asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in the renegotiation of the Bermuda Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet resolved the issues raised by his decision to renegotiate the Bermuda Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the present position on discussions with the United States authorities on revising the Bermuda Agreement on civil aviation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in the renegotiation of the Bermuda Air Services Agreement.

Why is the Secretary of State's concept of British interests one which appears to militate strongly against increasing competition? What, for example, is the attitude of the Government towards the recent recommendation by the Civil Aeronautics Board that two more airlines, Delta and North West, should be allowed to fly passengers across the Atlantic?

What I am doing is not inconsistent with the concept of British interests across the North Atlantic. Under our service agreement, this competition takes place within a framework agreed between Governments on both sides of the Atlantic. I do not see that it is a valuable form of competition to have aircraft crossing the Atlantic half or two-thirds empty with the wasteful consumption of fuel that is involved. That is what we are trying to restrain. The CAB proposals are matters which will be considered within the context of the renegotiation.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is already a great deal of international competition and there is, therefore, no need to have internal national competition? Will he also have regard to protecting the consumer in this area?

My hon. Friend knows that single designation is the Government's policy, confirmed by this House in a debate earlier this year. I believe that the consumer will certainly benefit if wasteful fuel consumption is cut down by controls on capacity agreed in advance, as we succeeded in doing in a significant way in the recent agreement concerning Miami and Chicago, to be effective during the coming winter.

While endorsing the desirable objective of having a larger proportion of transatlantic traffic coming the way of British Airways, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that that objective could not have been achieved by the exercise of that aggressive commercialism which we have come to associate with British Airways rather than by upsetting the treaty arrangements in the way proposed? Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that the negotiations will not have any effect on the likelihood of Concorde entering into service to New York?

The aggressive commercialism of British Airways is something which I greatly welcome. I welcome, too, their improved performance on the North Atlantic route. I am certain that the only way of improving the situation of British air companies operating on the North Atlantic route and in other parts of the world is by renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement. We must have clear rights regarding capacity determination, fares and other matters which are doubtful in the Bermuda Agreement at the moment. There are a number of respects in which we believe that the Bermuda Agreement is currently being ignored by the United States Government. This, again, makes it right that we should have an agreement very much clearer in form than the current one.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as there has to be some legal relationship between the two Governments, many people will welcome the Government's determination in principle to renegotiate something which is 30 years out of date? Will the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and give a categoric assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not tolerate the Americans in any way dragging Concorde into these negotiations as a bargaining factor?

I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's welcome for what we are doing. As for Concorde, one of the worries about the current agreement has been that we have had so much difficulty in respect of that aircraft. It will be my objective to ensure that we have rights to fly Concorde into the United States.

Is the right hon. Gentleman still convinced that this was the right time to start negotiations, shortly before an American presidential election? Does he not agree that it is clear that no substantive commitment can be made by the United States Government before the outcome of the election in November and that this leaves perilously little time before the embarrassing situation which could arise in June with no Bermuda Agreement and no agreement to put in its place?

Yes, I am absolutely sure that this was the right time to start this renegotiation. There are always reasons for putting off unpleasant decisions, even decisions which happen to be very much in the interests of this country. There is always an American election of some sort, but I do not think that that should be a conditioning factor in determining the date on which this renegotiation is commenced. I hope that the Conservative Opposition still welcome the renegotiation and that they see that British interests are clearly involved. I more airlines, Delta and North West, indicated earlier, will be available. A great deal of useful preparatory work is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy on imports.

The Government's policy on imports remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement on 6th April.

I think that in view of that answer from my right hon. Friend I ought to have asked "what is his policy on imports, if any". I submit to him that the situation in which we wring our hands—[Interruption.]

Order. I think that the House was trying to help me. The hon. Lady must ask a question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one should have asked "what is his policy on imports, if any"? Is he aware that we must do more than wring our hands in a situation in which the volume of imports increased in the last quarter by 9½ per cent.? This House is constantly being told that we cannot afford things. Will my right hon. Friend accept that we can no longer afford a totally unplanned attitude to trade?

