asked the Secretary of State for Trade what reaction he has received from the United States Government following his announced intention to seek to renegotiate the Bermuda Agreement covering relations between the two countries on aviation matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are his objectives in renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement.

I have not yet received any formal reaction from the United States authorities.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, in view of the importance of the Bermuda Agreement as an international model, fairness dictates that, if there is a need to control capacity on the North Atlantic between Britain and America, this should be done on a fifty-fifty basis between the two nations and not split between the carriers which happen to have traffic rights on that route? Is there not a need for a thoroughgoing review of the fifth freedom rights of American carriers operating wholly within Europe?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the fifth freedom carrier rights. The objective is to improve the relative position of British airlines, not merely on the North Atlantic but elsewhere in the world, in regard to our relations with the United States. This is what we hope to achieve through the renegotiations. I hope that we shall not be pressed too far on detailed objectives at this stage. We are entering serious negotiations and it is important that these should be successful.

Will the Secretary of State say, first, why he chose this moment to renegotiate? Secondly, will he say whether he received any representations from other British airlines, or from Cathay Pacific or the Government of Hong Kong, which caused him to choose this time?

No such representations influenced the choice of time. This was due simply to the fact that we cannot allow this total inequality in benefit from the current agreement to persist; therefore, it appeared right that we should get ahead with the renegotiation as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has now completed his consideration of the report on the Lonrho Company.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet completed his consideration of the report on the Lonrho Company.

The report was published on 6th July. I am considering any implications of the report for the reform of company law.

Is it not quite scandalous that while they are under police investigation these tarnished tycoons of Lonrho should be considered fit to receive £5 million of taxpayers' money as a loan free of interest for the purpose of rescuing Brentford Nylons?

That is a point for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I am sure that he is concerned with saving jobs.

I realise the difficulties that Ministers always have in regard to inquiries of this sort, and the decision whether to publish, but will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that the further inquiries that we understand are proceeding in respect of this company will be expedited as far as possible, so that the company can get on with its constructive work on behalf of people in Great Britain and overseas?

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the inquiries being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that is a matter over which I have no control.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the company opposed the publication of the report?

Normally, I would have to tell my hon. Friend that the representations made by the company are confidential, but as on Friday it issued a statement indicating that for certain reasons it thought publication was injudicious at this point, the answer to my hon. Friend turns out to be a public fact.

Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of unfairness in this kind of private inquiry, when inspectors can make allegations without legal redress and when they can publish whatever documents they select? A great deal of mud has been thrown at Lonrho, rightly or wrongly. Therefore, will the Minister at least agree that Lonrho has made a considerable contribution to British overseas earnings, to the British Exchequer, and to British influence in Africa?

On the last occasion when the hon. Gentleman raised this matter he told me that it would be unfair to Lonrho if the report were not published. The inquiry was conducted with conspicuous fairness, in accordance with the rules and guidance laid down by Lord Denning in the Pergamon Press case. I am absolutely aware of the contribution made by Lonrho to this country's economy; but I do not regard economic success as justifying any kind of behaviour.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what assurances Lonrho has given in return for the £5 million loan, particularly in regard to the maintenance of employment and the future disposal of assets?

These are questions that my hon. Friend should raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Is the Secretary of State aware that our wholehearted support for the free enterprise system and the profit motive is balanced by a determination that company law should protect the public interest? The Secretary of State says that he is contemplating whether changes are necessary. Will he therefore say whether this will be in time to amend the Companies (No. 2) Bill?

Taking, first, the hon. Gentleman's point about documents, I am afraid that I do not know to what the company is referring in the allegations that it makes. Obviously, the inspectors had a vast quantity of documents which they saw or photo-copied in preparing their report. But in the preparation of any such report they would have to make a selection. I know of no document that has not been referred to the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the Scottish balance of trade over the last three years, and of the prospects for the next five years.

