? The true distinction is the one he makes—whether goods are dumped. The term "selective import controls" totally fudges that vital distinction. Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the protectionist appeals of Ron Hayward and others, which would be likely to create retaliation and which could create not a world depression but a world slump, with beggar-my-neighbour policies and a reversion to the situation of the 1930s and higher, not lower, unemployment?

I accept one point that the hon. Gentleman made—that the phrase "selective controls" in a rather blanket way covers different situations—one in which one is faced with genuine dumping and the situation I sometimes describe as over-competitiveness. There is a distinction.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the argument about import controls is about world growth and the recovery of our economy? Does he agree that import controls are not temporary expedients to effect protection? They are essentially instruments of planning. If the whole of the Socialist case is about planning the economy, how can we plan it in the absence of controls on our external trade? The introduction of import controls would mean that we could expand the economy, raise production and lift world trade. It is not the other way about.

My hon. Friend has an argument, but it is not the argument about selective import controls. It is the argument about controls more generally as a means of protecting the balance of payments, or whatever it may be.

That is right.

That is a matter which does not immediately concern us. We have been talking about selective controls. I wish to add only this point to what I have said on that subject. We must do our best—I have said this before—to do what we can to sustain world trade, but we cannot stand idly by in a situation that would result in the destruction of a major British industrial capacity that we shall need in the future. That is my viewpoint.

In view of the substantial and dangerous dependence of the Government's finances on overseas borrowing, would it not be realistic for the hon. Gentleman to point out to his hon. Friends below the Gangway that the International Monetary Fund would take a very poor view of any Government who, in seeking further credit, had a record of trade discrimination at a time when all its policies are designed to expand world trade rather than restrict it?

The important international obligation in this case is not the obligation that the hon. Gentleman has cited. It is Article 19 of the GATT. Article 19 of the GATT gives a nation the right to impose restrictions if increased imports are causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industry. That is the right under Article 19 of the GATT. What my hon. Friends have also to recognise is that the same article also gives the rest of the international community the right to have compensation in respect of the exports of the country taking that action. That is why, amongst other things, one has to think very carefully about particular cases.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations have been made to his Department, by individuals and organisations, since March 1974, urging import controls on textiles.

About 260. We already have restrictions on a wide range of textile items. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 23 May, the Government do not consider that an across-the-board cut in textile imports would be justified. But I am ready to consider the case for further restrictions on individual items on their merits in the light of our international obligations.

Will my hon. Friend take it that the number of representations from all sides of the textile industry shows that the majority of the industry recognises that the only way to safeguard the British textile industry and relieve the misery in which it now finds itself is to impose selective import controls? Further, will he agree that import controls would not create retaliation, nor export unemployment? If the Department tells me that import controls are imposed on textiles by Australia, Canada, Norway, South Korea and Taiwan, why is it right for them to exercise such controls and not right for this country?

First, I should remind my hon. Friend that there are already a considerable number of restrictions on textile exports from other countries to Britain. Under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, we have agreements in operation with Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Macao and Singapore, and one will shortly come into effect in respect of Pakistan. Further agreements are to be negotiated by the end of this year with Mexico, Latin America and the East European countries. Thus, virtually the whole of the developing world will be covered by these agreements in the next six months. Moreover, we do not wish to take selective action on textiles that is not justified under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, which represents for the first time ever an international agreement between the developed and the developing countries to control international trade in this important commodity—important for us and important for many developing countries. Finally, we do not, at least on this side of the House, wish to export unemployment—certainly not to very poor countries. We must take all the steps we can to protect employment in this country without harming the interests of people who are at present unemployed or in work in other and poorer countries.

May I revert to the question of dumping strictly so-called, not selective import controls? Do I understand from the answers to previous Questions that it is the Government's view that our anti-dumping machinery is the strongest we are entitled to adopt under the GATT? If that is so, why is it that Canada adopts much stronger anti-dumping machinery and yet is apparently able to keep within the GATT?