I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the September trade figures and not to those for the last quarter. We control imports in a number of cases where they are causing disruption to particular industries. I must remind my hon. Friend that this country depends on the export of manufactured goods and that we export far more manufactured goods than we import. It would be the height of absurdity to put such exports, upon which a great deal of employment is based, at peril by unreasonable action.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister's response on this subject last week was dangerously ambiguous and that there is fear that the Government will be pushed into protectionism with all the consequences that that would entail by retaliation, with the prospect of going back to a situation like that of the 1930s? Does he accept that the crucial distinction is between fair and unfair competition from imports and that this question was fudged in the TUC-CBI paper on the subject? If that is so, will he accept that there is no case for restricting fair competiiton from imports? It is absolutely essential to take more urgent and faster action than the right hon. Gentleman is doing concerning dumping on the United Kingdom market, particularly in regard to COMECON countries.

The Prime Minister's response was not ambiguous. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they are against general import controls. We assess the unfairness of particular competition within the framework of the dumping legislation. When the hon. Gentleman says that we need to take faster action in respect of dumping, I take it that he is not expecting us to return to the action which was characteristic under his Government. We are taking very much faster and more effective action in that field, but protection against dumping is only part of the action that one needs to take. There are cases, and many examples could be given, in which we have felt it right to take certain restrictive action, but it would be most unwise to take restrictive action in a form which would bring about retaliation against our exports.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain's trade deficit is merely a concomitant of her surplus on capital account? As long as the Governent are committed to borrowing enormous sums of money, whatever the rest of the country does, there is bound to be a deficit on trade.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are some difficulties about ensuring the capital inflow. It is important to get our trade balance into better balance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that footwear is the hardest hit industry with regard to unfair prices, dumping and subsidised imports? No less than 40 per cent. of the £100 million worth of foreign footwear has been shown to be dumped or subsidised, and the measures taken by my right hon. Friend's Department to provide protection are wholly inadequate to cope with the continuing decline of this industry in the face of such imports.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are restrictions on the imports of footwear into this country. Anti-dumping action has been taken and further dumping action is being considered. We are also considering the specific problem of sandals and we are doing a great deal to assist the footwear industry at this time. I have been in discussion with the industry more than once, and I shall take whatever action I can within the law to help it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that we on this side of the House would regard the introduction of fully-fledged import controls as an action of despair? Nevertheless, there is a strong case in certain industries for much tighter voluntary agreements in respect of some of the low-cost products being dumped in this country, particularly in the case of electronics and electronic components. Will the Minister give an undertaking to take early action on this point?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a wide range of voluntary agreements have been negotiated by us or by industries with the particular suppliers. The vast majority of what I would describe as low-cost imports are now subject to controls of one kind or another. We have been in close consultation with the electronics industry over the last few weeks. I hope that there will now be inter-industry discussions on this point. Meanwhile, we have established an agreement in respect of 1976 and also, in the case of Taiwan, we have an agreement covering not only the remainder of 1976 but 1977 as well.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why this Government are not as bold as the previous Labour Government when import deposits were applied up to 50 per cent.? That would reduce the Government's borrowing requirement. Why are the Government acting like King Canute in the face of an overwhelming case that some form of import controls must be brought in at the earliest moment?

I would say to my hon. Friend that it might be possible to protect the home market. What is impossible, if we invite retaliation, is to protect our exports. A great deal of employment in this country is dependent on those exports, and the industries concerned are our most efficient and rapidly expanding industries. In regard to import deposits, my hon. Friend will have noticed in respect of the scheme for 1968–70 that the trade effect was very small. If import deposits have any effect at all, it is of a financial character which leads to foreigners helping to finance our balance of payments deficit and it has certain internal monetary effects. That being the case, I suggest that my hon. Friend puts his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress he has made in preparing for the EEC to become responsible for anti-dumping regulations and enforcement.