None, Sir. But I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave as Paymaster-General to a Question by my hon. Friend the member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on 5th February 1976.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he see that any figures available to him are given the maximum publicity, the more so since it now appears that all the media, including BBC Scotland—in view of the antics of the present Chairman—are on one side of the argument? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to make another official visit to Scotland to present the facts to the people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that I make another visit to Scotland. I am always delighted to do that, and I shall be delighted on any occasion to repeat to the people of Scotland the facts that I put before the House. Nevertheless, I do not believe that economic considerations will govern decisions about the future unity of the United Kingdom. That is more soundly based than anything that would be decided by such questions, although they are important if Scotland is considering whether she can sensibly go it alone.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not publish as many figures as are available facts will be manufactured by those who want to break up Britain? Will he consider carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and join all of us in condemning the silly, rather foolish and irresponsible pronouncements made yesterday by the Chairman of BBC Scotland?

I am afraid that I have not seen those pronouncements. But I shall do all that I can to publicise what seem to me to be the relevant economic considerations in those arguments, without, however, claiming that these are the fundamental arguments in this discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will set up an anti-dumping unit within his Department.

An anti-dumping unit has been in operation within my Department since 1957.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that amongst textile workers in the North-West there is a genuine feeling that there is no such anti-dumping unit and that the Government are prepared to sit back while more and more of them lose their jobs?

In fact, 11 restraint agreements have now been signed, under EEC auspices, with low-cost producers which extend the protection of the textile industry beyond the traditional area of cotton into man-made fibres and also woollens, and which protect the industry more than ever before in its history from disruptive imports from low-cost producers.

Does my hon. Friend regard the transfer of power over anti-dumping duties from the United Kingdom Government to the Brussels authorities as being one of the great benefits of our Common Market membership?

We operate our existing legislation in the light of the GATT code, and the EEC operates under the same criteria. But we shall, in any event, in a year's time retain the anti-dumping unit in the Department to assist British industry.

This anti-dumping unit has been struggling for 18 months with cheap dumped imports of footwear from the COMECON countries. Surely there is something wrong with an antidumping unit that has not succeeded so far in ameliorating the position for the footwear trade.

The truth of the matter over footwear is that voluntary restraint agreements were reached with three specific COMECON countries about maintaining their level of exports to us in 1975 in accordance with the level in 1974, and that has been maintained in 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from other Governments advocating the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers during the present multilateral trade negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will urge the EEC to press for the reduction of tariff barriers during the multilateral trade negotiations.

I have not received any direct representations from other Governments about the removal of tariff barriers, but they have made their views known on this point in the course of work on the multilateral trade negotiations. The objective which we ourselves have been pressing of a significant reduction in existing tariff levels is widely shared by other Governments both within and outside the EEC.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the elimination of tariff barriers is an essential part of increasing world trade, and will he set a target date for their elimination by the end of the decade or at least by the end of the next round?

I do not think that in these negotiations it will be expected that tariff barriers will be eliminated completely. It is generally agreed that there should be a reduction, according to some formula, in the level of tariff protection. There are now other forms of inhibition in the flow of trade, and these will also be a serious element in these negotiations.

What is the Government's view on the Commission's proposals for the taxation of vegetable oils, in view of the very strong reaction against it by the United States?

That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. But the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that it is not only Europe that has certain protective devices in respect of agriculture. The United States has them, too. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate the need for negotiations on these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the implications of the consultative document on airport strategy for East Midlands Airport.

The document examines, as a basis for consultation, a variety of roles for all the major regional airports, including East Midlands Airport, within the framework of a national strategy. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the consultations with local authorities and other organisations which will now take place.

Will the hon. Gentleman take special note of the problem facing East Midlands Airport, namely, that of competition from Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, resulting from the subsidised prices which they are able to charge compared with East Midlands Airport?

I have had representations about that problem, but in fact there is a dearth of evidence to support the charge.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the consultative document is welcome, there is great concern in areas like my own, with Teesside Airport, at the speed with which the matter is proceeding? Will he assure us that every possible effort will be made to pursue the Government's policy and to draw conclusions as quickly as possible?

The Government recognised when they embarked on this process that, in involving as many people as possible in the future moulding of a national airport strategy, one of the penalties that would have to be paid was delay. Nevertheless, when so many interests are involved it is essential that everyone should have a fair opportunity to represent his views to the Government. We have set a period of six months for the London regional airport document for consideration and consultation, and a similar period, which will follow that, for the second document, which has been published recently.

Does the Minister accept the simple principle that areas of dense population which need airport facilities should provide those facilities within or adjacent to the areas in which the service is required?

That is one of the considerations that will be applied in the consultations that are now to take place.

