asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the outcome of his visit to UNCTAD IV in Nairobi.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the UNCTAD IV meeting at Nairobi.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the outcome of the UNCTAD IV meeting; and if he will make a statement.

I intend to make an oral statement very shortly.

Although I welcome that reply, is it not increasingly and tragically clear that the Secretary of State went to Nairobi without any brief whatsoever? Did not this lack of forethought come particularly badly from Britain, a country so dependent on the less-developed nations for its supply of raw materials?

It might be better if we left that matter to my statement. It is quite untrue that I went to Nairobi without any forethought. I went there with practical suggestions for action in the commodity field, some of which have been accepted in the resolution on commodities by the conference.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the strangeness of his original answer? Was not this an opportunity to make a public statement? Will he give an assurance that the public statement will be made in this House? Why were the Government not convinced of the need for a common fund? That seemed to be apparent from the communications coming out of Nairobi.

My hon. Friend says it is strange that I did not take this opportunity to make a statement. I did not take this opportunity to make a statement because it would have taken a lot of time during Questions, and one can make a statement on a subject such as this outside Question Time. That was my judgment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that a proper account would be given to the House, and it seemed better to do that by means of an oral statement.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety which many of us feel, arising from the reports we have had direct from the UNCTAD conference? Is he further aware that we look forward with keen anticipation to his statement but that many of us think that in future the Ministry of Overseas Development should have a rather larger say in British policy and that his Department should have less say?

I can assure the hon. Member that the Overseas Development Ministry has a full say in the determination of our policy in this matter. Part of our reservations about the common fund is precisely on grounds of development policy.

Is it not now absolutely apparent that the Government's preparations for UNCTAD IV, and particularly their consultations with their EEC partners, were completely inadequate, and that last-minute panic is no substitute for proper preparation? Is the Secretary of State aware that we now expect him, unlike his predecessor, to give a lead in formulating an EEC position on trade and aid issues?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As for developing an EEC position, we had consultations with member countries of the EEC in the run-up to UNCTAD. The truth is that there are different views within the EEC. As regards a common fund, in practice most members of the EEC take the view that we took—that there is reason at this stage for substantial reservations about it. But we are all prepared to discuss it and to see whether there is any way of handling those reservations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he intends to introduce any new measures to encourage the use of quieter civil aircraft or to restrict the use of noisier types.

There is already a requirement that all new subsonic aircraft operating at United Kingdom airports should be quieter than their predecessors. As I stated in the House on 15th March, we are at present studying other measures that would further reduce noise disturbance.

Is the Minister aware that that will be an extremely disappointing reply to those who live near Gatwick and Heathrow? Is he telling the House and those people that, having dropped the Maplin proposal, the Government have no proposals whatever for hastening the removal from service of noisy aircraft and the bringing into service of quiet aircraft?

Not for the first time is the hon. Gentleman wrong. The fact is that the Government are committed to the replacement of the older, noisier aircraft. Steps have already been taken, as from 1st January this year, concerning new production of older types of aircraft.

While acknowledging the remarkable help, aid and concern of my hon. Friend concerning aircraft noise—with particular reference to the London borough of Ealing, for which I am grateful—may I ask him to consider supplying local authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, near the great airports with detailed information on what he is trying to achieve, so that they can pass on that information to people in the area who are concerned and who do not fully appreciate his endeavours?

I think that the local authorities, and, indeed, other environmental groups, take a rather different view from the narrower political one just ex- pressed by the hon. Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit). We are in very close consultation with the local authorities, including my hon. Friend's local authority. I think they accept that we are doing our very best to mitigate the pestilence of noise, about which I have spoken and acted over a period of time.

I thank the Minister for the recent CAA conference which he inaugurated. It did not affect my constituency very much, but that was not his fault.

I readily understand the problems. As I have indicated, I have acted in very close co-operation with environmental groups, with local authorities and with all those concerned with this difficult situation. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's second question.