I am satisfied that the measures we have taken under the GATT anti-dumping code—rather than our own legislation of 1969—represent or contain the strongest possible measures we can use to restrain dumped imports from other countries. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the GATT rules could be tightened up or be made more stringent, that is an entirely different matter. I am not aware that Canada has any approach to anti-dumping basically different from that adopted by Britain. There is a difference in respect of the United States, but it arises because of something known as the "grandfather" clause, since United States domestic legislation existed on this issue before the GATT anti-dumping code was drawn up.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some of those who are calling for import restrictions are employed by our own companies, which invest in mills abroad which provide the cheap imports coming to this country, and that the British Government have themselves financed a number of projects in developing countries, which will add to the difficulties of our textile industry? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, have urgent talks with his colleagues to see whether any strategy can be developed by the Government at least to provide alternative employment for the many textile workers who are being thrown out of work because of the present policy?

My hon. Friend's last point is certainly important. Obviously, as my right hon. Friend has already said, no Government can stand by and see whole sectors of British industry decimated by competition from cheaper imports from overseas. But imposing selective import controls is not necessarily the only or the best means of safeguarding employment in our industries. If my hon. Friend will watch in the next few weeks for announcements about the Government's developing industrial strategy, he will, I think, find that measures will be taken that will in the longer term look after the interests of these domestic industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response he has been able to gauge from consumers in the United Kingdom to his recent "Buy British" exhortation.

I have found considerable willingness to support British suppliers in the interests of helping the country overcome its current economic crisis. This support could be far greater if some suppliers improved their performance.

Does the exhortation apply with equal force to the other countries in the European Community?

If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, this is—[An Hon. Member: "Answer."] Of course I shall answer. The hon. Gentleman's remark is slightly frivolous. Encouraging people to buy British is not at all frivolous. My view is that it is sensible, common sense and wholly beneficial to our own people who want to help their own country at a time of difficulty. But the great difference between Britain and the other countries of the EEC is that we alone at present have a major and substantial balance of payments deficit.

Will my right hon. Friend consider having further talks with the CBI and other bodies to try to put some renewed steam behind this call for people to "Buy British"? Further, will he have renewed consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry so that we can get the National Enterprise Board into business as quickly as possible to ensure that there are actually enough British manufactured goods for people to buy?

My hon. Friend has mentioned two important matters. I shall certainly look forward to opportunities of discussing this whole subject with the CBI and the TUC. It may well be that in the context of meetings of the NEDC we shall find an early opportunity of doing that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what criteria the Government are using in deciding whether imports from Communist non-market economies are being dumped.

The Government regard imports from non-market economy countries as dumped if their price to the United Kingdom is lower than that of comparable goods imported from market economy countries.

Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the criteria being applied are sufficiently precise to prevent the dumping of men's leatherwear and made-up clothing? Is he absolutely satisfied that the criteria applied to measuring the true costs of production in the COMECON countries are as precise as they need to be to deal with this very difficult question?

There is no way in which we can possibly measure the cost of production in a non-market economy country. We do not apply that criterion because we could not follow it. Tightening up the GATT is obviously a matter not merely for Britain but for other GATT countries. However, I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman and all others interested that it is in their own interests as a major trading nation to ensure that, although there are rules and that they are stringent and widely observed, they are not made so stringent that they could be used against us and our own exports.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever difficulties there may be about the preciseness of the definition, we have recently moved into a surplus in trading with many of the countries described in the Question and that most of the economic forecasters predict that we shall move into substantial surpluses with many of these countries in the years to come?

We have surpluses with a number of East European countries at present, largely as a result of their exports to Britain falling off because of the recession in Britain and in other industrial countries. When, as we all hope, the recession ends next year and world trade takes an upturn, their exports to Britain, France and Germany and other industrial countries should automatically increase.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the present GATT rules against dumping and their implementation by members of the GATT.

The basic GATT provisions on anti-dumping, supported by the detailed rules in the 1967 anti-dumping code, should be adequate. The major trading nations have signed the code, but the United States has not fully aligned its domestic law and practice.