I have discussed with Sir Christopher Soames the major problems likely to arise. In particular we agreed that the anti-dumping unit of the Department of Trade should remain in being after 30th June 1977 to advise United Kingdom industry and to assist the Commission in handling cases. We are currently considering in detail with the Commission the best means of ensuring a smooth hand-over and close future cooperation. In the meantime the Commission has made a helpful statement in reply to a Question put in the European Parliament by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). With permission, I will circulate this in the Official Report.

Can the Secretary of State advise us whether the Government believe that a more rapid enforcement of anti-dumping procedure, either now or under the control of the EEC, is possible? Can he further advise us, following the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), that the Government are not thinking in terms of import deposits, bearing in mind that this could be only a temporary palliative which would help the extensive public sector borrowing requirement but would do nothing to aid the fundamental imbalance of British trade at the moment?

I have already said that as regards the import deficits this is not a trade measure but a financial measure. For obvious reasons the more rapid enforcement of anti-dumping measures could be no more than a temporary palliative. It is certainly possible in many cases to take more rapid action, especially if industry co-operates more rapidly. It must be understood that anti-dumping action is co-operative action and depends to some extent on the co-operation of industry. I could point to cases in which there have been considerable delays in providing information which it has been agreed should be provided. I am strengthening the anti-dumping unit in my Department and I hope that that will have the effect of speeding up yet further our anti-dumping action.

Is it not a serious matter that we are proposing to surrender these crucial powers to the EEC Commission? If we do so, will it be possible for the EEC to approve anti-dumping duties for the United Kingdom alone, or will it have to apply them to the whole of the EEC or not at all?

On considering this matter further, I think my right hon. Friend will find that there can be advantages in having the full commercial power of the European Community involved, provided we ensure that it acts as rapidly as we do. It is for that reason that I have been in consultation with it. Detailed discussions are continuing. One of the matters that I discussed with Sir Christopher Soames was whether anti-dumping can apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. My right hon. Friend will find references to that in the answer to the hon. Member for Cheadle. The Commission has special powers to act in respect of a part of the Community and not only all the Community. That point is taken care of.

Are the French handing over their effective anti-dumping machinery to the EEC? If so, when may we expect to take advantage of that in future?

Anti-dumping has for some time been operated by the Commission on behalf of the original Six.

When my right hon. Friend is making proposals to the Commission, will he bear in mind that we should alter the rules and put the onus of proving whether there is dumping on the importer rather than on industries in this country? That would be a means of speeding up the process and getting the information that is required a great deal sooner than at present.

That is a proposal that has been made in the course of the current TUC-CBI memorandum. Such an arrangement would be contrary to British law and, consequently, to the international agreement to which we have subscribed. It would be contrary to the position now operated by the European Community. That is also bound by the anti-dumping code. I can only say to my hon. Friend that at the moment what he suggests is not possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in the event of exports being concentrated on the United Kingdom rather than on our partners in the Community, our partners will dismantle the effective non-tariff barriers that they have so that the imports may be dispersed throughout the EEC?

The whole object of the European Community is to eliminate non-tariff barriers that may operate within it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Airways to discuss "Civil Aviation. Policy Guidance".

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for such a discussion.

Will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Chairman of British Airways at the earliest opportunity that the surplus of £71,000 on package holiday sales of £30 million is a profit on turnover of less than one-quarter of 1 per cent.? Following a year in which inflation reached 26·9 per cent., that represents a substantial loss in real terms. To emulate Clarksons by seeking to achieve expansion by accepting sales at a loss is not likely in the long run to be in the best interests of the British taxpayer or holidaymaker.

The hon. Gentleman adopts an ambivalent attitude on these matters. I recall that during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on 4th August he was calling for a restriction upon the commercial aggressiveness, to use the description given by his hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), of British Airways' activities. He was calling for a restriction rather than an enhancement of the commercial aggressiveness of British Airways. I do not accept his conclusions.

Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to discuss at an early opportunity the problems of aviation relating to crop spraying, about which there is considerable difficulty at present?

That is also a matter which the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of negotiations over duty-free import quotas with the United Kingdom's former EFTA partners.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of negotiations over duty-free imports with the United Kingdom's former European Free Trade Area partners.

Discussions on the arrangements for the duty-free quotas have taken place with the main EFTA supplying countries. These have not led to any agreement on changes acceptable to both the EFTA countries and ourselves.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern in many areas such as the one I represent, which is dependent upon the paper industry, that there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations? Does he accept that the overgenerous treatment that we have afforded to Scandinavian paper imports in the past has been a major factor in the decline of the British paper industry and the loss of 17,000 jobs? Will my hon. Friend renew his effort to secure an agreement that ties the imports from Scandinavia more closely to demand in the home market? Will he confirm that we shall go back and negotiate again with that objective in mind?

I am well aware of the feeling that exists on this issue in the paper industry. In response to the third part of my hon. Friend's question, the proposal for a downward revision of quotas at times of recession has been our primary objective. However, it is necessary under the exchange of letters that the Conservative Government undertook shortly before we entered the EEC that any changes which are made have to be made with the agreement of both sides. I am not optimistic about whether it is possible to secure agreement on this issue in a way which is satisfactory also to the EFTA countries.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his earlier answer? Did he say that the negotiations have been concluded and that he has failed, or that he is still hopeful of a more successful outcome? Bearing in mind that United Kingdom imports of paper and board now account for nearly half the total consumption compared with about 28 per cent. 10 years ago, and that that has been caused substantially because we have allowed most imports to come in duty-free under the quota arrangement, the EEC being protected by a 10 per cent. tariff, will the hon. Gentleman take that point on board?

I hope I made it clear that the review has been completed. We are now considering the results and we shall shortly be giving our conclusions to the EFTA countries. No final decision has been taken on our position. I am aware of the difference between the position for the United Kingdom industry and that for the rest of the EEC. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the other side of the coin is that under the exchange of letters we retain the right for our industry to have free trade access to the Scandinavian countries. In the first eight months of this year the value of that market to our industry was £1·1 billion. That is a considerable quid pro quo. However, I am well aware of the need to provide for the paper industry all the protection that is consistent with that objective.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is now the visible trade deficit with the EEC on a balance of payments basis for the last 12 months.

In the 12 months ended June 1976, the latest period for which such information is available, the deficit was £2,237 million.

I agree that exports to the Common Market have risen, as they have risen to almost all areas of the world, especially Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but is it not true that the deficit is greater than our deficit with all the rest of the world? Is that what was meant by the "benefits of a wider home market"?

As the hon. Gentleman has said, our exports to the European Community have risen, as have our exports to all other parts of the world. It is also true that the deficit is greater than with the rest of the world. A large part of the deficit consists of imports of food and fuel. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that our balance of payments with the European Community has been on an improving trend for some time. I agree that I should like to see it improved faster, but it is on an improving trend. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the test of competitiveness is whether we can compete in Europe. If we can compete in Europe, we can compete anywhere in the world.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches forecast that if we joined the Common Market our financial and trade problems would disappear? What went wrong?

There are always disagreements during discussions of this sort about exactly what right hon. and hon. Members had forecast. The truth is that in manufactured goods our deficit with the European Community is far smaller than the total figures that are bandied around. The total figures contain for the most part imports of food and fuels. Our exports to the European Community show that we can increasingly compete in manufactured goods, and that is a matter of great importance.

Will the Secretary of State say whether this is what was meant by the phrase used at the time of our entry into the EEC "We have got to get in to get on"?

I wait for the hon. and learned Gentleman to welcome the fact that we are getting on with our exports within the European Community. He may find that very satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any plans to visit the USSR to discuss the balance of trade between Great Britain and the COMECON countries.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit the Soviet Union before the meeting of the British-Soviet Joint Commission in Moscow next spring, though I myself visited the Soviet Union a fortnight ago.