Night flights.

As to night flights—this incorporates night jet restrictions—we have undertaken a study on the scope for tightening these restrictions further. I hope to be able to report to the House on that in the not-too-distant future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made in negotiations on possible additional Concorde routes to Johannesburg and Melbourne.

I have nothing to add to the replies that the then Secretary of State gave on 9th February to similar Questions, including one from the lion. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

Has not the Secretary of State noticed, during the parliamentary recess, an indication that the Australian route for Concorde now appears likely to come into service in the near future? Taking that into account, and assuming the ultimate success of the routes to Washington and New York, will he tell me whether the availability of Concorde aircraft will allow the extension to perhaps only one other route, such as Johannesburg or Tokyo?

I have indeed noticed the statement of the Australian Minister for Transport during the recess. As the Minister made clear in that statement—it was not, I believe, widely reported—there may be certain statutory processes yet to be gone through, but I hope it will be possible to start a service to Melbourne. As to the availability of the Concorde aircraft for further routes, that is something we shall discuss when it is necessary so to do.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I impress on him that it is very urgent that these routes should now be looked at? Will he tell us what is now happening about India with regard to overflying rights? What consultations are taking place with the Indian Government?

As I believe I said on the last occasion when the matter was raised, India is not at the moment willing to have supersonic overflying. There is a possibility of diverting round India, but that would be less satisfactory. This is a problem which, unfortunately, we have not yet resolved.

Why should the Government expect the Indians, who are citizens of the Commonwealth, to allow their people to be overflown by Concorde supersonically when we insist that our own people in Britain may be overflown by Concorde only subsonically?

This is obviously a matter that we have to discuss with the Indian Government. They have the final reservation on this issue, just as the British Government would on a similar question if it arose practically in this country.

Will the Secretary of state say what efforts are being made to facilitate a trial operation of Concorde to India to enable the Indian people to decide for themselves the merits of this remarkable aircraft?

It is really for the Indian Government to decide what tests they would wish to make before they conceded a supersonic route across India. It is not for the British Government to decide the activities of the Indian Government in that respect.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to the expectations of the anti-Concorde lobby, no one in Washington has lost arms, legs or any other organs since flights started? Will he accept the congratulations of millions of people on the determination of his Department and of many other people in getting this aircraft launched commercially with success?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those congratulations. I thought that Concorde was very well received in Washington when we arrived. The route to Dulles Airport was jammed with cars, which seemed to be welcoming us and not protesting.

Will the Secretary of State say whether Her Majesty's Government have now given up negotiating with India and are prepared to let the matter slide entirely and not pursue it?

There is a problem here, and we have to consider how we can raise it again and at what time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any proposals to amend the development area system, particularly for tourist development projects.

No, Sir. I believe that the resources available for financial assistance to tourism projects are most usefully deployed in the development areas where the need is greatest.

Would not the Minister agree that the development area definition, which frequently involves depressed industrial areas, is not really a wholly appropriate measure for a system of tourist grants and for major tourist needs? Will he therefore reconsider the idea of a system of tourist development areas specifically for loans or grants for tourist projects?

The present development areas do, of course, identify the areas of greatest economic need, including a need for tourism, and it is quite wrong to suppose that they are exclusively industrial areas. Many of the development areas include some of the most beautiful parts of the country. We feel that, if we were to extend outside those development areas the limited funds that are available, the benefits which the system gives would be spread too thinly, to the disadvantage of the development areas.

Does not the Minister appreciate that the criteria are entirely different? There are many areas on the South Coast which are suffering from high unemployment which could meet this tourist demand. Why does he not take advantage of this and give some benefits so that they can do so?

I hope that they will be able to take advantage of their tourist potential, but with limited Government funds we are bound to concentrate on the areas within the development areas which have tourist potential. All the regional economic planning boards have recently been examining the areas of greatest weakness inside the development areas—the "fragile" areas—and the national tourist boards are now looking at how far they have tourist potential. I am sure that this is the right way to proceed.