Is not the present GATT meeting in Geneva a splendid opportunity for the Government to take an initiative in attempting to have "dumping" redefined, as widespread violation of the dumping provisions of GATT appears manifest in many countries? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Government are showing sufficient initiative? Would it not be in their interests to take a greater interest and thereby take some of the steam out of the pressure coming from behind them to introduce selective import controls?

I am anxious, as the House will know, to ensure that there are not breaches of the anti-dumping code and law of the GATT. I should be interested to receive any evidence that the hon. Gentleman wishes to offer of widespread breaches. An important factor as regards large trading countries is that the United States has not fully aligned itself with the GATT antidumping code. So far this has not had a major effect, but there are a number of inquiries taking place in the United States now in which dumping is being alleged against British and other European goods but in which those making the allegations do not have to show material injury. That is a very important and adverse fact from our point of view.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition are not satisfied that the present measures against dumping are adequate? Nor are we satisfied that his Department is giving as much help as it might to those who have great difficulty in establishing what the price is in the domestic market of the goods being shipped to this country. This is particularly so in the context of the comparisons with the non-market countries. What initiative is the Secretary of State taking in the EEC to show that its views expressed in the negotiations reflect these fears?

A number of discussions are taking place, but in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations let us be realistic. The multilateral negotiations offer us a major opportunity to look again in a searching way at the GATT anti-dumping code. Again being realistic, the timetable for reaching agreement in the MTNs is one which must look more to 1977 than to 1976. In the meantime, if the hon. Gentleman has any specific proposals that he wants to put to me with a view to making this more effective, he will find me entirely willing to consider them, because I have no doubt that both sides of the House have a united interest in this matter.

What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to promote the export of British cars to Japan? How optimistic is he about the likely outcome of the voluntary agreement that he reached in Japan this year on the subject of the import of Japanese cars into the United Kingdom?

That is a somewhat different question. I am expecting further talks between the representatives of the British car industry and the Japanese car industry to take place in December. When those talks have taken place, I shall be able to give a much firmer reply to my hon. Friend's important question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many complaints against imports being dumped, his Department has received in the last six months; how many have now been investigated; and with what results.

My Department has received ten formal applications for antidumping action since 1st May. Of these cases, one has been withdrawn and one completed to the satisfaction of the British industry. Five are under urgent investigation and three are awaiting further evidence from the applicants.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer again demonstrates the slowness of his Department in dealing with what is, on the basis of evidence from both sides of the House, a very serious problem? Is he aware that if his Department had taken action about shoe imports from COMECON countries three years ago, we should have had some satisfaction? As it is, we have a mild abatement from that source, but now the whole industry is concerned about the possibility of across-the-board import controls, which it does not want.

We are considering urgently and sympathetically whether to introduce surveillance licensing. We had a voluntary agreement with COMECON countries to restrict imports of men's leather footwear, but complaints from the footwear industry come right across the board. There are, for instance, complaints about imports of ladies' leather footwear from Italy and other areas, and of cheap footwear being imported from Brazil. The complaints are not confined to COMECON countries. When the hon. Member criticises the slowness of my Department, he should realise that, although there are many complaints against dumping, it is easy to bandy accusations but less easy to get an industry-wide case supported by the whole industry and based on serious evidence that can be investigated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the answers we have had from the Front Bench today have been very disappointing? The introduction of selective import controls is not part of an academic exercise. If my hon. Friends had been out of work for three or four months, they might take a different view of this issue. Does my hon. Friend recall that the document "Labour and Industry", passed by the Labour Party conference, called for selective import controls, as did the general secretary on behalf of the party as a whole? Is it not lime that my hon. Friends listened to what the party said on this issue instead of listening to hon. Members opposite?

We are ready to listen to people throughout industry, let alone to hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the problem of selective import controls. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has found our replies disappointing, but Government policy on this matter is evolving.

It is a pity that it does not evolve a bit more quickly.

We have to take account of our international obligations, but we shall do what we can to protect the legitimate needs of British industry. My hon. Friend may not realise it, but, although I have had no personal experience of unemployment, I need no lessons from the Labour Benches about unemployment. My father's life was destroyed in the 1920s and 1930s by unemployment, which left a scar on him and bitter memories for me.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the voluntary agreement with COMECON countries is useless for the shoe industry, because, although the imports of men's shoes have been reduced, imports of women's and children's shoes have been increased? As this voluntary agreement has obviously failed, what proposals have the Government for helping the industry?

