asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to commence discussions with the Scandinavian Governments on the review of the duty-free quota system for the import of paper products.

I expect these discussions to commence in May, but no firm dates have yet been arranged.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I have an assurance that these negotiations about the long-term future of quotas will be completed before the 1977 figures are due to be negotiated? Will my hon. Friend also assure me that in these negotiations he will endeavour to produce a system which more closely reflects reductions in home demand and affects imports accordingly?

I hope that I can give my hon. Friend an assurance on the first matter. On the second, I appreciate that the free trade agreements have the weakness that they are not related to demand and only have implicit in them a growth factor. These matters will be taken fully into account in the review, but any changes in the terms have to be agreed with EEC countries.

Do not the present arrangements mean that the United Kingdom bears the full brunt of Scandinavian competition whilst the remainder of the EEC remains highly protected? Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend to examine the whole arrangement closely to see whether he can speed up the phasing out of these protective tariffs?

The differential between other EEC countries and Britain is relatively marginal until 1977, after which there will be no differential disadvantage to Britain, because the tariffs of other EEC countries and our own will be phased out at the same rate.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the operation of the ratchet clause to which he referred means that there is unused capacity in this country in the paper industry while imports are still coming in and that the removal of this ratchet clause is an essential part of the negotiations to which he referred?

No, I do not think that that necessarily follows.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further action he is taking arising out of the publication of the London and Counties Securities Group Limited by his Department.

The Companies (No. 2) Bill contains provisions which are relevant to this report, particularly those designed to strengthen the position of auditors. Other matters dealt with in the report will be considered as part of my general review of company law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this rather sordid affair cannot finally be cleared up until one of the chief culprits—namely, Gerald Caplan—is rounded up so that he can be interviewed and asked to explain the actions not only of himself but of his colleagues and the other directors on the board at that time? Is it not worth noting, too, that at the present time, despite the rescue of the secondary banking system, we are once again seeing in the City columns of various newspapers the spawning of further secondary banking with the urging of people here to invest their money, in many cases overseas? Should not there be some legislation to stop this practice once and for all?

The prosecution of Mr. Caplan, or anyone else involved in this unhappy affair, is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and not for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the figures for imported garments in 1975 and to the latest available date.

The figures are £487 million cif in 1975, and £154 million cif during the first quarter.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they represent a considerable effect on the British textile industry? Does he also agree that it is particularly galling for the textile industry to have to face this sort of thing when it is finding the greatest difficulty in obtaining payment from and maintaining exports to Nigeria although Nigeria cannot and does not have the equivalent industry within its own shores? Will my hon. Friend investigate the position?

Under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement the EEC has so far negotiated nine textile restraint agreements as a result of which existing United Kingdom restrictions on cotton fibres and cloth will be extended to wool and man-made fibres and into new areas of knitwear. When these negotiations are completed the United Kingdom will have control over potentially disruptive imports of textiles and clothing from all major low-price sources. I hope that this provides a measure of protection under the MFA, although I recognise the limitations of that arrangement.

Representing as he does a textile constituency, the Minister will know that there is concern not only about the volume of imported garments but about the prices at which those garments are received. What steps are the Government taking to restrain the volume of imports and to ensure that the prices at which they come into the country are truly competitive with those of the British industry?

When representations are made to us that textile or any other imports are dumped—that does not mean cheap imports, but dumped imports according to the technical meaning—action will be taken by my Department, as it was taken on the imports of men's and boys' woollen suits from Romania, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. The Clothing Manufacturers' Federation has also applied for anti-dumping action on man-made fibre suits from East Europe, and this is now being discussed. Any other examples will be dealt with quickly by the Department.

Has the Under-Secretary of State—whom I congratulate on his appointment—any information to give us about the large sum of public money which the former Prime Minister said was to be spent on the garment industry and its modernisation?