Will not my hon. Friend have another look at this? I supported this in the past, but as a Minister I found that there was a justifiable case for certain areas which were not within the development areas. The Government should be a little more flexible in relation to support for areas which are not necessarily in a development area.

I assure my hon. Friend that, although I accept that there are many areas outside the development areas which have important tourist potential, we have to take into account the areas which are in greatest need of economic aid. Those are unquestionably the development areas. If we were to extend tourist aid, on any definition it would have to be extended widely and the benefits would, regretfully, be spread too thinly.

Is not the Minister aware that under the present system grants go to areas within the development areas which are not particularly interested in tourism? Is he not further aware that there are areas outside the development areas which could do with these grants but cannot apply for them? Would he at least agree to review the present system to see how it is working?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to guidelines which were recently introduced after full consultations within the industry. I think that we should give them a chance to see how they operate. As to the hon. Gentleman's point that Section 4 grants under the 1969 Act are used inside the development areas in areas which lack tourist potential, I should like to have chapter and verse about this. All such grants are given on the advice and agreement of the national tourist boards, and certainly we should look to their judgment as to the proper expenditure of those funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions have taken place between his Department, the British Embassy in Madrid and the Spanish authorities concerning the recent disaster involving the tanker "Urquiola" at La Coruña.

On 22nd May the Spanish Embassy in London relayed to the Department a request for the loan of a quantity of dispersant spraying equipment. This and associated equipment was dispatched by air on 24th May. Apart from this one direct contact with the Spanish authorities, the Department has endeavoured to keep in touch with developments in the pollution clearance operation through various channels, including the British Embassy in Madrid and the tanker's insurers.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he investigate the apparent conflict of interest between oil companies, which manufacture dispersants and sell them to clear up their own mess? Will he use his best endeavours to concentrate the resources of his Department on the development and use of skimming devices which cause no pollution?

I have no evidence of the conflict of interest to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If he has specific evidence about this, no doubt he will wish to pursue it with me further—although he has written already. In respect of the "Oilmop" device and others of a similar character, these are matters which are being investigated by the Department of Industry's Warren Spring laboratory and also by the fisheries laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, everything which can assist in mitigating this appalling problem will be undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are his latest projections for the balance of trade for the year ending 31st March 1977.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade for the current year.

The latest external trade figures show that, under the impetus of renewed export growth, our visible trade balance continued to improve in the first quarter of this year following the marked reduction in the deficit between 1974 and 1975. The prospects for our exports in the coming year are very favourable and provide a strong expectation that the improvement in visible trade will be maintained.

How have the original projections been affected by the fall in the £ sterling? As a result, how much will be added to our import bill?

There are two such effects. The first is the well known "J-curve" effect, which increases the values of one's imports. The second effect is that there is likely to be a stimulus for exports. As I said in my answer, we think that over the years the balance between those two effects will be to continue the favourable development of our visible trade position.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the textile industry, for instance, has suffered, and is suffering, a great deal from cheap imports in terms of both volume and price? Can he say what policy the Government will pursue in the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Agreement and in other international agreements towards defending the British textile industry to a greater extent than is the case today?

We have protected the textile industry by the MFA. I cannot anticipate that the renegotiation of the MFA would give greater protection. What gives an opportunity to the textile industry is the greater competitiveness of this country in exports and, indeed, in import substitution.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British aircraft industry is making an outstanding contribution to our export achievement? Does he agree that it would be helpful to its trading position if he were to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to drop the nationalisation Bill?

I am sure that the British Aircraft Corporation and the British aircraft manufacturing industry will continue to make a significant contribution under nationalisation as in the past.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in order to maintain and improve the balance of trade we shall have to make use of selective import controls? With the Labour Government believing in a balanced economy, is it not foolish to ignore selective import controls and allow free entry of many goods which are wiping out parts of our industry, particularly manufactured and semi-manufactured goods?