Further to the question put to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), is he aware that the British Airports Authority has provided his Department with evidence? Will he undertake to look at it again?

I have been in consultation with the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, which is one of the organisations involved in this consideration, and I have invited it to provide clear evidence that East Midlands Airport and others are being disadvantaged. I have in mind Luton as well. As yet, no such sufficient evidence has been forthcoming.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the arrangements being made for the transfer of anti-dumping powers to the EEC.

Discussions are in progress with the Commission on the transfer of anti-dumping powers. The Commission is certainly well aware of the importance of making adequate arrangements for the extra work it will have to handle.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the hostility that will be generated in this country and elsewhere if this House and this Government have to admit their impotence to deal with the many claims that have been received in respect of anti-dumping measures on such things as shoes, clothing or textiles? In view of the irrelevance of this proposal to the well-being of this country, will the Secretary of State seek a derogation or postponement of this regulation?

There is no point in seeking such a postponement or derogation. This is a decision on which we have committed ourselves, but I must now ensure that it works in our interests. To that end we are having serious discussions with the Commission. I am myself in contact with Sir Christopher Soames—and I hope to meet him shortly—in order to ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect our interests when this transfer takes place.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, before the Commission will take action to impose anti-dumping powers, 50 per cent. of an industry has to be affected—and not just industry in this country, but industry in the EEC? If that is the case it means that the footwear and textile industries will be very badly affected indeed.

It is certainly true that the Commission will consider the effects on industry within the European Community, but that does not rule out action to protect industry by a variety of methods which will be open to the Community. One point that I would draw to my hon. Friend's attention is that any anti-dumping measures that would be imposed would affect not just imports into this country but imports into the Community as a whole, and that would be a substantial deterrent factor.

Has the Minister read the excellent booklet entitled "Unfair" published in March by the Textile Industry Support Campaign, which sets out some of the measures that other countries, including Common Market countries, take to prevent the destruction of their textile industries? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the hint and prevent the destruction of ours?

As the hon. Lady is aware, textiles are governed by the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. Both my Department and the Department of Industry are in discussion with the textile industry to clarify the improvements that they would like to see in the operation of the MFA—improvements that we shall attempt to negotiate when it comes up for renegotiation at the end of next year. I have read the document to which the hon. Lady referred and am well aware of the concern in the industry.

So that we can get this question into perspective, will my right hon. Friend tell us how many actual complaints of dumping the anti-dumping unit has had to deal with in the last three or four years?

I cannot give the figure for that period wihout notice, but we certainly have a large number of cases to examine, and we have taken action in an increasing number of them. I shall look up the figures that my hon. Friend asks for and let him know.

The Secretary of State dodged the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) about the 51 per cent. limit. On what basis is his Department using that figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that neither he nor either of his junior Ministers mixes up the two quite separate questions of the MFA, on the one hand, and anti-dumping action, on the other? It is important that this should not be done, in order to have better and more effective action against dumping as well as approval of the MFA.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the second point. The industry is affected both by any antidumping action that may be taken and by the protection given under the MFA. I thought it right, therefore, to refer to both aspects. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), my Department has not used the figure of 51 per cent. What my hon. Friend was asking was whether the European Commission would insist on a figure of 51 per cent. What I am saying is that the Commission has to consider the effect on the European industry as a whole. I conceded that point. Against that, it is possible for the Commission to impose antidumping duty and to do it for the Community as a whole. That would be a considerable deterrent factor.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when the last accounts of Equity Enterprises Ltd. were lodged at Companies House.

Accounts were lodged on 29th November 1974 made up to 31st December 1973.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the shares of this company have been suspended since April of last year and that many unanswered questions about this company remain, to which the shareholders and public would like to hear replies? Will the Minister ask Mr. David Frost and the other directors to make an early statement about the company's affairs?

I take note of what my hon. Friend said. At the present time no action is pending, save that unless the accounts are forthcoming within two weeks action will be prosecuted under Section 148.

On a more general point, is the Minister aware that there are too many firms which fail to record, in time or accurately, the statutory information required? This is of great inconvenience to the business community. Will he have a blitz on those firms?

We need more than a glimpse in respect of this, and we have at present a Bill in Committee—

A blitz.

