asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is still satisfied with the deficit on Great Britain's trade with other EEC countries; and if he will make a statement.

So far this year, there has been an increase of 42 per cent. in the value of our exports to other EEC countries and a 28 per cent. increase in imports compared with the corresponding period in 1975. I welcome the resulting improvement in our still large trade deficit with the EEC.

Does it not need to be mentioned that, according to the most recent figures, we are in deficit with other Common Market countries to the tune of £2,300 million and that the amount by which we are supposed to be benefiting from the common agricultural policy and the green pound pales into insignificance compared with that very large deficit? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now, 30 years after the war, we are in the financial grip of Western Germany and the only answer to the problem is to get out of the Common Market, and do it quickly?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that. It is true that we have a large deficit with the European Community, but I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the deficit has improved slightly so far this year and has improved to an even greater extent in respect of manufacturing products.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Great Britain has no trade deficit?

If I were to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning it would take some time, and perhaps Question Time would be better used in some other way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Treaty of Rome, Articles 104 and 108, we are entitled to protect our balance of payments? In those circumstances, is it not necessary for us now seriously to consider controlling our imports from the Common Market?

As my hon. Friend says, there are such provisions within the Treaty of Rome. On the other hand, my hon. Friend should remember that there are several countries within the Community which also have large balance of payments deficits and high unemployment. For example, I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw details of the French trade deficit for October.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the growth of British exports to those markets in the world where the national economies are now expanding at a relatively rapid rate compared to the international average; and if he will make a statement.

Our exports in the three months to October were 11 per cent. higher in volume than a year earlier. The main impetus to growth over this period has come from the recovery in activity in the industrial countries, and our exports have grown rapidly to these countries.

Although I welcome that news, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he and his Department have done enough to help British exporters who want to concentrate on the fast-growing economies in the world, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, which are sucking in an increasing quantity of imports and in which British exporters could exploit many good opportunities?

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that British exporters have been increasing their volume of exports to the OPEC countries faster than have any of our competitors. In the year to mid-1976 our exports to all oil-exporting countries went up by 40 per cent. and to Saudi Arabia by 131 per cent.

As it is now clear that the Shadow Cabinet has been infiltrated by Right-wing extremists, will my hon. Friend reject any suggestions from spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench that we should increase trade with some of their friends in Fascist countries such as South Africa? Will he also reject any suggestions that there should be an increase in trade in birches, gallows and other instruments of death and torture such as is proposed by the skinhead of Cathcart?

My hon. Friend knows that we have a firm embargo on arms to South Africa. I am glad to say that the main thrust of our exports is into other, more salubrious parts of the world.

Will the Minister say, in clarification, whether it is still the Government's policy to seek to expand further our trade with Eastern European and Communist countries?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench. I should like to give him the traditional greeting by saying that I am sure he will have a long time there in which to develop his skills. We shall certainly seek to expand our trade with Eastern European and COMECON countries. With the exception of the USSR, our current trade surplus in those countries is in excess of £100 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference and the membership of the joint Department of Trade and Bank of England body reviewing the role and function of financial institutions in the United Kingdom.

Within the next few weeks.

Is the real purpose of this body simply to muzzle for the time being demands of the left wing for the nationalisation of the clearing banks? If the body is to serve a useful purpose, will the Secretary of State ensure that those serving on it are drawn not just from the kitchen cabinet cronies of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) but from people who have a lifetime of interest in the matter on which the body is reporting?

I suspect from the nature of the supplementary question that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We are not talking about the committee to be established under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. We are talking about a joint review body established between the Bank of England and my Department to improve supervision of the securities market. That is a valuable purpose which I am sure the body will effectively carry out.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the decision to establish this body does not pre-empt any future decision or mean that the Government are opposed to the establishment of an independent body to supervise the securities market—a body which would be answerable to the House through Ministers? Will he tell the House what the relationship between this body and the Take-Over Panel will be?