The position of the Government in respect of selective import controls was stated clearly by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. If anything, the reasons for the position he then instanced have strengthened and not weakened since that time. Regarding the use of selective import controls, we have never ruled this out in particular cases but it would be absurd at this moment, when we have a major opportunity of expanding our exports, to put that possibility at risk.

Will the Secretary of State realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) was characteristically feeble and unsatisfactory? He did not answer the question at all. Will he now say clearly by what specific mathematical ratio he would expect the terms of trade this year to deteriorate, and by what amount, as a result of the fall in sterling over the past fortnight?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must expect another feeble reply if he expects me to give specific mathematical ratios to calculate the effect of the depreciation of sterling on our balance of trade. Obviously there are a number of uncertainties in this situation, but I think that overall the effect will be beneficial.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. Friends that the effect of the massive depreciation of sterling recently has been to give a considerable degree of protection to domestic industry? Will he confirm—will he, indeed, reassert as strongly as possible—that the Government rule out import controls, because on top of the fall in the value of sterling they would undoubtedly create a situation which would be likely to lead to a trade war and "beggar my neighbour" policies—a situation from which Britain would lose more than anyone?

It is certainly true that the depreciation of sterling gives greater protection to domestic industry and should make easier both import substitution and the expansion of exports. The Government have always made it clear that we ruled out generalised import controls, but in December we took certain specific steps which we thought were justified in those particular cases. But we have always ruled out generalised import controls.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is only partly correct, since in terms of imports of raw materials we shall have to pay substantially more because of the depreciation of sterling? Is he aware that the chemical industry alone will find an extra £300 million on its bill in the next three months?

Yes, I have seen a statement by the chemical industry. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Chemical Industry Association, by which it was made, also said that it expected this £300 million increase in imported material costs to be far more than compensated for by the additional exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the numbers of complete vehicles imported into and exported from Great Britain in the last eight quarters for which figures are available by Chrysler, Ford and Vauxhall.

The information is not available from official sources. Some relevant information is published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the importation of these vehicles is vital to continued success and the introduction of new models in these companies? Will he therefore resist strongly any suggestion that there should be import controls on motor vehicles from EEC sources?

We have no intention of replacing import controls on motor cars from EEC sources. The imports of the three companies to which the hon. Member refers together represent about 4 per cent. of the total United Kingdom motor car market.

Is it a fact that these figures are not available from official sources? If so, will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that such figures are in future available from official sources rather than from a third party?

What the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) was asking for were figures relating to individual companies, which are not contained in official statistics. The SMMT does, however, give figures for individual companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of companies registered in London have not yet filed their annual returns for 1974–75 as required by the Companies Acts.

79,000 companies have not yet filed an annual return for the calendar year 1974 and the returns of 245,000 companies are outstanding for 1975. They represent 12 per cent. and 38 per cent. respectively of live companies on the register.

What does my hon. Friend intend to do about this deficit of returns, which is very important? It is a breach of the law. It is important in the current industrial situation in London. If there were a reasonably adequate return, it would assist in assessing in the absolute detail which is now necessary the rundown of trade and industry in the Greater London area.

Being a London Member myself, I am as aware as my hon. Friend of the problem affecting London. We have, however, introduced the Companies (No. 2) Bill, which we hope will have a real effect on the speedier filing of annual returns. Also, strong action was taken in 1975. There were 2,440 prosecutions compared with 2,201 the previous year, and 28,000 companies were struck off the register compared with 15,000 the previous year.

Does the Minister accept that, while the more speedy filing of these returns might give some useful and valuable financial statistics, the growing unemployment in Greater London will be helped only by positive measures by Government Departments concerned with things like the location of industry and industrial development certificates, on which some of us have been pressing him for a long time?

That does not arise from the Question put by my hon. Friend. But this Government have been rather more active than were the hon. Member's Government in seeking the objectives that he has eloquently outlined.