I do not accept that the scheme has failed. It covers a particular category—men's leather footwear—and it is being observed. We shall be keeping a close watch on it both this year and next. The fact that countries choose to increase imports of other commodities is a different situation which can be looked at afresh.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that there is sufficient liaison with, and understanding of his policy by, the tourist industry and the various organisations representing the private sector of this industry.

The Government, with the support of the tourist boards, have sought to ensure that Government tourism policies are as widely known as possible. The British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards are regularly in touch with the industry.

Does not the Minister agree, however, that tourism has been one of our more successful economic activities in recent years? It is a highly fragmented industry. Therefore, if we are to prevent contact between the Government and statutory boards from becoming meaningless generalities, are not the Government obliged to keep in close contact with the various private sectors of the industry?

I take the hon. Gentleman's first point about the success of tourism. It is one of our major earners of foreign exchange net and one which we obviously want to foster and encourage in every possible way. As regards contact between the Government and the private sector of the industry, three organisations in the private sector have recently been in touch with me. One of them has had a meeting with my officials, and I understand that another is producing a report. I reiterate that I and my right hon. Friend and other Ministers are ready whenever possible to listen directly to the industry.

In the light of what the Minister has just said, does he agree that it was perhaps a mistake to confine his consultations on tourist policy earlier this year to the statutory tourist boards?

No, I do not accept that it was a mistake. These boards were set up by an Act of Parliament in 1969 to be the statutory advisory bodies to the Government. They represent all the interests in tourism. Private tourist organisations which may have had some comments to make would have been perfectly justified in approaching the Authority and the tourist boards direct, as well as in making representations to the Government. However, we are perfectly prepared to listen to any such representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent representations he has received about the level of shirt imports; and if he will make a statement.

Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have received a letter from the Shirt Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation. The Government are ready to have an early meeting with representatives of the shirt industry to discuss the situation if they wish.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British shirt industry fears that 1975 will be the blackest year in the history of the industry and that there could be many factory closures, such as that which occurred in my constituency recently, caused primarily by a flood of cheap imports?

The hon. Gentleman has asked four or five questions. I shall try to answer them all as quickly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further action he will take in 1976 to promote the export of British books.

My Department's export services will be available in 1976 as they have been in earlier years to assist the industry to promote exports of British books.

As British book exporters have to meet postal rates which are far higher than those now paid by their American rivals, and as British book exporters will have to pay yet further increased postal charges in January, what encouragement will the Minister give to the various export schemes for books that avoid the use of our postal services?

I have yet to receive any evidence that overseas sales have been affected by the first slice of the increased postal charges this year. Obviously, there are many considerations involved in the purchase of books. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that the Book Development Council has investigated and is applying at least one method of sending books overseas without the use of overseas postal services, and I understand that it is doing so at a substantial saving. As regards our general support, I remind the hon. Gentleman that for the next year we have offered support at nine trade fairs and at least five outward missions to promote book exports.

But will not my hon. Friend realise that his reply is a little complacent? Can he give no hope on the heavy imbalance charges—heavier than in almost any other country of the world—which are having a serious effect because we are the centre of the English-speaking world and send out so many books and periodicals? If help with this burden could be met by some subsidy for the Post Office by my hon. Friend's Department, we could build on the tremendous potential for increasing both categories of exports in this area, so that many periodicals now in danger of having to close down for good could be saved.

I take my hon. Friend's point about the imbalance charges. This is a technical matter and not one for which my Department is responsible, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry who has special responsibility for these Post Office matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade why it was necessary to issue notice to importers No. 1513.

This notice was necessary to inform traders that applications would be considered for licences to import newly restricted textiles from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea which were in transit on or before 30th September and had been paid for under the terms of irrevocable letters of credit, opened before 8th August in the case of Taiwan or 22nd August in the case of Korea.