The Take-Over Panel will no doubt consult this body when matters relating to it and matters affecting the securities market arise. It was made clear when the existence of this body was announced that it would not pre-empt the considerations of the committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. Nor does it pre-empt any decision that a Government might take or that that committee might recommend regarding a different way of supervising the securities market. Nothing is pre-empted here, but in the meantime it seemed to the Governor of the Bank of England and myself that a body such as this one should be set up because in the short term, too, there is a valuable job to be done and it might be that my right hon. Friend's committee would be persuaded that a body of this sort—perhaps developed in some way—was itself sufficient for the purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give an assurance that the EEC common agricultural policy will be included in the multilateral trade negotiations and that the principles and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy are negotiable.

Agricultural trade is included in the negotiations, and the common agricultural policy will be operated to take account of whatever agreements are reached in the negotiations.

Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of the CAP and membership of the EEC should be easier access to food supplies throughout the Community? If so, what action is he taking to protect the trade in agricultural products between France and Great Britain, and what is he doing about the blacking by Southampton dockers of the proposed new service operated by Brittany Ferries between Portsmouth and St. Malo, in which the Portsmouth ratepayers have a £1 million stake?

I think that the connection between unilateral trade negotiations and the Portsmouth ratepayer is tenuous to the point of invisibility. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a specific Question on that highly technical matter, I will see that he receives an answer.

How many foodstuffs such as butter are nearly twice as dear for the British housewife if they originate from the Common Market as would be the case if they were available to us on the world market? What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to end the ramshackle policy of the CAP which was designed to benefit French farmers and which is working against the interests of British housewives and inevitably increasing the cost of all foodstuffs?

The question of higher butter prices as a result of the CAP depends upon the relationship between EEC prices and world prices, which fluctuate. I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend the latest figures. On the question of the multilateral trade negotiations, I would certainly hope that cheaper food imports will be one of the results. I envisage that there will be discussion of tariff reductions, of international commodity agreements and of a co-ordination of trading agreements in key products such as milk, butter and meat. I hope that the consequence will be some reduction in the cost of food imports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what reports and representations he has received regarding the introduction of inflation accounting; who will ultimately be responsible for the treatment of net monetary assets; and on what date he now expects inflation accounting to be introduced.

On the first point, my officials have kept closely in touch with the work of the Inflation Accounting Steering Group in preparing the exposure draft on current cost accounting. This will be published on 1st December, and I cannot anticipate its contents on the last two points mentioned by the hon. Member.

Will the Minister confirm that accounts prepared on an inflation accounting basis would show that very few British companies are making profits or have made profits in recent years and would underline still further the rather foolish nature of the criticism of British industry for its failure to invest?

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, may I congratulate him on his elevation to the Front Bench and express the hope that he will continue to support the Government and oppose his party as effectively as he did on the recent companies legislation? The hon. Gentleman is really asking me to anticipate not only the report but the discussion of the matter of current cost accounting. It would be wrong for me to do that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the implications of this are very great for the trade union movement? Has he had any discussions with the Trades Union Congress about the implementation of these recommendations?

I have had no discussions with the TUC because at this stage we are concerned with the report of the steering group and I do not know whether the TUC has itself communicated with the steering group. I very much hope that it has done so.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to the EEC to expedite the multilateral trade negotiations.

Her Majesty's Government have made clear in various circles that we look for a rapid conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Is not the Minister being too complacent? Should he not urge the Commission to speed the negotiations as quickly as possible, since to date little agreement has been reached, the already postponed target date for tariff cuts is now only a year away, and the American authority to negotiate under the Trade Act 1975 lapses in two or three years' time?

We are anxious to see an early conclusion to the MTNs and my right hon. Friend will take initiatives as may be appropriate to secure this end. We have the approach of the new American Administration and we also will be having changes in personnel in the Commission of the European Communities. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the early conclusion of powers under the United States Trade Act which end at the end of 1978. That is one reason for concluding negotiations at the latest by the early part of 1978 to ensure that Congress has time to take the necessary action.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that the views of the private sector interests are adequately represented in the formation of policies affecting tourism.

Yes, Sir.