A blitz. I am certainly in favour of having a blitz. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to help expedite consideration of the Bill aimed at dealing with this precise problem.

Will the Minister look up the facts in his Department, which show that for about 15 years I have been trying to get progress in this respect? Will he arrange, through the normal channels, for sponsored Questions, to supply periodic answers, to show that hundreds, and possibly thousands, of companies are deliberately and daily dodging this law, so that we can get records put into Hansard—if Hansard can take it—of the thousands of companies doing this with impunity and, dare I say it, with the support of his Department?

My hon. Friend dare to say anything, and tends to do so from time to time, so I would not have thought that he required any stimulation from my Department to arrange Questions, having regard to his very considerable record in that respect over the 15 years to which he has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what amount of the British credit of £950 million for exports to the Soviet Union has been taken up at the latest available date.

The total value of contracts placed under the agreement to date is approximately £36 million and further substantial contracts are under discussion between United Kingdom exporters and Russian buyers.

Have the Government considered whether it makes sense for us to compete with other industrialised countries to provide cheap credit to the Soviet Union when we have to pay much higher rates of interest to borrow the money than do other supplying countries? Should we not rely more on the competitive edge given by the depreciation of sterling rather than on subsidised credit?

The Government have considered that point and we have come to the conclusion that we nevertheless need to provide this sort of agreement as a framework for trade with the Soviet Union. We now look forward to the Soviet Union placing large orders in this country, in accordance with the assurances given during the recent visits here of both Mr. Gromyko and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Kirillin.

Is that not a very poor reply? Will the Minister have a word with his hon. Friends below the Gangway, because whatever influence they have in this country they do not seem to have much influence with their extreme Left-wing friends abroad? This country is doing better trade with capitalist countries than it is doing with Communist countries.

There is no point in the type of remark that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Companies in this country are in serious negotiation with the Soviet Union in respect of very large orders, and I anticipate that large orders will be placed within the framework of this agreement.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of these orders are for capital goods? Is it not farcical that we should be giving the Soviet Union credit on cheaper terms than our own industries so that they can produce these consumer goods? Is that not absolutely stupid?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who I know has contacts in industry, that industry does not regard the terms on which we are assisting British industry with the export of capital goods as being excessively competitive. They also want assistance to get orders in the various markets of the world open to them and in the Soviet Union as well.

Does the Secretary of State not think that there is a danger in supplying this sort of credit and accepting orders for capital and consumer goods, thus allowing the Soviet Union to get on with defence production?

The hon. Gentleman knows the controls that exist on the export of defence equipment. We have to decide whether to export civil equipment to the Soviet Union for large orders that we countries, and I find that it is not just the view of the Government but also of British companies negotiating with the Soviet Union for large orders, that we ought to give them this sort of support.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to contain the daily number of jet flights in and out of Heathrow; and, if so, at what level.

In the context of the consultations on the London area airports document published last November, various proposals have been made for limitations on the development of Heathrow, including restrictions on jet flights. All these proposals will be taken into account in the formulation of the Government's airports policy.

As it was this Government, abetted and encouraged by the Liberal Party, who dropped the proposal for a coastal airport at Maplin—the main hope for the future for people living around Heathrow Airport who suffer from what the Minister has rightly described as the pestilence of aircraft noise—when will the Government face the consequences of that decision and impose a strict daily limit on the number of flights through Heathrow, which already total 600 a day, and prevent any increase in the capacity of the airport?

The question of capacity is very much part of the topics that the Government have invited everybody with an interest in this matter to discuss with us. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that discussion. The hon. Gentleman seems to be hankering after the rightly-discarded Maplin. I find his remarks quite extraordinary in view of his party's alleged concern over public expenditure.

Is it a fact that the capacity at Heathrow will first become limited by the capacity of the passenger terminals unless the Government authorise the construction of new terminals? Since the Government came to office, what has the Minister done to encourage airlines to re-equip with new, quieter aircraft?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the document to which I have referred he will find comments on the adequacy of the terminals for future development and a list of the available options. It would not be helpful for me to indicate that the Government have made up their mind on these matters. Clearly, we have not. On the encouragement of quieter aircraft, we have made clear—and subordinate legislation has been introduced to deal with this matter —that older versions of the noisier aircraft can no longer be introduced, since 1st January this year. We have also sought to draw public attention to and have consultations on retrofit and two segment approach. We have had two-demonstrations, which have created a great deal of public praise for the Government's approach to the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive a report from the Morpeth Committee on inflation accounting.