How does my hon. Friend expect the millions of people who pay through pay-as-you-earn every Friday to react to the astounding statement that he has just made?

The situation is a serious one, and it is precisely for that reason that the Government have taken the actions to which I have referred. But it is right to say that, among fairly small businesses, there has been in part an ignorance of the law and also the excuse of delegation of responsibility, which of course is an inadequate excuse. There has been a fairly widespread abandonment of mori- bund companies, but above all there has been delay in the preparation of accounts, which up to the present have been required to be annexed to the annual return. That is a requirement which our new Bill will alter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from interested parties regarding the proposed establishment of a Central Pilotage Board.

Representations have been received from all the main interested parties, nearly all strongly supporting the establishment of a Central Pilotage Board.

On what possible basis can the hon. Gentleman justify the setting up of yet another body to proliferate bureaucracy at a time when there are many admirable and well-established bodies, like Trinity House, which can co-ordinate the pilotage service very well?

That is the view of a very small minority. In fact, the views which stemmed from the committee which investigated pilotage are supported by the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the General Council of British Shipping and the British Ports Association, all of which dissent wholly from the views expressed on this matter by Trinity House. We expect improved efficiency and cost effectiveness as a result of the measures which we should like to see on the statute book as soon as possible.

Will the Minister come down to Folkestone and hear the views of the pilot station there, which thoroughly disagree with what he has just said?

I should be prepared to do that if the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to meet the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, the TGWU and the other organisations to which I referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has recently held with his EEC colleagues about facilitating the export of European Community goods and services to Japan; and if he will make a statement.

My Department takes an active part in EEC discussions on trade with Japan and has contributed to the preparation for the talks which Commismission representatives will be having with the Japanese Government in Tokyo on 10th and 11th June.

Since the retail outlets in Japan are largely controlled by the leading manufacturers and since it is almost impossible to buy into Japanese companies to gain access to the market, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Europe has so far been unable to come to a solution for overcoming what are in effect non-tariff barriers?

It is certainly true that Europe as a whole has a very unsatisfactory trade balance with Japan. I think that these are matters upon which we shall be able to improve in the multilateral trade negotiations.

When will we say to Japan that enough is enough and that she can no longer expect to export to all countries but take imports from none?

I do not think that my hon. Friend should exaggerate to that degree. Obviously this is a serious matter and we need seriously to improve the present trade balance between Japan and the European Community and this country. Of course, we have a number of arrangements with Japan which give some protection to industry in this country, and we shall continue them. But I accept that there is a serious problem here.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking to reduce aircraft noise near Heathrow.

We keep noise abatement measures under constant review and every effort is made to secure a progressive reduction in aircraft noise.

Will the hon. Gentleman act with greater urgency in view of the reports today of a higher level of incidence of mental illness in the vicinity of Heathrow? Does he accept that it is intolerable that tens of thousands of people can be disturbed at night so that a few hundred others can get marginally cheaper foreign holidays? Does he accept that there is a strong feeling in favour of a total ban on all night flights?

I will, of course, consider very carefully the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which appeared in the national Press today. He may accept my undertaking on that. But he knows that the problem of night jet restrictions is formidable. The Government are committed to the progressive reduction of night noise disturbance, and the policy study upon which we have embarked is designed to formulate a long-term strategy for the achievement of that objective.

Will my hon. Friend consider carrying on with the proposition, which he himself inaugurated a few years ago, of consulting from time to time those London boroughs, such as Ealing, that are gravely affected? From those earlier discussions many useful suggestions emerged on which my hon. Friend acted. Will he reinstate such procedures?

There is no need for me to reinstitute them, because they are activated constantly. My hon. Friend may rely on the fact that during the policy study to which I have referred the local authorities will be fully consulted.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the change of take-off route over Heathrow, which was the subject of experiment 12 months ago, is not now causing additional nuisance to people living in north-west London in general?