That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but £20 million was to be allocated to the clothing industry, and there have been representations to extend the allocation to knitwear and hosiery. The assistance was designed primarily for the clothing industry, and it is possible for applications under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 to be made by other sectors of the textile industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the latest available figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the present deficit on the balance of trade ; and if he will make a statement.

The early part of this year has seen a continuation of the reduction in our visible trade deficit which took place in 1975. In the first quarter, our visible trade deficit was £438 million seasonally adjusted, the lowest quarterly figure since before the quadrupling of oil prices at the end of 1973. Trade in non-oil goods was in surplus by £518 million in the same period, the highest figure recorded since 1970.

Is it possible to estimate the balance of trade figures for various parts of the United Kingdom? If there any evidence to substantiate the SNP claim that a separate Scotland, even now, would have a healthy balance of trade surplus, or is that another typical example of the lies which the SNP is spreading to try to stir up discontent among the people of Scotland?

I gave some figures in my recent speech during the devolution debate, which I followed up with a Written Answer towards the end of January, from which it can be seen that, so far as the balance of trade of Scotland can be determined, there is at present a very substantial Scottish balance of trade deficit.

I welcome the encouraging figures for last month, but does the Minister agree that there were freak factors at work, such as exceptionally large re-exports of diamonds? What is the latest forecast of the deficit for the full year?

I agree that the March figures, unfortunately, cannot be expected to be typical as exceptional factors were involved. Nevertheless, with our exports increasing and some expansion of world trade taking place, I hope that this year we shall do better on our balance of trade than we did last year.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his promotion and wish him well in his high office. Will he explain why the Government have been playing with interest rates rather like a yo-yo? Is not this bound to have a destabilising effect on the exchange rate, and is it not accordingly likely to produce very uncertain balance of payments figures for the remainder of this year?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. The level of interest rates is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that there is to be a Private Notice Question on the £sterling which will no doubt give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to ask his supplementary question.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new appointment. Will he encourage industry to purchase from British component industries so as to reduce imports, and will he encourage consumers to buy British to secure an improvement in our trade figures?

Several discussions have been going on, for example, between manufacturers and the retail industry, which I hope will lead to the sort of results which my hon. Friend wishes to see. It is important that British industry should be competitive.

May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post by asking him in future not to mention the non-oil deficit? Does he accept that it would be just as reasonable—or unreasonable—to talk about the non-food deficit? Is not the food deficit just as important and as large as the oil deficit, and what is the Department doing to close that gap?

I agree that there is a certain inappropriateness in referring to the non-oil deficit. It has been customary to give that figure, but I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's representation. As to what we are doing about the food deficit, a White Paper was published recently, but these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is now the total trade deficit with the Common Market countries since Great Britain joined in January 1973.

The United Kingdom's visible trade deficit with the EEC, on a balance of payments basis, in 1973, 1974 and 1975 taken together was £5,547 million.

While recognising what a great disappointment these figures must be to those who thought that a wider European Market would be beneficial to our trading position, may I ask how much longer we can go on with this rising trend in our trading deficit with the Community? Can we expect anything to come out of the meeting of Finance Ministers in Luxembourg?

I am glad to say that in the first quarter of this year there was some improvement in the position. We obviously have a long way to go. This is another aspect of the competitiveness of British industry which must improve.

As during the referendum campaign we were informed of the great economic advantages that would flow from our remaining in the Common Market, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House precisely what we have gained economically by remaining in the Common Market?

I certainly do not remember saying at any time during the referendum campaign that there would be as rapid an improvement in our prospects as my hon. Friend seems to have expected. Many of those who opposed British membership did so on the basis of wider free trading policies. Here we have free trade with Europe and now we have the opportunity to benefit from it.

How do the Government expect the large deficit with the Community to be affected by the drop of one-tenth in the value of the pound in the past two months?

The Government's attitude to the drop in the value of the pound has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on more than one occasion. Price is only one aspect of competitiveness. In this country we need to compare our record with that of countries with appreciating currencies, countries which, nevertheless, have achieved continuing balance of payments surpluses.