The Inflation Accounting Steering Group, on which my Department is represented, is to report to the Accounting Standards Committee of the accountancy profession. I understand that the group hopes to send an exposure draft to the ASC by late September, with a view to its publication at the end of November.

On the basis of the information now available, does the Secretary of State think that current cost accounting represents, in the words of the Companies Act,

"a true and fair view"

One of the decisions that we hope to be able to take following the Morpeth Committee's report is on the question whether changes in legislation will be required. I cannot say definitely at present. I think that current cost accounting is gaining acceptability rather than the opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give reasons for his refusal to seek powers to ensure that foreign aircraft purchased by British companies contain a substantial proportion of British-produced parts.

In the highly competitive international market in which most British air carriers operate, they need to exercise their commercial judgment in purchasing the most suitable type of aircraft for their particular needs.

Does my hon. Friend consider that to be an inadequate answer, particularly as British Caledonian has ordered two aircraft, at a cost of 70 million dollars, and has options on two more, when it has no idea whether there will be any British components available for them? Is my hon. Friend aware that British Caledonian is only considering the possibility of having British engines, if they are available, in the two planes for which it has options? As there will obviously not be British engines in the first two planes ordered, is it likely that it will be prepared to fit British engines in the further two planes for which at the moment it has options? Does not my hon. Friend think that he should have insisted on a roll-over provision in the contract to ensure the fitting of British engines in all planes?

This is not a matter on which am able to insist. If a company seeks to import aircraft, there may be an import duty payable if a comparable aircraft with a substantial British content is available. However, I do not see that I have any locus in the sort of considerations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless he soon authorises a collaborative project there will be no British air freight industry able to produce anything that British industry can buy? How are the talks with the French on the European airbus proceeding? Will this include a Rolls-Royce engine?

The hon. Gentleman rightly seizes every opportunity to present his point of view, but he knows that these are matters for the Secretary of State for Industry and not for my Department.

Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again and apply the same strictures to British Caledonian as are applied to British Airways, who are practically forced to buy British aircraft whether they like it or not? Is it not a disgraceful state of affairs that British Caledonian should be purchasing American aircraft?

British Airways are certainly not forced to buy British aircraft. My hon. Friend must not misinterpret the situation. British Caledonian had to apply its own commercial judgment on the purchase of these aircraft. It had to consider whether a comparable British aircraft was available, and it advised us that none was available within the time scale it required.

Would the hon. Gentleman not be doing us all a great kindness if he took his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) to one side after Question Time and explained that, very regrettably, there was no British aircraft available, nor one with a substantial British content, which could do this job? Would he also tell his hon. Friend that it is not possible to draw up a contract involving roll-over provisions for an aircraft that does not exist, that has not been designed, and for which no price has been agreed?

I frequently take my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) to one side, and he does the same to me. We frequently have the most constructive discussions together. If the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is seeking a tripartite arrangement, we shall have to consider the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to increase British trade with, and investment in, South Africa.

Our policy on civil trade and investment is unchanged.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's desire to increase trade with, and investment in, South Africa?

Our policy on this matter was fully stated by the former Foreign Secretary on 4th December 1974.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the arguments for giving economic support to apartheid do not differ from the arguments advanced 170 years ago for supporting the slave trade? Does he agree that they are as invalid and immoral today as they were then?

I agree.

If the Minister believes in furthering British trade, how can he reconcile his answer with the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) about credit facilities provided for Russia? Will he come clean and do away with double standards on this matter? Will he support trade with both countries or with neither?

Credit cover and ECGD facilities are provided in full for South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to achieve international agreement on the terms and conditions of credit offered by exporting countries.

I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 15th June. The authorities in a number of major trading nations have recently indicated their intention to observe certain guidelines on the terms on which they are prepared to provide official support for export credit of two years or more. These guidelines are being applied by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Is the Minister aware that for some years British exporters have been at a disadvantage because other countries, notably France, have found it very convenient to muddle up trade with aid, much to their advantage? I welcome the new arrangements, but will the Minister try to encourage the department dealing with overseas aid to be a little less pious and perhaps more competitive in the terms it offers.