No, I am not so satisfied. Again, this is a difficult problem, and if we simply transfer a problem to another area, that is not very satisfactory. There are no easy solutions here, but the Government are looking carefully at, for example, the division of the Mole Valley route, which concerns a number of hon. Members, and consultations about that will be embarked upon in July. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about north-west London, but I am not sure that he has a remedy available any more than I have immediately.

Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that this problem seriously affects not only London boroughs but many other constituencies, including mine? When he looks at the general strategy for dealing with noisy aircraft, will he also look at other remedies open to him, particularly the provision of more generous grants for the soundproofing of housing in the neighbourhood of airports?

In the very recent past, we have substantially increased the noise-insulation grant. I agree that this problem is not confined to Heathrow but affects many airports throughout the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a rumour that part of his strategy involves resurrecting the third London airport? Will he confirm that that forms no part of the strategy?

The hon. Gentleman must not be so alert to rumours. He will be aware that the consultative document relating to airports in the London region has already been issued, and another consultative document dealing with airports in the region will be issued in the next few weeks. There will then follow the most clear consultations with local authorities and other environmental groups throughout the country—including airlines—in order to try to determine a national airports strategy, something which the Conservative Government singularly failed to do.

Would the hon. Gentleman like now to take advantage of his second chance to answer my earlier question without being either petty or churlish and confirm that the Government have no intention of prohibiting noisier aircraft by law and no proposals to give incentives to operators to introduce quieter aircraft to replace their noisier fleets?

The hon. Gentleman's original question, which I well understood, was not designed to be particularly helpful. He knows that studies are being undertaken into these matters. It is no help in trying to resolve a difficult problem affecting many thousands of people if he behaves in a rather bad-tempered way.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will organise a pilot survey of medium-size firms to determine the manpower directly employed by them on export sales, promotion and administration, and the increase or decrease in the number of people involved in export work during the past five years.

I am by no means clear that such a study would add very much to existing knowledge. It would be difficult to obtain accurate data on manpower on a historic basis and thus to determine trends.

Does my hon. Friend agree that success in the export market depends very much on the quality and number of persons engaged in promoting and administering exports? Would it not be helpful to try to persuade the CBI to conduct such a study if his Department cannot be bothered to do it?

I agree about the importance of the promotion of exports. It is significant that in the last three-month period for which we have figures exports increased by 4 per cent. and imports by ½per cent., which means that on an annual basis exports are increasing at a rate well into double figures. I do not think that there is direct evidence of export-manning being inadequate. But it is important to inculcate the results of previous surveys in order to get a more professional attitude towards exporting. I am glad to say that the British Overseas Trade Board and similar bodies are trying to introduce this approach by more educational and training conferences, particularly in this export year.

Would not exports be better promoted by cutting down the number of surveys and the amount of form-filling which firms have to do so that they could get on with the job?

The most important thing that firms could do, judging from my own experience of overseas visits, is perhaps to give greater status in the company hierarchy to export managers. The next most important thing that they could do would be to provide better after-sales back-up services and better communication, and to pay more attention to customers' needs—factors which in some firms, although not all that many, are sadly lacking.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy towards the export of communications equipment under the Export of Goods (Control) Order.

Applications for licences to export communications equipment which is subject to control are considered in the light of the Government's policies in relation to particular destinations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now very great concern in my constituency and in the Chelmsford constituency about the question mark hanging over a Marconi contract with South Africa? Is he further aware that many trade unionists are anxious about the many hundreds of jobs which may be at stake? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that those jobs will be given due weight in the balance and agree that, in present circumstances, that weight ought to be very heavy indeed?

No doubt in any application for an export licence all relevant considerations will be displayed as seen by whoever applies for it. It is not the custom of the Department to discuss particular applications for export licences.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this contract was to be with the Defence Department of South Africa, which means that it had military significance, and that its purpose was for use in Namibia, just as the Americans used the system in Vietnam?