Can my right hon. Friend say how the figure of over £5,000 million compares with this country's total overseas borrowing during the same period?

I cannot do so, without notice. If I add up all the balance of payments deficits of the country as a whole during that period, it is a substantial part of it. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend knows, there has been considerable switching of trade since we entered the European Community, and that has affected the situation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that our total trade deficit with the world since the beginning of 1973 would have been any less if we had been outside the Common Market, and, if so, why?

Analyses of this matter by independent organisations have shown that our membership in this respect has, as yet, made no difference to the economic results.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade, when he expects to meet the South African Minister of Trade.

I have no plans at present to do so.

In view of the loss in the value of the pound, will the Secretary of State do all he can to ensure that we export as much as possible to South Africa, as well as to other African States, without regard to ideological considerations?

At the end of 1974 a statement was made by my right hon. Friend the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on trade with South Africa. That represents our policy. We shall certainly do everything we can to encourage civil trade with that country. The British Overseas Trade Board has an exhaustive list of promotional activities in South Africa, and I am glad to say that during 1975 we had considerable trading successes in that country.

If it is the Government's policy in every way to encourage trade with South Africa, which is one of our biggest customers, will the Minister consider an official ministerial visit to South Africa to explain the Government's policy more clearly to the South African Government?

I have not at this time any plans for such a visit, but my predecessor and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had discussions with South African Ministers during their visits to this country in which I am sure that the Government's policies were fully explained.

The right hon. Gentleman is careful to talk about civil trade. Does he not appreciate that the interests of this country and NATO cannot be cut off at the Tropic of Cancer and, therefore, if he is thinking not in terms of the ideas of Labour Members on racial conflict but of the ideological conflict between the Communists and this country, it is in the interests of Great Britain to provide South Africa with the arms she needs to guard the Cape route, upon which we depend for so much? Will he stop—?

Order. This is not debating time; it is Question Time.

The Government's position on this matter has been fully explained by the former Foreign Secretary, and I have nothing to add to what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the value of contracts placed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the latest convenient date under the £950 million line of credit arranged by the then Prime Minister in February 1975.

The total value of contracts placed under the agreement to date is approximately £25 million and further substantial contracts are under discussion between United Kingdom exporters and Russian buyers.

If the line of credit is taken up fully, will it not cost the British taxpayer more than £300 million in interest rate subsidy alone? As much of it is intended to strengthen the Russians' capital base and enable the Soviet Union to compete more effectively in our own markets, are the Government considering whether it makes sense for the Western countries to fall over one another to subsidise the Soviet Union? Should not the Government be pressing our Western partners to examine together our attitudes towards credit for the Soviet Union?

The Government consider the interests of this country by extending lines of credit. I have seen the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of this line of credit. It is impossible to make such estimates without having the details of particular contracts. We are in competition with other countries that operate similarly in their trade with the Soviet Union and if we are to get orders it is necessary to operate on this basis.

In general will the Secretary of State say what the interest repayments are for the credits extended to the Russians? Secondly, do the figures for exports to Russia appear in the balance of payments figures at the time when the exports are made, or when the payment is received?

It is not customary to publish rates of interest ; they remain confidential. Exports naturally appear in the balance-of-trade figures when they are made ; the balance of payments figures are statements of actual payments.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me which party was in power at the time when we, along with the rest of the Common Market countries, subsidised the sale of that cheap butter to Russia?

I think that my hon. Friend knows which party was in power.

If the terms of credit are so favourable, why was Russia chosen in the first place?

It has been customary for a number of our major industrial competitors to operate with the Soviet Union within this type of framework. We are merely trying to make our exports competitive.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to implement the disciplinary report upon the fishing industry.