Will the Minister explain how the Government can continue to provide favoured trading conditions for the COMECON countries, particularly as long as British industrialists are forced to pay more than 15 per cent. for new investment? Is he satisfied that those countries are not dumping in this country?

First, in view of the phraseology of the Question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whilst the Eastern European countries are not exactly politically independent of the Soviet Union, Ministers do not go to Moscow to discuss trade with the Eastern European countries. The surplus of our trade with the COMECON countries, excluding the Soviet Union, was £100 million in 1975. The trend this year is slightly less but it is still considerable. That is a good reason for continuing to trade with them. We already have a large series of import restraints, whether by quotas or voluntary action. As my right hon. Friend has said, we also have a number of antidumping applications which we are urgently considering.

Will my hon. Friend tell me when he might come to a determination on the anti-dumping application lodged by the Clothing Manufacturers Federation in April this year to which a reply is urgently needed? Will he note that my constituency is seriously affected by unfairly subsidised imports of electric motors from the State trading countries, the price of which cannot in any way be related to the cost of production?

My hon. Friend will know that we accepted for full investigation the application by the Clothing Manufacturers Federation with regard to Eastern European suits. We made an announcement last month. I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely when that investigation will be completed, but I assure him that we are undertaking it with the fullest urgency and I hope that we shall shortly come up with an answer. Any application made by the relevant manufacturers of electric motors will receive the urgent attention which we give to all these matters.

Before the hon. Gentleman embarks on any talks, will he take immediate action to deal with the dumping of footwear from COMECON countries which is causing a great deal of short-time working and factory closures throughout the country? Is he aware, for example, that a successful and well-known footwear firm in my constituency has discovered that shoes coming from Czechoslovakia, which are a stitch-for-stitch copy of those made by the firm, are retailing at £3·82 a pair, whereas the cost of the materials alone is £4·60? Does not the Minister agree that that is intolerable and that further action must be taken to stop the closure of firms in this country?

The Question is about Eastern Europe, and we already have restraints on men's leather footwear from Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland which were continued in 1976 at the 1975 level, which was 5 to 10 per cent. below the 1974 import level. That restraint was extended last year also to women's and children's leather footwear, and it has been continued this year at last year's level. Sandals were excluded in both cases. We have now accepted for investigation the question of the alleged dumping of sandals, although the number of workers and the number of businesses concerned in the manufacture of sandals in this country is very small. Nevertheless, we have undertaken to do that and we shall also take any further action that is necessary.

What help is my hon. Friend's Department giving to firms that wish to export to COMECON countries, particularly the Soviet Union, which has the largest purchasing potential?

As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister on his visit to Moscow in February last year agreed on a line of credit of nearly £1 billion to facilitate trade between this country and the Soviet Union in line with the fact that our competitors had hitherto had a much bigger slice of that market and we are determined to get an equal or larger portion of it.

Did the Minister go to Moscow without realising that our trade policy with COMECON countries is becoming more and more lunatic on both exports and imports? On exports, industry in the USSR can obtain finance for capital goods on far better terms than can anyone who is producing them in this country. On imports, I back up what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) said. If goods are being landed in this country by COMECON countries at less than the price at which our producers can buy the raw materials, is that dumping or is it not?

On the question of the Soviet Union being able to obtain goods on a better rate of credit than is obtainable by domestic producers, we are talking about exports and there is no direct analogy with domestic producers. All we have offered to the Soviet Union is a rate of interest that is, so far as we can judge, competitive with that provided by other Western European countries and the United States. We can do no less if we are to get a share of that market. I shall not discuss the precise terms because that would be against the interests of the firms which I hope will be increasing their trade with the Soviet Union.