A great deal of our aid is tied. The objective of ECGD is to be competitive, and in general I think that it is and that it has greatly supported our exports.

Is the Secretary of State in favour of the European Export Bank?

I do not think that that arises on this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent representations he has received from special steels producers in connection with alleged dumping of steel bars from Japan.

My Department is considering a number of allegations that special steels are being dumped by various countries, including Japan, and I recently met a delegation from Sheffield to discuss this issue.

Is the Minister aware that this is a very serious and important question? Is he further aware that the recent announcement by his Department that it would have a special inquiry into the dumping of special steels, to be followed shortly afterwards by a disclaimer saying that there would not be a special inquiry, was a fiasco? Before the Minister moves on to another Government Department, will he make sure that this matter is looked at carefully? If the Government cannot make a case for antidumping action on this subject, they will not be able to make one for anything.

I appreciate the seriousness of this issue, which was emphasised to me by the delegation. I appreciate that the special steels industry is operating at only 35 per cent. of capacity. However, because the industry had difficulty in finding precise evidence of the domestic fair market price in Japan, my Department undertook its own investigation. It did a detailed analysis of imports over a three-month period. We sent details of the result to the industry on 6th May. We did not receive the industry's comments until 23rd June, and in the light of those comments we are urgently considering what our decision will be. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will have a decision very shortly.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the special steels industry is by far the most profitable part of the steel industry? We in Sheffield deeply regret that it is not under public ownership, but we are deeply concerned nevertheless about dumping from Japan. My hon. Friends and I from Sheffield are constantly having meetings with those concerned in the city to stop this dumping.

I accept all that my hon. Friend says. In spite of the complexity of this case, because of the switching between alloys of different sizes and shapes and because actual market prices are not necessarily published about steel prices in Japan, I assure him of a very early decision.

What information does the Minister have about foreign steel company warehouses in Britain in general and Sheffield in particular, and about the extent to which they are selling from stock at low market prices in this country?

The question of whether they are selling below market price and not in accordance with the GATT criteria is one important factor which the inquiry will ascertain. But I am well aware of the substantial stocks of foreign steel now held by stockholders in and around Sheffield.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will arrange an early meeting with the Chairman of British Airways in order to discuss the consultative document on regional airport policy.

My Department has informed British Airways of the publication of the consultation document on regional airports and invited them to participate in the consultations which will now take place.

Will the Minister get hold of the Chairman of British Airways on the telephone to scotch the rumour that the company is to replace the 111 jets which it is flying from London to Speke Airport with Viscounts as part of its discriminatory policy against Liverpool and in favour of Manchester?

I do not accept that British Airways have embarked upon a discriminatory policy against Liverpool in favour of Manchester. These matters to which the hon. Member is clearly alluding come within the day-to-day commercial judgment of British Airways, and they are not a matter for me.

Will the Minister take fully into account that the consultative document suggests with regard to Newcastle Airport a potential and possible increase of 1 million passengers a year? Will he be as sympathetic as possible to the application from Newcastle that there should be Government support for an EEC grant for the development of our buildings?

The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the other day I received a deputation on behalf of those representing Newcastle Airport to discuss this matter. There are very difficult issues affecting an application for EEC assistance for enlargement of the existing terminal facilities. I made that quite clear to the deputation. Although I have not given an absolute and categoric "No" on this matter, I doubt whether I shall be able to afford to this application the sort of approval that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he proposes to take to rectify the persistent United Kingdom balance of trade deficit with West Germany.

Government-supported export services are already doing a great deal to assist the efforts of United Kingdom exporters in the German market, with encouraging results.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the German-British deficit is the largest single component in the huge trading deficit between the United Kingdom and the Common Market? Since this huge deficit is caused mainly by the importation of manufactured goods, it would seem that our trading relations with Western Germany will be an excellent case on which to apply selective import controls as soon as possible.

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". There has, however, been some improvement in the position inasmuch as the United Kingdom's deficit with the EEC in the first quarter of this year, at £392 million, while certainly a large figure, was the lowest since 1973. But the question of application of selective import controls is one that the Government are perfectly prepared to consider. They have imposed such selective import controls in respect of a number of industrial products, but I doubt whether that is the answer to the problem in respect of the West German market, where it is much more the case that we have lost a certain amount of competitive edge across a wide range of semi-finished and finished manufactures.