The report was unanimous and, having considered the views expressed since its publication, I still feel that the recommendations are justified and relevant and I would hope to implement them as soon as legislative time can be found.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the most significant feature of the findings in this report is the unanimity among management—Lord Vestey and others—the unions and the men, which is not usual in this industry? Does he accept that they are also unanimous that alcohol should not be taken aboard ship? Finally, does he expect that those of us who come from ports, especially hon. Members representing fishing constituencies, take the view that this is not enough and that it is time that we had another Merchant Shipping Bill?

When the former Secretary of State for Trade and I set up the working party to investigate this matter, we did not expect it to be unanimous, because this is a very controversial area. The fact that its report has been unanimous must necessarily affect the Government's views about the implementation of the proposals. I endorse what my hon. Friend has said, particularly about the proposals regarding the taking of drink. I also endorse his view that the time is ripe for another Merchant Shipping Bill. I do not think that he can expect me to go beyond that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade on what date responsibility for anti-dumping measures will be transferred to the EEC; and what relevant powers will remain with the United Kingdom thereafter.

Our remaining responsibilities for anti-dumping action will be transferred to the EEC Commission as from 1st July 1977. The United Kingdom will then have no power to take independent action in this field and all complaints of dumping will be dealt with by the Commission.

Is it not offensive to the House and to individual Members who might have in their constituencies industries affected by dumping that in future this power will be held in Brussels and that Ministers here will not be answerable for its exercise? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that arrangement? If not, will he seek to cancel it, change it, or at the very least defer it?

We cannot cancel it or defer it. We can ensure that its operation is adequate to the needs of our idustrial situation. We shall ensure that by continual consultation with the Commission and by our presence on the Anti-Dumping Committee of the European Economic Community.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how he is to ensure that the Commission will be effective in applying antidumping measures, for many of us fear that the British Government have failed in this regard in the past? What action will he take to ensure that this bureaucratic nightmare at Brussels is brought to account in the United Kingdom Parliament and made to provide effective protection for our industries, which are now so badly protected?

The Commission is already responsible in respect of trade within Europe and there is no reason to think that it should not be effective in respect of trade outside Europe, provided that the British Government use their influence within the Community and in discussions with the Community to ensure that the arrangements work properly.

As the Secretary of State said, the date of transfer of responsibility is still a year away. Is he aware that experience in this country has been far from favourable and that industry after industry—the shoe industry in particular—has proved dumping and that the Department of Trade has sought to impose only quota restrictions? Will he set a precedent as the new Secretary of State during the years to come and show that the British Government mean to act against proven dumping?

I will certainly take action on proven dumping cases where it is in the national interest so to do. That is my determination. We have a considerable number of cases under review at present and action will be taken where appropriate.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with a situation in which these crucial decisions can no longer be taken by the British Government?

This was part of the Treaty of Accession, to which this House was party. We have now to make this system work and I am sure that we can make it work. That is the objective to which we must dedicate ourselves.

What will be the attitude of the Government in future in the face of adverse resolutions of the House of Commons on the subject of the antidumping policy of the EEC?

We shall have to consider that when it happens.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many bodies, other than State-sponsored organisations, he has consulted about Her Majesty's Government's future tourism policy ; and if he will list the dates of such meetings.

In the past 12 months direct discussions have been held by my Department with seven such bodies. besides certain local authorities, on various aspects of tourism policy. These meetings were held in July and December, on three occasions in February and more recently on 31st March last, in addition to more informal exchanges. The four statutory boards which are appointed to advise the Department on the development of tourism consult extensively to that end.

I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest as a National Council member of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association. May I ask the Home Secretary whether as part of his new job he will take an early opportunity to read the report of the BHRCA on tourism and also initiate an early debate on the future of the tourist industry in Britain?

I have certainly seen the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred and have read carefully through the reply of my right hon. Friend's predecessor in which he declared a close agreement with the objectives of the policy and commented on the three main points which were made therein. The question of debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I will pass the hon. Gentleman's views to him.