Does not the Minister agree that the private sector activities and facilities still form the majority part of the tourist industry? Will he consider the possibility of increasing regular but informal discussion meetings chaired by himself at which all interested groups can be represented?

I appreciate the crucial importance of the private sector in the promotion of tourism and the carrying out of projects. The heart of consultation lies in regular daily contact between the Department's officials and Ministers and the private sector about specific projects that take place. That already takes place. I am ready to discuss the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about specific discussions if I receive representations from the appropriate bodies.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an answer I received recently showing that unemployment had risen from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. in Folkestone and Hythe, a constituency which has not a hope of getting any industry because of the priority given to development and other areas? Will the hon. Gentleman put on his thinking cap and consider ways of giving similar priority to tourism in these areas, because that is our only hope of getting unemployment down?

Other forms of selective assistance are available under the Industry Acts 1972 and 1975 for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is responsible, and the hon. Gentleman can make his representations in that quarter.

Is the Minister aware that the satisfaction expressed in his initial answer was not shared by those members of the Association of Wessex Guides to whom I was making my presidential address on Saturday afternoon? Is he aware that, on the whole, those in the tourist industry believe that successive Governments have not taken the tourist industry sufficiently seriously? Will he pay particular attention to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)?

I have said that I shall respond as positively as I can to representations of that kind. The Government do not understate the importance of the tourist industry, because the industry's export earnings in the current year are likely to be about £1½ billion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a further statement relating to endeavours to reduce aircraft noise with particular reference to flights passing over the London borough of Ealing.

Our continued application of the existing noise abatement measures at Heathrow, plus the steps being taken to ensure progressive reduction of aircraft noise at source, will, I hope, be of benefit to Ealing as well as to other places near airports.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding my correspondence with him, there has been no abatement of noise over the London borough of Ealing? It is causing grave concern and is having a deleterious effect on the lives of many people. What steps are to be taken in a sincere and determined endeavour to reduce the noise and abate this menace?

It would not be right for me to hold out any hope of dramatic action in the short term, although the prospect is more hopeful for the long term. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about his constituents. I am equally anxious about the situation. The noise in the summer months and early autumn was higher due to the increased number of easterly take-offs and landings required because of the wind conditions. I hope that the recent improvement in noise levels will continue. We are examining with the Civil Aviation Authority factors that will reduce easterly take-offs and landings, but I must always be concerned with the question of safety and the environmental benefit.

Has the Minister been notified of the decision by the French Government to bring in, from April 1977, a differential airport charge so that quiet aircraft are required to pay less than noisy aircraft? Can we introduce a similar scheme?

We should seek an international harmonised scheme to deal with the matter rather than individual Governments going their own ways. We must have regard to our own British aviation interest and balance that, as we always try to do, against the environmental interests with which the hon. Member is so rightly concerned.

Apart from dealing with aircraft noise through the aircraft themselves, is not my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in my constituency, for example, remain perplexed at the criteria applied when giving Government grants? Is he aware that only between 200 and 500 people in my area outside Glasgow have received grants? Should not this matter be considered urgently?

I do not think that there are any great difficulties about the criteria, but there are always anomalies in looking at criteria. I shall certainly examine any specific case to which my hon. Friend draws my attention.

What attention, if any, is being paid to the procedures adopted at Zurich and New York Kennedy Airports, where local residents are better looked after than they are, for instance, at Abbotsinch and Ealing?

If the hon. Lady were to ask the residents near those airports, I am not sure that they would give her the answer that she expects.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he has made to the Japanese Government about the imbalance between Japanese imports to Great Britain and British exports to Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the state of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan in the light of the recent visit to this country by a Japanese delegation to discuss trade.

In recent discussions with the Keidanren delegation, we made it clear that the level of our visible trade deficit with Japan is unacceptable. Similar views were expressed by the other EEC countries which the Keidanren visited. I understand that these views are now being considered urgently in Japan and I hope for an early response. The European Council will be discussing these matters at its next meeting.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is not looking to the EEC to carry out the bulk of this negotiation? Does he agree that the imbalance of visible trade is greater between this country and Japan than it is between any other Western European country and Japan?