Order. We are getting far away from Question Time in arguing and debating.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions his Department, alone or in conjunction with the British motor industry manufacturers, has held with the EEC about limiting the volume of exports of motor vehicles from other member countries to the United Kingdom; and what understandings resulted.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that such a meeting is due to take place on Friday this week and that the import figure for cars from our European partners has now reached 28 per cent.? What investigations are possible into the dumping of cars by our Common Market partners in this country under the arrangement whereby the EEC is responsible for anti-dumping measures?

As my right hon. Friend has said, the Commission is able to undertake to examine whether one member of the EEC is dumping its, products in the country of another. There are instances where the Commission has acted on that basis. Quota controls raise questions in respect of the EEC, EFTA countries and North America which go far beyond the scope of the Question. The Government are examining the strengthening or consolidation of selective import controls and are also concerned about the possible strengthening in various ways of anti-dumping measures.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that agreements have been made with motor car producers outside the EEC? Is it not rather pointless to have an agreement with Japan or any other non-EEC producer if the gap which is created is then filled by Japan and other non-EEC producers?

I appreciate the significance of my hon. Friend's point and of the argument raised about imports of Japanese cars. It raises political and economic issues which go wider than the question of imports of cars. At present the Government are looking at selective import controls and how these can perhaps be strengthened in various ways in line with the current policy to limit the application of selective import controls in respect of Japan, Eastern European and the developing countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on motor car imports from Japan during 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response he has had from the Japanese Government to his request for reductions in the numbers of cars imported from that country.

I have made clear to the Japanese authorities our concern about levels of car imports into this country. The Japanese industry told our industry in July that it did not foresee any conspicuous change this year in its share of the British market. I shall continue to keep a close watch on the figures.

My right hon. Friend has made clear to the Japanese authorities, as his predecessor did a year ago, the Government's and industry's view, and yet Japanese imports are still increasing.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a case. Will he please ask a question?

Has my right hon. Friend given a commitment, as the present Secretary of State for the Environment gave to the Japanese almost exactly a year ago? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we should go on chatting to the Japanese, asking them not to import too much into this country and saying that otherwise we will take action when no action has ever been taken?

My hon. Friend is quite wrong in saying that no action has ever been taken. To begin with, exports of Japanese motor cars to this country are governed by an understanding reached with the British industry in July that there would be no conspicuous change in their share of the market. The trouble is that British industry has not been able to take advantage of what has been left in the market because of its own inability to supply, and the market has been taken up by European suppliers. The problem is one of making British industry more competitive so that it can take advantage of the opportunity created by the agreement with the Japanese industry.

Is the Minister aware of the Japanese Government's claim that if invisible trade is taken into account the balance of trade is more favourable to the United Kingdom than to them? Will he clarify the position to clear up the misunderstanding and discuss the matter with members of the Japanese delegation which is now in this country?

I am aware of the claims made by the Japanese authorities about this country's invisible earnings with Japan. We have examined the figures and find that they grossly exaggerate the position. It is true that our invisible income makes some contribution to cover the deficit in our visible trade, but it does not eliminate it and it probably does not reduce it by more than half.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the question goes a little wider than blaming British manufacturers and partcularly British workers in the car factories? Are not the Japanese more shrewd than our people in that they adopt techniques and tests which prevent British cars from passing a hurdle which amounts to a tariff? Could we not act in a similar fashion in this country?

It is true that the operation of Japanese tests regarding pollution controls operate as a non-tariff barrier. We have been discussing this with the Japanese authorities and we would like to see a relaxation of foreign imports into Japan to improve the opportunities for foreign car exports to Japan. But the main problem in our relations with the Japanese is that they should import more manufactured goods from this country and from the rest of the world. This is a matter which we are discussing with the Japanese Government, and I took the opportunity this morning to impress that point at a meeting with Japanese industrialists. I think they are taking the point on board, but we shall have to watch the situation.

Is not the best way of tackling Japanese penetration of the market an increase in efficient production in this country, particularly by British Leyland, and the elimination of non-tariff barriers? Does the Minister agree that the ambiguous statement made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about import controls is likely to lead to further speculation against the pound?