As regards attracting tourists to Britain, in view of the recent fall in the value of the pound does not the Minister agree that the best thing that he and the Government could do would be to take a full-page advertisement in American and German newspapers pointing out that for some people at least the cost of living in Britain is falling daily?

The British Overseas Trade Board and the British Tourist Authority are well aware of all the various ways by which they can attract more tourists to this country. Already earnings from overseas visitors come to £700 million a year.

asked the Secretarty of State for Trade if he will review the provision of Government assistance and facilities for small businesses involved in exporting.

Government services for exporters are designed to cater for n of he needs of all exporters irrespective of size and are widely and successfully used by small businesses. They are kept under review by the British Overseas Trade Board, and if the hon. Member has particular suggestions to make I would be glad to refer these to the board.

Does the Minister realise that many small businesses involved in exporting feel that large business organisations are given more favourable treatment in terms of exports by the Government and the ECGD in such matters as pre-shipment finance and credit facilities? Will he take a fresh look at the situation and do his best to encourage small businesses to export?

It is true that some services provided by the BOTB and in other ways benefit major projects and large producers. It is right to give particular assistance at the heavy end of the business, but there is advantage to smaller contractors in terms of subcontracting. There are also services available to smaller exporters in terms of the Export Intelligence Scheme and the European Component Service, which are widely taken up by smaller companies, the Group Export Educational Visit Scheme and also facilities for credit insurance cover. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned pre-shipment finance facilities. Performance bond cover at the lower limit has been reduced from £20 million to £2 million and the commercial bonding market is able to look after the problem below that minimum.

As well as giving Government assistance to small businesses, will the Minister consider giving Government protection to small businesses, involved in takeover bids by financial manipulators and action by asset strippers who have put companies out of business and thereby caused the loss of jobs as well as loss of exports?

That is a matter we shall have under consideration in future legislation on companies.

Is the Minister aware that a successful export business depends on a good home base? Therefore, will he talk to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about some of the measures which he has taken against small business in recent years and try to get those measures reversed?

There has been a considerable improvement in export performance by small businesses. The hon. Gentleman's remarks do not appear to be substantiated by events.

Will not the £950 million line of credit negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Union afford considerable facilities to small businesses interested in assisting our exports? If that is the case, will the Minister find out from the Opposition whether they are in favour of assisting small businesses or wish that credit facility to be withdrawn?

My hon. Friend makes an effective point.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that no obligations are laid upon British airlines which place them under a competitive disability when compared with foreign carriers.

Obligations and costs incurred by airlines frequently differ as between one country and another. I know of no reason to think that British airlines are placed at any significant disadvantage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid the temptation to shuffle responsibility on to somebody else? Does he think it fair or unfair that British carriers, and British carriers alone, are to be liable to a penalty for overbooking?

I am not shuffling any of my responsibility on to anybody. I understand that the overbooking system, which is being dealt with in respect of British airlines through the licensing system, will be dealt with voluntarily in the case of foreign airlines. I hope that they will see that to do so is in their own interests. I am prepared to examine the matter further if the hon. Gentleman thinks that appropriate.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that considerable facilities have been provided to Irish airlines to transport horses and so on, facilities which have not been available to British airlines? Does he not appreciate that British airlines are capable of providing this service if only the Department does not put obstacles in their way?

That fact has not been drawn to my attention, but I shall look at the matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this example of farsightedness by the British Government will be widely welcomed throughout the country as yet another sign that British aviation leads the way?

I am grateful for that remark.

Is not overbooking a matter of basic contract between carrier and passenger and has not the passenger a right of action against the carrier?

In view of the questions that have been put to me, I am prepared to look at the matter again to see whether there is any further action that it is appropriate for us to take.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what percentage of imports from the Soviet Union is carried in Russian ships and British ships, respectively.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what percentage of exports to the Soviet Union is carried in Russian ships and British ships, respectively.

The percentage of the United Kingdom's seaborne exports to the Soviet Union by value, carried in Russian ships in 1975, was 78 per cent., and in British ships 18 per cent. The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom's seaborne imports from the Soviet Union by value in 1975 were 74 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively.