For its common commercial policy, the European Community has a definite interest in this matter. It strengthens our position to be associated with it in this discussion. It is true that we have a serious deficit with Japan and that it has increased, but other member countries have large deficits with Japan which are also increasing and they are as concerned as we are about the situation.

Is it not true that the expansion of exports to Japan depends not only on the wording of Japan's regulations but on the spirit in which they are deployed? Will he use his good offices to persuade the Japanese authorities that it is in their interests as well as ours to adopt a less rigid approach and a more co-operative implementation of their regulations?

I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have made it clear that there must be a reduction in this deficit and that it is better if that reduction takes place primarily through an increase in Japanese imports.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what percentage of imports from Japan is attributable to the Joseph Lucas Company, which buys all its car lighting equipment from Japan when we have 18 units capable of supplying them in Britain? There is one in my constituency.

I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure without notice.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the trading accounts which are referred to in Questions such as this are the trading accounts of the United Kingdom?

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. I am sorry that I misunderstood his earlier question.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Bullock Committee on worker participation.

I expect to receive the committee's report before the end of the year, and it will be published as soon as possible.

In the light of the differences of view already expressed by a number of industrialists, trade union leaders and even, I understand, members of the committee, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to ensure that nothing about the implementation of the Bullock Committee is put in the Gracious Speech, so that there can be proper discussion before legislation is prepared?

I cannot anticipate what is to appear in the Gracious Speech. I regret the orchestrated campaign by the Right-wing Press to undermine the Bullock proposals before they have been published. That is a narrow, misguided and defeatist view which flies in the face of the improvements that are needed in worker-management relationships.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable pressure from all sides of industry, including management, for an advance towards industrial democracy in both the public and private sectors?

That is a sensible approach.

Is the Minister aware that his Government are not good judges of what is good for industry? Does he not agree that there is a world of difference between employee participation and trade union participation? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not support, or be pressurised into supporting, any plans which would involve trade unions appointing to company boards personnel who are not employees of those companies?

The hon. Member's judgment is not impeccable. He had his own views on the Common Market, from which at one time I did not dissent. He will have to contain his impatience a little concerning the contents of the Bullock Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will take antidumping action against imports of goods when it can be shown the landed cost of the finished article in the United Kingdom is less than the cost at which British producers can buy the raw materials required to make them.

No, Sir. While the relationship of these costs raises a presumption of dumping, it is not evidence which would satisfy the requirements of our legislation and the GATT Code, which are based on the relationship of export and domestic prices in the country of origin.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the incorrect figure in what I said on 18th October about shoe imports from COMECON countries. How can the Government possibly justify a policy which is leading to factory closures and redundancies in the shoe industry caused entirely by shoes coming in from abroad at a price below the cost of the materials in this country?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now recognises that the figure he gave in his earlier question was wildly wrong. The figure he quoted was only just over one-third of the correct figure. We have taken action with regard to shoes from Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. Men's shoes are retaining their level below the 1974 level of trade, and women's and children's shoes below the 1975 level. That is a substantial advance. We cannot take action in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, because many foreign producers may well have access to cheaper indigenous raw materials, cheaper labour, cheaper hydroelectric power or whatever else than is available to United Kingdom manufacturers.

Is it not extraordinarily difficult to obtain evidence of internal pricing in countries such as Japan, as the European bearings industry found in preparing its recent anti-dumping case, with which it has successfully impressed the Commission? Is not the real answer for the Government and the Commission to get much tougher generally over imports from Japan and other low-cost countries?

My right hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about imports of tapered roller bearings and ball bearings. She is right to say that there were difficulties in obtaining up-to-date information from Japan on price relativities and discounts, but these have been obtained. As for taking firmer action against Japan, Ministers not only in Britain but in other countries in the West expressed their very strong concern during the recent visit of the Keidanren delegation to Britain and elsewhere in Europe about Japan's exporting policy and the need substantially to increase its purchases from the West. We are looking for urgent action on that front in the near future.

Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether he has taken action to prevent the importation into this country of shoes at less than the cost at which manufacturers in this country can produce them? In particular, will he deal with the question of sandals?

I have already answered that question, but obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made clear that that was not a basis for operating under the 1969 Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the newspapers, where he will see that we have accepted for full investigation the question of men's leather sandals from Czechoslovakia.

Has my hon. Friend had recent evidence of the disastrous amount of imports of ready-made clothing, resulting in the closure of factories in the North-East of England as well as elsewhere? Is he prepared to take fresh action in that regard?

The case put to us by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation was accepted for full investigation in September. I hope that we shall be able to conclude the investigation within a month or two.

Is the Minister aware that if something is not done soon to prevent the flood of low-cost imports of shoes and textiles there will be neither a shoe factory nor a textile factory left in this country within 10 years? Will he therefore seek to renegotiate the burden of proof, so that those seeking to bring in low-cost materials must prove that they are not dumped, rather than that we should have to take up to a year to prove that they are?

This Government have taken more action to obtain price and volume undertakings, and more action on the anti-dumping front, than any pre- vious Government, particularly in respect of textiles and footwear. Through the EEC we have negotiated no fewer than 13 bilateral restraint agreements with all the low-cost producers of textiles. As for the onus of proof being put on importers, it was announced in the Press on Friday—but the hon. Lady obviously missed the announcement—that we are considering what further information can be obtained and made available about the domestic price in the country of origin of goods that are being shipped to this country. We are examining this question very carefully with Customs and Excise. I hope that we shall be able to take action very soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many inquiries his Department is conducting currently under Section 109 of the Companies Act 1967.

Forty-three.

If my hon. Friend grants my request for an investigation into the affairs of Scottish and Universal Investments Ltd., will he try to find out exactly what happened to the £4 million discrepancy in its balance sheets? In particular, will he try to find out whether any of that money went directly or indirectly to any political party, as the company chairman, Sir Hugh Fraser, who was also involved in some of the suspicious share dealings, is a well-known financial supporter of the Scottish National Party, which in my constituency has previously been found guilty of cooking the books in its election returns?

It is not the Department's practice to disclose when and the manner in which it carries out confidential investigations.

On a point of order—

Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to follow recent custom and raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order arising out of Question No. 13.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I merely asked the Minister to inquire into this and find out exactly what the truth is so that we may know where this £4 million went. The other point I made in my supplementary question—and it is well known in Scotland—was that Sir Hugh Fraser gives financial assistance to the Scottish National Party. That is common knowledge and I shall repeat it outside of this House.

When an hon. Member refers to people outside of this House he takes upon himself the responsibility for so doing. That is a long-established custom.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the effect which those advocating import controls have had in accelerating imports and adversely affecting recent balance of payments trade figures.

I have made no estimate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's resistance to generalised import controls and to the lunacy advocated by some members of his party is very much to be com- mended? Does he realise, however, that a number of industrialists perhaps take the absurd nonsense talked by the Labour Party's National Executive rather more seriously than he does and have been stocking up in anticipation of some decisions in this respect? Will he confirm that it is his view that generalised import controls are no solution to our problems?

The Government's position on the matter has repeatedly been made clear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget Statement on 6th April. That is the Government's position. There may have been forestalling. If there has, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain of its extent.

I have heard nobody talking about a siege economy or generalised import controls, but there has been a strong representation to the Government by the TUC and CBI jointly that we should have selective import controls. Will my right hon. Friend look at the electronics industry, where something needs to be done very quickly? The Government have received representations from that industry that Japanese imports have killed off certain manufacturing industries in this country and that further industries will suffer unless the Government act quickly.

My hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about precisely this point. The paper which I submitted to NEDC on 2nd October was published in a recent edition of Trade and Industry. If my hon. Friend studies it, he will find that we have many selective controls on imports. As for consumer electronics, he will no doubt have noticed that the British industry has recently been in consultation with the Japanese industry and has come to an understanding with it about imports next year which, I understand, it found satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether licences have been sought for the import of heavy freight diesel trains—Class 56—manufactured under licence in Romania; and what is the total value of the orders concerned.