The Minister has just referred to a loss of competitive edge. Could that be due to excessive tax burdens in this country compared with those in West Germany?

No.

If my hon. Friend cannot agree with that, to what extent might it possibly be due to the high costs we are having to bear through having our troops in Germany? Is it not about time that the Germans paid their full share of those costs?

That is an interesting suggestion, but I doubt whether it affects our competitive edge in industry.

Is there any natural reason why we should have lost our competitive edge with Germany? if there is any such reason, will the hon. Gentleman explain how selective import controls would cure that?

One of the fundamental problems of our industry is undoubtedly the chronically low level of investment. The level of manufacturing investment in this country today is, in real terms, about where it was in 1967–68, whereas our EEC competitors, notably Germany, have seen a constant annual real increase. This is a fundamental problem and it may well be justification for selective import controls in particular cases.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the level of investment has nothing to do with the level of taxation?

The level of investment is affected by the level of taxation, but it is affected by several other factors. We have to take into account the totality of factors. If there is no other way of promoting the level of investment that we need, we must proceed by way of public mechanism such as the NEB or by other means such as import controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made with measures to assist the British textile industry, particularly the clothing sector, to combat unfair competition from Eastern Europe and low-cost overseas manufacturers.

Under the GATT Multi-fibre Arrangement, 11 bilateral restraint agreements have now been negotiated between the EEC and low-cost supplying countries, and further agreements are expected to follow shortly. In addition, most imports of textiles and clothing from Eastern Europe are restricted by quota, and these restrictions were extended in March this year to cover men's and boys' woollen suits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these measures are not adequate to deal with the problems confronting the British industry? Is he aware that there is a growing suspicion among those in the textile industry that many of our competitors are not observing the rules, whereas we seem to observe all the rules? Does he agree that this is a disturbing context in which to face the relinquishing of our independence and to pass those powers to the Common Market?

There has already bean comment on my hon. Friend's last point, and an answer from my right hon. Friend. I do not intend to extend that further. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, even if he believes that further measures are needed, the totality of protective measures now in existence will give more protection for the industry than it has ever had before when there is as economic upturn and when the bilateral restraint agreements begin to bite, as they will. As for the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, we have sought further evidence regarding the anti-dumping application. This is in addition to the voluntary restraint measures that exist for tonnage. We expect to reach a decision shortly as a a result of the latest information that we received on 21st June.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the new agreements that he has told us about—namely, the many agreements with low-cost countries—the quotas are always extended from the previous base year, albeit not as much as the overseas countries would like? Will he think about limiting the extensions in future, even to the extent of a nil extension? Does he realise that it is depressing for domestic manufacturers to realise that every year the quotas are gradually extended, even though that seems to be the fashion in international trade?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that one of the provisions of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement is that any restraints are imposed on existing levels of trade, and that there is provision for the growth factor, but he will know that the arrangement expires at the end of next year. There will be a review within GATT in the autumn of this year. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal for a recession clause is one of the matters to which we are now giving careful consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State said earlier that his Department would not insist that 51 per cent. of an industry had to be shown to be affected by imports for it to make out an anti-dumping claim? None the less, the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation is firmly under the impression that the Department is imposing such a requirement. May we have that matter cleared up? Secondly, is it not the case that Russian industry can dump on this market and re-equip with machinery exported from this country on better credit terms than those available for our own textile industry?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the distinction between the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the anti-dumping applications. The Question is specifically about the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter he has raised, perhaps he will table a specific Question. He has referred to assistance to Russian industry, in that it can obtain machinery under better credit cover than now exists for British industry. I do not think that that is a fair assumption to make, bearing in mind the full level of ECGD credit insurance cover that is given to British industry and to Russian competitors.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should point out that the Question does not relate to the Multi-Fibre Arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether lie will now take practical steps towards a British initiative in reforming the structure of any future UNCTAD conference.

We shall be considering, in consultation with our EEC partners and other industrialised countries, all aspects of our approach to forthcoming UNCTAD meetings, including questions related to their effective organisation and functioning. Discussions will also be held with the UNCTAD Secretariat and Commonwealth and other developing countries.