I do not think that my hon. Friend made an ambiguous statement. The Government's position is clear. Of course we need to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of the British industry, and the Government are giving considerable help to British Leyland and Chrysler to that end. We want to see British industry taking advantage of the situation created by the agreement with Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Bullock Committee on company law and if it is the Government's intention to legislate in the light of its recommendations in the next Session of Parliament.

My right hon. Friend expects to receive the committee's report by the end of this year, after which it will be the Government's intention to place legislation before Parliament as soon as possible.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable interest about this report in the business community? Will he undertake to introduce a separate Bill dealing with the company law aspects of the committee's report?

There is considerable interest throughout the community on both sides of industry about the matter, but we should await the result of the report before defining the legislative process that we are able to undertake.

Will my hon. Friend resist any attempts by the EEC Commission to change our company law in a way that would actually lower the safeguards that we have? Does he agree that we have a heavy responsibility in this sector? I hope that he will safeguard it.

I hope we shall be able to do that. We are keeping the proposals made by the EEC under close surveillance, and, of course, there is a considerable input of British thinking into the views that it is currently canvassing.

Will the Government introduce a Green Paper so that this matter can be fully considered by all the parties affected? Does he agree that the Government should not rush into ill-considered and hasty consideration of such matters?

There is no question of that. The Bullock Committee is carefully considering the full range of problems. We will have to await the outcome of the committee's considerations before we determine our next course in the legislative process.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for implementing the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The initiative for implementing the report is with the industry. Managements and unions are working together at top level in the Joint Standing Committee for the National Newspaper Industry. The committee announced on 12th October that it had reached agreed recommendations on a range of matters which are central to the Royal Commission's findings. If the committee's recommendations are adopted by the organisations represented on it, discussions will he carried forward at house as well as industry level.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that large parts of the report depend upon the Government taking some initiative? In particular, does he realise that since the production of the report, highlighting the industry's acute problems, the problems have worsened dramatically? The report was based on the assumption that sterling would remain at a rate of $2·4 but there has been a deterioration of that position. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the figures in the report, which were then serious, are now desperate? When will he come off the fence?

There is no question of being, on the fence. The previous Secretary of State for Trade made a statement in the House in March about the interim report. He indicated a timetable for the industry and for house agreements regarding the introduction of new technology. That timetable has not been met. We have only just had the announcement of 12th October regarding the industry's conclusions, and we now have to see how the house negotiations proceed.

Would it be right to interpret the right hon. Gentleman's answer as a mean approach by the Government to the very great strides that both managements and unions have made in coming to new manning agreements so that new technology can be introduced? Does it not show too little appreciation of the fact that the future vitality of one leading independent daily and one leading independent Sunday paper is at stake because of the lack of action by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government's approach is mean. It is not characteristic of the Opposition to urge the Government to spend public money on industry in general or newspapers in particular. Objection used to be taken to the idea on the ground that it would imperil the independence of newspapers. As soon as it can be arranged—the delay is not on my side—I propose to hold further meetings with the joint chairmen of the joint standing committee, but again I impress on the industry the importance of getting on with house agreements. The industry has lost the time schedule proposed by my predecessor in March. Let those house agreements now be made rapidly.

Whatever my right hon. Friend does, may I ask him not to take advice from those young blades who advised Slater Walker in the run-up period to the wonderful success story which has ended in disaster?

I am always careful about any advice I am offered. Indeed, I sometimes do not take advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he intends to take to reduce aircraft noise around Heathrow in 1977.