The import of heavy freight diesel trains is not subject to individual licensing. I understand that the value of the locomotives assembled in Romania, which were the subject of recent reports in the Press, was £8·4 million, of which the import content was about 15 per cent.—namely, £1·2 million.

Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will exert maximum pressure on British Rail to ensure that its requirements for equipment are met as far as possible from domestic British sources, as procurement from overseas will undoubtedly have an effect on both British Rail employees and employees in British manufacturing industry?

The purchasing policy of British Rail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall see that my hon. Friend's representations are conveyed to him. I understand that British Rail sought the purchase of 60 locomotives of a type that it wanted urgently delivered mainly because of a higher forecast of freight traffic, especially in coal. Only Brush, in conjunction with a Romanian company, was able to supply within the required delivery deadlines. The order was deliberately split fifty-fifty to safeguard jobs so far as possible within Britain.

Does the Minister agree that the best way of ensuring that the nationalised industries, including the railways, place more orders with British firms is to allow them to plan well into the future and to submit them to far less interference and control by Government Departments?

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that domestic purchasing by the public sector within Britain is at a much higher level than similar purchasing by the private sector.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better if the railway workshops and those who are producing for the home market were given far more scope in tendering for the home market and far more scope in going for overseas orders?

I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell him that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what protest he has made against the action of the United States Government in unilaterally imposing restrictions on the import of certain special steels from the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.

Most recently in my right hon. Friend's speech in New York on 15th November. The EEC has protested and fully reserved our GATT Article XIX rights.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those engaged in the special steels industry will warmly welcome the fact that protests have been made and will strongly support what I hope will be continuing protests as long as this imposition continues? Does he agree that there is a certain tragic irony in the fact that an important section of British industry is being attacked in this way by the United States Government at the same time as our Government are still resolutely refusing to consider taking similar measures for the protection of British industry?

I am well aware of the acute concern that is felt in the special steels industry over American action. We have ensured that the American Government are in no doubt about our view that the injury to American domestic industry is caused by the economic depression and not by increased imports. I hope that the American Administration, as a result of the strong representations that have been made through the EEC, will soon decide to remove or modify restrictions at an early date. As for protection for the British special steels industry, my hon. Friend will know that we have secured from Japan, which is the main import problem for the United Kingdom, both price and volume undertakings that will reduce the level of imports of special steels from Japan next year below the level prevailing during this year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of the "grandfather" clause in American legislation, especially in the American trade legislation of 1974, it is far easier for the United States to take quick, unilateral protectionist action than it is for the British Government to do so? Will the Government be discussing this matter with the United States at Geneva during the current round of multilateral trade negotiations?

The answer is certainly "Yes". On 15th November my right hon. Friend made special reference to this fact. It is true that the "grandfather" clause gives America special privileges. They are wearing a little thin after such a long time, but they will be on the agenda for the MTNs.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the negotiations aimed at reducing the scale of air fares in Europe.

No intergovernmental negotiations are taking place. However, the Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for these matters in the United Kingdom, has recently announced its intention of conducting a public consultation early next year on the level of normal economy fares between this country and the rest of Europe. The United Kingdom is also participating in a study of intra-European air fares in general which is being conducted by the European Civil Aviation Conference.

Although I welcome the CAA's initiative, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the difficulty is likely to be that any agreement that may be reached as a result of these investigations will have to be agreed with all the European operators? In these circumstances, will the Government give any consideration to the possibility of bilateral agreement between this country and selected operators in Europe?

I think we must seek overall agreement, if that is reasonably possible, within a reasonable time scale. We shall give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's point if it is clear beyond any doubt that no such agreement will be forthcoming.

As no one really believes that the price of air fares will come down, will the hon. Gentleman at least do something about making London Airport slightly less inefficient than it now is? In world aviation there is no question that one waits longer for luggage in London than anywhere else and finds it harder to meet anyone than anywhere else and harder to park than anywhere else.