Is it not a fact that the Minister's hasty action in August, threatening with bankruptcy importers in this country who had bought goods for which they had actually paid, action that he was then forced to unscramble, showed serious errors of judgment, as revealed by the issue of the apologetic notice to which reference has been made?

There was no error of judgment. The restrictions imposed on Taiwan and Korea were emergency restrictions imposed at the behest of the British textile industry generally, which had suffered a lot from competition by imports from those countries. They were originally imposed because we had made no progress with Korea on the GATT multi-fibre arrangement; the Koreans had taken a tough line, and it was not possible to reach agreement. Moreover, the imposition of import restrictions, which these were, inevitably causes disruption to trade and traders.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade why he is refusing to make available the guarantees to British firms on export orders of less than £2 million which he provides to similar orders exceeding that amount; and what further steps he will take to help the securing of such orders.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the ECGD's new scheme for guaranteeing performance bonds. The limit was reduced from £20 million to £2 million in June, and business under negotiation since then is fully engaging the resources which can be made available. I believe that the commercial bonding market can normally deal with bonds required for orders under £2 million; but nevertheless the scheme will be kept under review in the light of growing experience.

Is it not daft to risk losing orders for exports up to £2 million merely because they are under that sum? Would it not be sensible to offer the services of some accountants and thereby save the jobs of thousands of workers? Moreover, would not orders for under £2 million require less investigation and less risk than would orders above that figure?

If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has evidence of the exclusion of orders under £2 million being a serious problem, I am certainly prepared to look at it urgently. I am satisfied that the existing commercial bonding market should normally be able to provide bonds for smaller contracts entered into by exporters without the need for special ECGD support. Where the market will not do this, it is usually because the contract is considered to be beyond the exporter's technical and financial capacity. In that case it is possible that, exercising its normal underwriting judgment, the ECGD would be unable to assist.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of orders worth £2 million overall, but of whether it is possible to include components which separately, cost less than £2 million, but which together comprise an order whose total value exceeds £2 million? My constituents have made representations to his Department about the supply of parts to the Ontario hydro scheme. Will he take another look at this matter?

I shall have a look at the case the hon. Member has raised; it has not yet come to my desk.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a further statement on motor car exports and imports.

In the first nine months of this year, import penetration of the United Kingdom car market was 33 per cent. compared with 26·5 per cent. in the corresponding period in 1974. During January-September 1975 exports of passenger motor cars was £381·1 million compared with imports of £384·2 million. This compared with the corresponding period of 1974 of exports of £317·7 million and imports of £256·4 million.

I welcome that information, but does my right hon. Friend know that some of us recognise that the subject of import controls on cars is complex, especially in view of the application of the United Autoworkers to the American International Trade Commission with allegations of the dumping of British cars? Does he realise that the problems of imports is aggravated by a possible last minute rush by importers who fear that controls will be introduced? Does he not agree that exports would be rather more significant if an improved contribution were made by the American multi-national corporations based in this country?

The situation regarding imports and exports in the British car industry is complex. My hon. Friend is right in recognising that we have a favourable balance in the car trade with the United States of America. We import very little and export about £80 million worth of cars a year. There is a problem and a danger of anti-dumping action being taken by the United States authorities. We certainly do not want that to happen.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious concern about the imports of motor cars from Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia? Does he think his statements on dumping have either increased or diminished the imports of motor cars from those countries?

I do not think that we should dismiss the importance of any particular source of supply, but the hon. Member must see this matter in perspective. I believe that 1·3 per cent of vehicles are coming from Eastern Europe. I am more concerned about the 33 per cent. coming from Western Europe and Japan.

My right hon. Friend's Department is considering selective import controls for the motor car and other industries. Is he aware, however, that there is a type of import control that the consumer can exercise, and that is to buy British? If we did that for cars and other products, not only should we be helping the balance of payments, but solving the problems of unemployment and inflation. We do not want to export unemployment, but we certainly do not want to import it.

My hon. Friend speaks with great force and relevance on this subject. There is an awful lot that the people of this country can do for themselves if only they have the will and the sense to do it.