I am not able to confirm all my hon. Friend's statements, but, in any case, if an application is to be made it is better that it should be considered in the light of what the trade says.

Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping a close eye on the development of the draft EEC directive on public purchasing contracts because of its importance for this sector and its possible relation to export-control orders of a different kind?

I will look at that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals he has to bring forward a new Merchant Shipping Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will introduce new merchant shipping legislation in the next parliamentary Session to include repeal of disciplinary sections of the present Merchant Shipping Acts, pilot legislation and safety provision.

I propose to introduce new merchant shipping legislation dealing primarily with stafety standards, pilotage, discipline, the limitation of damages payable to seafarers and the carriage of passengers as soon as a place can be found in the parliamentary timetable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing impatience in the industry, particularly among the trade unions, to see this legislation brought forward? Will he therefore perhaps give consideration to even a short Bill for next Session to deal with the most pressing of these issues?

I think that my hon. Friend, who was associated as a Parliamentary Private Secretary until recently with the Department of Trade, knows that the impatience of the whole industry, shipowners and trade unionists alike, is fully shared by me. There is a very strong case for a Merchant Shipping Bill in the very near future, but I do not know whether it will be necessary to have a truncated version.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger of the breaking of the current animal quarantine regulations by animals brought into this country by merchant ships? Will he give an assurance that this aspect will be taken into consideration by his Department when the new legislation is being framed?

I am not sure that that question would fall within the ambit of a Merchant Shipping Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to alert me to some specific evidence, no doubt he will write to me.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our seafarers will not continue any longer to operate under archaic disciplinary conditions and safety legislation which is carried by recommendation and not regulation? Will he consider in the proposed legislation closing the loopholes which have allowed wages not to be guaranteed to seamen in some cases, as in Maritime Fruit Carriers, and will he bear in mind what has happened in the North Sea oil industry with the exploitation of cheap foreign labour by United Towing Company and others, about which I have written to him?

My hon. Friend, who has a considerable knowledge of these matters—I pay him a tribute for all the help he has given to me and to my right hon. Friends in the matter of shaping the new legislation—will be aware that the points affecting discipline and safety are very much in the forefront of my mind, and the disciplinary matters were the subject of a unanimous report on the part of the whole industry. I am looking at the other matters to which he referred, as he well knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the visible trade balance of the United Kingdom with the other members of the EEC in 1976 up to the latest date for which figures are available.

In the first quarter of 1976 there was a visible trade deficit with the EEC of £392 million, seasonally adjusted on a balance of payments basis.

Does my right hon. Friend think that our trade with the other members of the European Community this year has been of help in strengthening the £ sterling?

I am glad to say that what is of use to the value of the £ sterling is that our trade with the EEC, as with other destinations of our exports, has been improving. There is, for example, the figure I gave my right hon. Friend earlier which was £163 million less than for the fourth quarter of 1975. Further, the three months to April show an accrued deficit with the EEC which again is down as compared with the preceding three months. I am sure that these are all points that my right hon. Friend will welcome.

Will not the new arrangements for monetary compensatory amounts make quite a difference to the trade figures?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the arrangements about monetary compensatory amounts are at the moment assisting with the cost of living in Britain.

In order to make a valid comparison, and to establish clearly the absence of any seasonal fluctuation, will my right hon. Friend give the figures for the comparable quarter as distinct from the quarter he referred to, which was the one immediately preceding?

The figure I gave was seasonally adjusted.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made by his Department in dealing with anti-dumping applications in respect of imported textiles from the Far East and elsewhere.