The hon. Gentleman may realise when he considers these matters a little more profoundly that I am not responsible for the operation of Heathrow Airport. I suggest that he communicates not with the CAA but with the British Airports Authority. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to learn.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take action to secure fairer charges by British Airways within the United Kingdom, the cost per mile from Stornoway, in my constituency, to Glasgow being double the cost from Glasgow to London?

That is a matter essentially to be determined between the CAA and the British Airports Authority.

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

The total value of contracts placed under the agreement to date is approximately £42 million. Discussions are continuing on further substantial contracts between United Kingdom exporters and buyers in the USSR.

Is it not an extraordinary situation when we are offering to lend money for the building of factories in Russia at rates of interest much lower than those which have to be paid by our own industry if it is building factories in Britain, all this being done at a cost to the British taxpayer that the Government refuse to disclose?

If exporters are to get a proper share of this important and expanding market, they have to offer credit and interest rates on a competitive basis. The conditions of the framework for our trade with the USSR were settled not by us but by our competitors. The hon. Gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he is saying to British industry—it will not agree with him—that he does not wish to see any trade with the USSR. As regards domestic industry, it is the case that if money has to be borrowed it has to be at the going interest rate. However, there are wide-ranging grants to assist industry to get money for desired investment at cheaper rates.

What is the current state of the balance of trade between Britain and the USSR?

We are in substantial deficit.

How much of the trade between the United Kingdom and the USSR is carried in British ships? What progress is the Department making on its own, or in concert with other European countries, to combat the urgent threat that is posed by cut-price Soviet shipping?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures without notice, but I shall write to him on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the total amount of credits outstanding to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the auspices of ECGD.

The total amount of credit outstanding is not confined to contracts placed under the £950 million credit agreement. However, for commercial reasons, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose figures of ECGD's cover in respect of individual markets.

Since the Government seem determined to conceal this figure, may I tell the Minister that my estimate is that it has now reached £1,200 million? Why do the Government insist on investing more in Russian industry than they do in British industry when they obtain no dividends from Soviet investment but only low-priced imports?

We are in no way investing specially in the Soviet market. We are merely ensuring that British exporters who wish to take advantage of the substantially expanding Soviet market should be able to use the facilities available to them in that market as well as in other markets on a competitive basis.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many manufacturers who welcome the Government's endeavours because they will enable them to increase their trade with the Soviet Union, which is a good thing for our industry? Is he not aware that the anger among Conservatives is that such sensible and intelligent behaviour is in direct contrast to the attitude of the Opposition, and especially of the Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to abolish any talk-in with the Soviet Union, wants to see the end of detente and wishes to get down to having a first-class war?

I am well aware of the political myopia of the Opposition, particularly their Leader, with regard to the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what initiatives he will now take with the new Administration of the United States of America to improve trade between the United States of America and Great Britain and provide better opportunities for British exporters.

I made a speech in New York a week ago, during which I indicated some areas in which our trading relationships might be improved. I have put copies in the Library of the House.

I was hoping for a more general report. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether future negotiations will be bilateral or within the context of the EEC which is making purchases? There are obstacles, including tariffs and quotas, and in particular quota restrictions on steel. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the latest position?

We have just discussed the subject of steel, and as a Community we have made strong representations on the subject of special steels. I referred to this matter in a recent speech and on other occasions. We have discussed this matter recently in bilateral talks with the United States Government, and we shall also be discussing these matters in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that economic opportunities in the United States are of importance to all parts of the United Kingdom, not only to Great Britain?

I do indeed.

What progress, if any, has been made towards reaching international agreement on standards for motor cars, bearing in mind recent events in the United States which may well be to the detriment of the British car industry?

My hon. Friend will know that this subject arises in a number of parts of the world. We shall take up with the United States Government, and indeed with any other Government, the standards that tend to operate as non-tariff barriers against our exports.

As President-elect Carter has shown himself such a keen exponent of pursuing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will the Secretary of State find out whether Mr. Carter has read the Coleman Report on Concorde, and, if he has not, will he invite him to do so? Will he also ask Mr. Carter whether his future pronouncements on Concorde will be based on fact rather than fancy and prejudice?