Is the Minister aware that the figures he has given are far from reassuring? Is he sure that hidden subsidies are not being given by the Russian Government to their own merchant fleet so as to make that fleet much more unfairly competitive than it might otherwise be? Is he sure that the line of credit extended to the Russian Government is not making that Government capable of extending the subsidy to the Russian fleet?

I do not accept that the figures I have given are meant to be reassuring. They are not. They are a cause for concern. This is a matter we propose to discuss with the Soviet authorities. Indeed, these figures result from a fairly long-standing practice in regard to these arrangements—arrangements which applied when the Conservatives were in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to ratify the European Patent Convention before the end of 1976.

I agree that it is important for the United Kingdom to ratify the European Patent Convention before the end of the year. For this purpose legislation is required and I will introduce this as soon as circumstances permit.

Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the ratification of the European Patent Convention is vital to British interests? There is virtually no opposition to it in this House, so far as I can tell. So, why is there this delay? May we have legislation on this topic in this Session of Parliament?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the Opposition's attitude to this matter. I recognise that it is an important question. I shall do what I can to introduce legislation at the earliest possible time so that we can ratify it before any serious disadvantage is caused to this country.

Is the Minister aware that over three years have passed since the Banks report on patents was presented to the House? When will the House discuss this important matter?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will have further talks with the Japanese Government and motor industry in the light of the number of Japanese cars registered in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1976 ; and if he will make a statement on imports of Japanese cars.

I have at present no plans for talks with Japanese Ministers. But the British motor industry is already in contact with its Japanese counterparts about current levels of car imports front Japan, and is also in close touch with my Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will hardly reassure people engaged in the motor car industry? Is he also aware that Japanese imports are now running at a level of over one-quarter of total imports and represent a figure of over one-third of the cars registered in this country? Will he reconsider his attitude to the question of possible import controls?

This is a serious matter. I have already met the Japanese Ambassador to discuss trade between our two countries, and in the course of our discussions we considered the question of cars. Discussions are taking place between the SMMT and the Japanese Association. I hope that this will result in understandings regarding the level of imports from Japan. I prefer this matter to be dealt with voluntarily if that is possible.

We have heard a lot about possible retaliation which might take place if we impose import controls. Since heavy restrictions have been placed on British goods entering Japan, what pos sible retaliation could we expect from Japan if we imposed import controls on Japanese cars? While my right hon. Friend is about it, will he try to persuade Members of Parliament in this country to buy British cars?

I am sure that hon. Members will have taken note of the last point my hon. Friend has made. This is not just a case of restraints on Japanese imports. It has been pointed out that there was a fall in the percentage of Japanese imports in the first three months of 1976. Unfortunately, it was not the United Kingdom industry that took prime advantage of that. Instead there was an increase in imports from elsewhere. It is of the greatest importance that British industry becomes sufficiently competitive to take advantage of any voluntary restraints that exist.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to those involved in this country's motor industry that rather than belly-ache about Japanese imports they ought to look carefully at the way the Japanese have been able to take over the motor car markets of Africa and South America, areas where, 20 years ago, we had a complete monopoly?

It is important that we should have an understanding with the Japanese motor car industry. Nevertheless, it is of the greatest importance that the British car industry improves its performance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is acknowledged that import controls are no panacea for resolving all the current economic ills facing us, the fact is that in 1975 the ratio of cars coming into this country from Japan as against those going from this country to Japan was about 25:1? Even if that ratio were reduced to 10:1, how on earth could the Japanese become involved in retaliation when they would still be so much in surplus?

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that import controls are not a panacea for all situations. I expressed my concern about the level of British car exports to Japan to the Japanese ambassador. I am sure that he took note of that.