Throughout 1977, as in previous years, we shall continue our policy of taking all practicable steps to reduce noise disturbance in the vicinity of Heathrow through the continued application of the various noise abatement measures already applied there. As the hon. Member knows, we keep these measures under constant review and will take advantage of any opportunity of improving on them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his decision not to allow British Airways any increase in the number of night flights will be warmly welcomed in my constituency? What progress has been made with the introduction of quieter aircraft engines, and, in particular, what improvements can be expected from the current figure of 18 per cent. for noise certificated aircraft for 1977 and thereafter?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation about night flights. The restrictions are not limited to British Airways. On our present estimates, the current proportion of noise certificated air transport movements for quieter aircraft represents about 18 per cent. at Heathrow, and this will rise to about 30 per cent. by about 1980 and 55 per cent. by 1985. We estimate that by 1990 virtually all traffic movements will be by noise certificated aircraft. Considerable progress is being made. This is evidenced by the purchase of substantial numbers of the larger, quieter-engined aircraft.

is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet in the constituencies around Heathrow not only at the current extensions of Heathrow but at the fact that even further extensions are being contemplated? Is he further aware that Heathrow is peculiarly unfortunately situated in that, for two-thirds of the time, all aircraft arriving fly over heavily populated areas? In view of the safety factor, quite apart from anything else, if there are to be any further extensions of London airports, they should be made at airports other than Heathrow.

I hope that my hon. Friend who represents a constituency close to Heathrow, will engage in the process of consultation about the future rôle not only of Heathrow but of other airports in the country which is already being undertaken.

What stage has this process of consultation, which the hon. Gentleman initiated this summer, now reached? When is the next stage, which I believe is consultation with hon. Members concerned, likely to take place?

We have already had a number of meetings between my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and myself and various bodies, and we hope that these will be continued. I hope that we shall have an intensified process of consultation in the next few weeks and months. We hope that hon. Members will communicate with the Department either as groups representing different areas of the country or as individuals to engage in the process of consultation, but so far as I am aware no such approach has yet been made.

is my hon. Friend aware that those of us with constituencies near Heathrow, which on occasions suffer abominably from the noise of aircraft, are appreciative of the efforts he has made over the past 12 months in trying to reduce the noise? Will he now concentrate on the fact that during the inclement weather there is a change of route, when aircraft fly very low indeed, particularly over the London borough of Ealing? Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's efforts, I have received very many complaints, and—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has received complaints. I feel like making some myself. Will he now come to the point?

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is disturbing particularly to shift workers and to police officers, for example, who are on various duties? My list of complaints is rising, and I ask my hon. Friend to take these factors into account.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's compliment, as, indeed, I appreciate compliments from anyone. The Civil Aviation Authority has been asked to look into the factors involved in reducing the proportion of easterly landings and take-offs, and if a change should prove practicable there will be full consultation with the representatives of all those living around the airport.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will resume from the CAA powers over the scrutiny of holiday tour operators who are not members of ABTA, following the bankruptcy of Pearl Islands Tours Ltd.

My Department has never exercised such powers, and I consider it more appropriate that the Civil Aviation Authoriy should continue its present functions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this firm apparently traded without an ATOL licence this year although it quoted one? Is he further aware that as a result a great deal of money was lost by many people who thought they were covered by the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act 1975 when they were not covered? Can he further say what effective form of policing the Civil Aviation Authority was able to bring about in this case? What form of compensation will there be for people who lost money and holidays when this firm collapsed?

I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the specific facts relating to this case, because, as I understand it, the CAA has instituted a prosecution against Pearl Islands Tours Ltd. for illegal trading during 1976. On the question of adequate surveillance, however, I must point out that, however vigilant an organisation might be that is invested with the power to police other organisations, there are, unfortunately, bound to be breaches of the law. I do not believe that the surveillance by the CAA has been proved inadequate. It was made clear during the passage of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Act that it related to licensed air travel organisers, and this company was not licensed.

After all that wordy waffle, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he expects the CAA to do its job properly when, as it points out on rage 10 of its annual report, its effective functioning is in jeopardy and responsibility for this state of affairs lies wholly with the Government, who have been warned, both formally and informally, on a number of occasions? What is the hon. Gentleman going to do about that?

There is the very closest liaison between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not accept the indictment coming from the lips of the hon. Gentleman or that he has placed a correct interpretation on the facts.