Is it not the case that the present structure of these conferences inevitably gives them an air of confrontation? Would not progress on individual issues be easier to reach if less emphasis were placed on the opening statements, which, to say the least, are now the subject of serious misrepresentation?

It may be that the present structure of UNCTAD conferences tends in the direction of confrontation. Nevertheless, we have tried to avoid confrontation. The difficulty is to see how we can otherwise organise conferences of so many nations. After careful consideration over a number of years, the conclusion has been reached that the present structure provides the best way of conducting the conferences.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a basic conflict of interests to be resolved between developing countries and the Western industrial world, and that merely tinkering with the mechanism of UNCTAD will not resolve it?

I agree that changing the mechanism by which UNCTAD operates will not change anything of importance. We have to see whether we can come to a settlement of the conflicting interests within the world to the mutual benefit of both parties.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will define Government policy as to the rôle of Luton Airport in the 1980s.

Following the publication of two consultative documents on the London and regional airports, consultations are taking place with local authorities and other organisations. No decisions on future Government policy towards Luton Airport will be taken in advance of these consultations.

How many passengers per year does the hon. Gentleman think it sensible for Luton Airport to be expected to take by the 1980s? Should there be scheduled services in addition to charter services?

Once again, and like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to make a prejudgment about the very purpose of the consultations. I hope that all those with interests in the development of Luton Airport will ensure that their voices are heard in the process of consultation upon which we have embarked.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what help his Department is giving Vauxhall Motors in their negotiations to supply a commercial vehicle factory in Poland; and if he will make a statement on Government policy towards such projects.

To give the kind of information referred to in the first part of the Question would not be in the commercial interests of the British firms concerned, especially whilst negotiations are in progress.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the application from this British firm is being dealt with expeditiously, and on all-fours with any other application from a similar firm?

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to announce the cancellation of the SGHW nuclear reactor programme.

As was indicated in the answer of 28th June to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), the Atomic Energy Authority has suggested that we are at an appropriate point to take stock of progress with the SGHWR. It will be advising my right hon. Friend further

Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and admit that the programme is not only very far behind but will prove far too costly, and that the industry realises it will be a mistake to go ahead with it?

There is no question of not coming clean. The hon. Gentleman has been tabling many Questions on energy conservation. There has been a change in the climate and relationship involved in the consumption of electricity. There have been changes in energy demand. There is no doubt that these factors will be taken into consideration. I stick to the answer that I have given the hon. Gentleman. There is no question of not coming clean—it is very clean.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would now be a disastrous error to abandon the proven technology of the SGHWR in favour of the fast breeder?

I agree with my hon. Friend that decisions taken in nuclear power should be ones that give confidence to British technology. The facts that are involved relate to those that I mentioned in answering the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who posed the question—namely, that there has been a downturn in energy demand. Therefore, there is no question of turning our backs on British technology.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that once having embarked on a programme of this type there will be no quick changes of political or commercial decisions that were taken, rightly or wrongly, two or three years ago? Will he bear in mind the cost of any change in direction? Does he realise that nuclear energy is important if we are to have greater independence from outside fuel sources for our energy?

I know how assiduous the hon. Gentleman is in his approach to these matters, on which he has made some noteworthy speeches in the House. The House should be aware that when one is trying to break through frontiers of technology it can be a very costly exercise. I give an assurance that the estimate of the Department of Energy, confirmed by some noteworthy fuel technologists, is that there is evidence that there will be a nuclear power gap in the 1980s. That is generally the view expressed in the House and in the Department.

While welcoming my hon. Friend's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), may I ask my hon. Friend to make sure that any gap in the 1980s will not in any circumstances be met by the introduction of American light water reactors?

I think I can tell my hon. Friend that if any Government were confronted with a chance or a reversal in the position, it would not be at the expense of British technology. As a country, we have over-capacity in generating. It is not a question of trying to substitute foreign for British technology. There is over-capacity, and there is a general down turn in energy demand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that over the years hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in the atomic station at Winfrith, in my constituency? Can he give me an assurance that no further development is contemplated which will seriously affect the prospects of those who now work there?

I can certainly give an assurance that before anything happens at the establishment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which, incidentally, I have visited twice—and I am not saying that we contemplate anything happening at the moment—there would be the utmost consultation with the workpeople involved in that establishment.