In addition to talking to the Japanese ambassador, will the right hon. Gentleman talk to the Russian and Polish ambassadors about the dumping of the Russian motor car, the Lada, and the Polish Polski-Fiat? Does he realise that the Polski-Fiat sells in this country for £1,400, which is virtually the price of a new 850 Mini?

I am ready to receive any applications from the industry in respect of dumping from these sources. The matter will be examined as rapidly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the work undertaken by the British Overseas Trade Board's Fairs and Promotions Branch on behalf of British exporters.

Yes, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the BOTB does not recognise the Design Council as a sponsoring organisation for overseas trade fairs? Does he think that this is helpful to British exporters?

I will certainly take up the matter with the BOTB.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the outcome of his negotiations with the Indian Government concerning permission for Concorde to overfly India.

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies my predecessor gave to similar Questions on 9th February 1976.

Whatever may or may not have been the view of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government ought to expend at least as much money and effort in the task of opening up the Singapore-Sydney route to Concorde as was applied to the task of opening up the North Atlantic route, particularly as the Singapore-Sydney route is potentially more profitable?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of developing this route.

What success have we had in selling Concorde? Have we yet achieved the 500 models predicted 10 years or so ago? If we are not having significant success in selling Concorde, is it not time that we abandoned the venture and the very heavy subsidy that the taxpayer is making towards this financial disaster?

I do not think that there is any secrecy about the sales figures for Concorde. Now that the aircraft is in service, it is surely in our interests to see that it is as successful as possible.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that it is about time we achieved some results in this matter? Does he not agree that, despite the damage done to this country in the past two years, we still ought to have enough muscle to achieve a diplomatic understanding with India that it is in her interests that she should not obstruct our trade to Australia with this aircraft?

I shall certainly consider whether it would be appropriate to recommence discussions with India on this.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the latest figures available for trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Eastern European countries; and what further steps he is taking to encourage this trade.

In the first three months of this year our exports to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were £154 million, an increase of 20 per cent. compared with the same period of 1975. We are continuing to promote actively the further expansion in our trade with these countries.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the movement in this trade is satisfactory and has been so in recent months? Would he comment on the forecast by many experts that this trade is likely to remain in surplus for some time to come?

I do not know that the trade is in surplus. I certainly wish to encourage it and I hope that we can take advantage from the United Kingdom-Soviet Union Joint discussions that will be taking place next May to encourage our exports further.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this trade is not satisfactory unless this country gets a reasonable return on the sales of its exports? In view of the welcome positive view which he has taken about Common Market affairs during Question Time, may I ask him to carry out negotiations with the Common Market and other OECD countries to ensure that the terms on which we export to the Communist bloc are not unfavourable to us and extremely favourable to the Russians and the others?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are discussions among the OECD countries about the terms on which exports are made. Nevertheless, at the moment we are faced with a particular situation in relation to the Soviet Union and my main concern is to take advantage of the framework we have to develop our exports to the Soviet Union.

But is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is right to try to build up the economy of the Soviet Union at a time when that country is trying to undermine the interests of the free world in Africa? As the Government believe in sanctions against some other countries, should not the right hon. Gentleman be looking at this matter more carefully?

I have a strong belief that the development of trade with the Soviet Union can be of mutual benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many washing machines have been imported into the United Kingdom from Italy; and if he will investigate charges of dumping.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made by his Department in considering the allegations of dumping of Italian manufactured washing machines in the United Kingdom home market.

Some 365,000 domestic washing machines were imported into the United Kingdom from Italy during the 12 months ending February 1976.

The Minister will I believe be aware that constituencies such as mine, Peterborough and Merthyr are considerably affected by the enormous number of washing machines produced by Indesit and Zanussi and sent to this country. I hope that the Government will consider taking very strong action, otherwise a viable industry will be decimated.

As I have indicated, we should be willing and ready to give assistance in respect of any anti-dumping application, but I point out to my hon. Friend that the situation to which he refers concerns a reciprocal agreement between a British firm and Zanussi whereby the Italian firm buys refrigerators and other domestic appliances in return for the washing machines it supplies. The number of redundancies which are supposed to be associated with these imports certainly cannot be properly attributed to them alone. One must look for causes other than imports which, to a large measure, have not taken place.