We have currently five applications in respect of imported textiles. An anti-dumping duty on ladies' rubberised raincoats from Hong Kong was imposed on 21st May. Investigation of polyester fibre from Romania is well advanced and an announcement will be made shortly. Other cases concern men's suits from Eastern Europe and PVC coated fabrics from Hungary. In both of these, investigations are in hand but further information is awaited from the industries concerned. The fifth application relates to Austrian rayon yarn. My Department is in touch with the industry on this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the House will be glad to know that these applications are in hand, very considerable concern is still being expressed both inside the House and outside about the time that is taken to deal with these applications? Will he say why, for example, it took 11 months and cost £100,000 to deal with the dumping of ladies' raincoats from Hong Kong, and what steps is he taking to speed up the process?

In all of these cases we can take action only if the necessary information is provided by the industry. Although many industries provide information accurately, many do not and extremely detailed information is required to be obtained by the Department. Where, however, there is a danger of damage in the meantime whilst an investigation proceeds, provisional charges to duty can be and are imposed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation about dumping is very slack? Does he not think that it would help if much tighter legislation were introduced so that there were not all these delays and direct help could be given much more rapidly to industries such as the textile industry, which has been suffering badly from cheap dumped imports?

Where accurate information is provided, early action is taken and in a number of cases anti-dumping action is taken within a few months. Where there is damage in the meantime, provisional charges to duty can be imposed. If my hon. Friend has suggestions about improving the legislation, I hope that he will let me have them.

Might it not be better to follow the example of countries such as Japan and put the onus in relation to dumping on the importer so that, until he could prove that he was not dumping, his goods would be held up at the docks?

I have already discussed this matter with my hon. Friend and have asked him for specific information about how that scheme operates, because we in the Department do not have any hard information that this is so.

The Minister said that he relies on the trade to provide the information. Does he not recollect that his right hon. Friend said only a few weeks ago that in future the Government would not adopt a neutral attitude but would themselves provide the information as well as the trade providing it?

In practice, the information is gathered to a large degree by the Department in co-operation with the industry. Because some industries are inexperienced, the Department is highly influential. It is very difficult to obtain information about ex-factory prices in some countries, but advantage is taken of information supplied by posts overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when the inquiry into the affairs of the Lonrho Company was started; when the report was completed; and when it will be published.

The inspectors were appointed on 19th June 1973 and they submitted their report on 1st March 1976. At present the report is being considered and no decision has yet been taken about publication.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly what is going on? Is it true that there has been pressure from other Ministries that the report should not be published? Is it not rather unfair to the Lonrho Company, after all the allegations that have been made against it, that it seems that attempts are being made not to have the report published?

What is going on is that I am considering the report and whether it should be published—nothing else.

How much longer will my right hon. Friend consider the report? Is it being held up because a certain Member of another place got a £130,000 tax-free golden handshake?

My hon. Friend will see if he examines the record that this is not taking an unusually long time to decide. As he would expect, the report is a detailed examination, and I am considering it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is in fact taking a very long time to decide? Is he aware that the general belief is that this is a very interesting report and refers to quite a number of people in various parts of the world, and that we should all like to see it?

I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest.

Did I hear my right hon. Friend correctly? In answer to an earlier supplementary question, did he say that he was considering whether the report should be published? Surely it must be published.

No. It is a matter of discretion, and I am considering that question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman point out that any so-called golden handshake above £5,000 is taxed at the full rate?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance now that he will publish as much as possible of the report—indeed, all of it if possible but, if not, as much of it as he can—and explain to the House why he is not publishing the rest of the report?

I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall have to consider the report and make a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to promote exports of British livestock and agricultural produce.

We seek to encourage British livestock and agricultural exporters to make full use of the Government's export services; and the 1976 programme for this sector includes support for 82 participants in eight specialised agricultural fairs overseas and 69 members of nine outward missions.

Even so, given the historic and considerable regard for British livestock, and given the skill of our farmers and the higher retail prices of processed food products on the Continent, could not even more be done, or does my hon. Friend think that there are still serious, if non-legislative, barriers to discourage aid?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear on 25th May, the recommendations of the Strutt Report on this matter are still being considered. Last year the level of exports of livestock and agricultural products more than doubled over the year before.