I am sure that the President-elect of the United States will take seriously the evidence at Dulles Airport, Washington, in regard to arrivals and departures of Concorde which are acceptable on environmental grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to support the representations made to the Commission of the EEC in May by the whole of the bearing industry in the EEC for protective measures to be taken against low-priced imports from Japan and the COMECON countries; and if he will ascertain when the Commission's response is likely to be published.

Following an application for Community anti-dumping action against imports of roller bearings from Japan by the Committee of the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the case has now been accepted for full investigation at Community level.

In my Question I was referring not to anti-dumping but to the massive memorandum submitted by the European bearings industry to the Commission in May, which clearly shows that the Japanese share of the bearings market in Europe and the United States has been rising alarmingly in the past few years as a result of a deliberate price-cutting policy by Japanese industry. Will Her Majesty's Government make clear to Japanese industry that, unless it increases the price of its exports and voluntarily controls their volume, Her Majesty's Government will have no alternative but to impose import controls?

The Government have made it clear that they are ready to consider a policy of selective import controls, but in this case it was British industry which chose the anti-dumping route. Having combined with the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the British Government are prevented, now that we are part of the EEC, from taking action under Article 26 of the EEC antidumping regulations in terms of independent national action. We shall support the British industry in its representations, and as members of the EEC anti-dumping committee we shall consider the evidence obtained and the remedies to be applied.

Will the Minister reconsider what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said in her supplementary question? Is it not a fact that all the evidence was supplied to the Department early in 1976 and that what happened was that because the Department sat on the matter it went to the Commission? Is not the point at issue the price of the dumped imports rather than quota controls? Unless action is taken, are not the prospects for our industry severe?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of dumped prices, which is the precise subject now being investigated at Community level. There were difficulties in regard to material injury criteria and in obtaining the support of the other major bearing manufacturers on the original application. Furthermore, there was a problem in obtaining the updated price relativities and discounts then ruling in Japan. That information took a couple of months to obtain, and by the time that evidence came forward application was being made at Community level.

Is the Minister aware of the general dissatisfaction in the House about his answers on dumping questions concerning textiles, footwear and now ball bearings? When is a decision likely to be taken on anti-dumping action against the importation of ball bearings?

I hope that the case will be quickly pursued and a conclusion reached at an early stage. We shall do all in our power to ensure that that happens. A total of 22 investigations has been pursued by the EEC since 1970. Aside from four which are now being investigated, of the remaining 18 some 15 secured satisfactory price undertakings.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to future landing facilities for private aircraft at airports in the London area.

I am awaiting the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning on aerodrome facilities for general aviation in South-East England, following consultations which they are now undertaking with all those concerned.

What consideration has been given to the continuing use of Gatwick Airport by private aircraft, and has the alternative of Northolt Airport been considered?

The question of Gatwick has been considered by the British Airports Authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Authority published a policy statement following consultations on the subject of Heathrow and Gatwick. As for the general policy on whether Northolt or anywhere else may he used to the greater advantage of general aviation, the hon. Gentleman must await the results of consultations now taking place and also the national airports strategy which is being undertaken by the Government.

Does not the Minister realise that if we go on waiting and waiting private flying, particularly commercial private flying associated with the business of taxi transportation and the like, will suffer severely? Does he accept that this area of transportation is in a much worse position in London than in most other industrial capitals, and will the Government do something about the situation quickly?

The question of general aviation is complementary to the development of a national airports strategy. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were directed more broadly to take in the consultations on a national airports strategy. If, however, he is arguing that we should not engage in consultations but instead should embark on the policies pursued by the Conservative Government, the House will recognise that that would be utter folly.

In connection with the national airports strategy, may I ask my hon. Friend, when he is asked to comment on the application for an extension of the runway at Leeds-Bradford Airport, to cause his Department to give the matter immediate and urgent attention?

That issue does not arise out of this Question. My hon. Friend should make representations concerning this matter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and myself.