In talking about antidumping measures, the hon. Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), referred to the Commission. Can he say whether after July 1977 the Commission or the Council of Ministers will operate the anti-dumping measures?

That will remain with the Commission.

How does my hon. Friend justify the fact that the General Electric Company imports this equipment rather than manufacturing it itself?

GEC is entitled to import, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and ourselves are anxious to assist in any way we can to ensure that GEC manufactures the goods itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects the Green Paper on the role of regional airports to be published.

Part 2 of the consultation document on airport strategy for Great Britain, dealing with regional airports, will be published within the next few weeks.

Before publishing the Green Paper, will the hon. Gentleman have a talk with Freddy Laker, who is anxious to increase his business operations from Liverpool provided the Government do not down-grade the status of Speke Airport and thereby wreck any prospects of a commercial operation from there being viable?

Representations about the consultative process can be made by anybody with an interest in this matter. I have repeatedly told the hon. Gentleman, both in the House and in correspondence, that the Government have no intention of downgrading any airport in anticipation of the report. The consultative process which we are undertaking will be very thorough, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stimulate those with local authority interests in his area to make their representations felt.

Will the hon. Gentleman declare his acceptance of the planning principle that airports should be sited within or adjacent to the areas they serve?

Environmental and planning matters form part of the considerations which will affect the judgment of the Government when they ultimately determine the national airports strategy for this country.

The succession of Green Papers is generally welcome as a means by which the public should discuss these matters, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that before coming to any conclusions about airports policy the House should have an opportunity to discuss the matter, because it affects almost every hon. Member and his constituents?

It would be helpful for the Green Paper on regional strategy to be published first. On the question of a debate, the words of the hon. Gentleman may—it is conceivable—have been heard by the Leader of the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Exhibition Centre has opened in Birmingham and that there is no need to wait for a Green Paper to be aware of the necessity for a new terminal at Birmingham Airport to serve the centre?

A new terminal at Birmingham Airport is not immediately a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman's representation that Birmingham should be given priority over other airports were to be applied, I think that other hon. Members would feel that he was being given unfair preference. There are many other constituency and regional interests in this matter.

asked the Attorney-General whether he caused any inquiry to be made into the allegations contained in documents sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, before permitting the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry on proceedings at the Central Criminal Court against Mr. Peter Hain.

The documents submitted by my hon. Friend, both before and after the commencement of Mr. Hain's trial, were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and passed by him to the police. An investigation was not then considered practicable in view of the fact that the persons named as having made the allegations are concerned as defendants in pending proceedings. It appears from the documents in question that Mr. Hain himself was aware of the allegations, and could have sought an adjournment had he considered it to be in his interests.

As documents, whether authentic or forged, and photographs undoubtedly exist which implicate a large South African corporation in the plot to smear members of the Liberal Party, was it not incumbent on the DPP to ensure that investigations were made in relation to the possession of those documents by a named person before proceedings were brought against Mr. Hain? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that inquiries will be made into the allegations against the corporation, namely, the Anglo-American Company?

I have explained why it was not possible to proceed with the investigations at that stage. It does not follow from that that they will not be proceeded with subsequently.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in spite of the smear campaign by certain quarters, the result of the case was a vindication of British justice?

I do agree.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take on the report he has received from the Tree Council which recommends that the Government should pay the cost of any additional labour required to secure the felling of dangerous elms.

My right hon. Friends are considering in the light of existing financial constraints and other relevant factors both this recommendation and the others made in the Tree Council's report.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree—and here he can make a very good start in his new office—that elderly people and people on fixed incomes who have dead elms on their property need financial help? Sums of £50 to £100 for felling the trees have sometimes been quoted.

Yes, I do agree. The matter is being considered within my Department.