asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his intention towards the Laker Skytrain service following the loss of his appeal against the High Court finding that he acted outside his powers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he now proposes in relation to the Laker Airways Skytrain project.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now support the introduction of the transatlantic Skytrain by Laker Airways Ltd.

Before I answer, may I offer to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade for his absence this afternoon? He is presiding over a joint Anglo-Iranian ministerial commission in Iran. I hope that the House will accept his apologies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Skytrain issue is not the only matter in which the Government have been caught acting unlawfully? Is he aware that Mr. Justice Mocatta's judgment was that the whole of the single designated policy for airlines on long-haul routes is unlawful, and that that is the policy on which the Minister is renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement? Will he get himself straightened out?

The hon. Gentleman, in his rather curious characteristic way, has highlighted some of the difficult issues here. The judgment of the Court of Appeal clearly has far-reaching consequences—far wider than the issue of Sky-train, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Therefore, it is right that the transcript of the judgment—which was received by Ministers only on 22nd December—should be fully considered so that all the implications can be weighed up. That is only reasonable.

Does not the Minister agree that last Friday's announcement of President-elect Carter's expansionist measures gives ground for believing that there will be the expansion of North Atlantic air traffic which was a previous precondition of his approval? As Laker Airways could mount this operation with a one-way fare of £65 at 30 days' notice, is not that a reason for giving the go-ahead now?

The hon. Gentleman is inviting my right hon. Friend and me simply to bypass the important constitutional implications of the judgment, and that we are unable to do. As to the wider issue of President-elect Carter's economic policies, I do not know that he made his statement on the basis of the Skytrain issue.

Is it still the Minister's guess that if the Skytrain service were to proceed it is almost certain that Pan-American Airways, TWA and British Airways would seek to introduce a similar service?

That is a hypothetical question.

With the modesty that becomes a newcomer to the trade scene, and hoping that I last slightly longer than did my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), may I make two comments? I do not think that there is any need to wait for the transcript of the court's decision. The facts are well known and appear in The Times Law Reports. The Government must make an early decision whether to take the matter to the House of Lords, to bring forward legislation to correct the abuse of ministerial powers or to reconsider the whole question. These are, as the Minister says—

Order. I am always very kind to a maiden speaker, but this is Question Time.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away with my new responsibility. The abuse of power by Ministers is a very serious matter. When will the Government come forward with their decision?

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? He has already exceeded the stay in office of his predecessor, and I hope that he will have many happy years in Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how much industrial investment has been made by the eight Common Market countries in the United Kingdom since 1973; and how much United Kingdom investment has been made in the eight Common Market countries in the same period.

In 1973 and 1974 EEC net direct investment in the United Kingdom, excluding oil and insurance, totalled £177 million, of which £53 million was in manufacturing industry. In the same period United Kingdom net direct investment in the EEC, excluding oil, totalled £886 million, of which £440 million was in manufacturing industry. Similar information for 1975 will become available later this year, and for 1976 in 1978.

On a quick calculation, does not that mean that Britain has invested in the Community five times as much as the Community has invested in this country? Does not that mean that, apart from our appalling EEC trade deficit, we are also putting into the EEC employment which might well have been put into this country to help to reduce unemployment?

The hon. Gentleman is right in his quick arithmetic. The differential is of the order of five to one. I must point out that there was a significant adverse differential in investment flows before 1973. It was then of the order of four to one, but it is true that it has become somewhat worse. As for the effect on employment in the United Kingdom, no doubt there has been some impact on jobs but much of the investment has been in areas which will not affect employment to the same degree—notably distribution, finance, mining, construction and transport. I wish to make the point strongly that the issue is whether if we blocked investment to the EEC it would necessarily take place in the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend think that the figures he has given demonstrate one of the benefits to this country of Common Market membership?

In the short term they certainly do not, but it is only fair to say that it was expected that there would be disadvantages in the short term. The question is whether the long-term benefits actually materialise.

Is the Minister aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends think it is a tribute to the good sense of British business men that they are seeking to invest in one of the major and fastest-growing trading areas in the world? Will he confirm that dividends on overseas investments have played an important part in invisible exports, which have gone a long way to propping up Britain's financial situation?

It is true that the proportionate rate of return on investments in the EEC by British companies is higher than the rate of return on investments in the United Kingdom. I emphasise that while that is true there have been substantial reverse flows of disinvestment, which mean that the effect on the reserves has been positive. In terms of jobs, employment and growth, it is much more questionable where the balance of advantage lies, and we must examine these matters closely in future.

Does my hon. Friend recall that during the referendum campaign some Ministers, and one notably, forecast that if we remained inside the Common Market there would be a substantial loss of jobs which would arise primarily from the massive investment that would take place inside the Common Market? As my hon. Friend was closely allied with the campaign to get across the message about the loss of jobs, will he tell me whether it was his calculator that was used to find out how many jobs would be lost?

It is true that it was calculated during the campaign that there would be a net loss of jobs as a result of the flow of investment. To some extent this is less than the figures indicated because of the type of investment, but no doubt that has been the net effect in the short term. We now look for the longer-term effects, which may seek to balance that situation.

Is the Minister aware that he is giving a completely misleading series of answers to these questions and, therefore, acting irresponsibly when manufacturers and industrialists will be considering relative investment decisions? Will he give the unemployment figures in the other major economies of the EEC—for example, Italy, France and Germany? Will he tell us how much was invested in this country in £ sterling in 1973 by countries other than members of the EEC?

I have been asked a series of detailed questions that I cannot possibly answer straight away. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to neglect the concern that the Government and most reasonable and thinking people have in this country about the balance effects in terms of growth and employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will bring forward proposals to announce measures laying the burden for disproving a dumping charge on the importer of the goods.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he will announce further measures to improve anti-dumping procedures.

Our procedures have been improved. My officials and Customs and Excise are currently studying whether importers should be asked to give information on the prices of goods in the country of origin.

Will the Minister give us more specific details about how procedures have been improved? Is it not a fact that a great many people are now dissatisfied with the way in which dumping allegations are handled in this country? It seems that we go round this course every time we have Questions on these matters. It seems that all we get from the Minister is jaw, with no specific action. If the onus were placed on the importer to disprove dumping, would not that be fair, quick and beneficial to many sectors of British industry?

The truth of the matter is that we carry out anti-dumping investigations quickly and efficiently in the light of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969. I have looked at the debates that took place on that measure and it seems that the Opposition were relatively sleepy. They suggested no major amendments to the procedures that were implemented in the Act. It is wrong now to castigate the Government for acting in accordance with legislation that the Opposition at that time wholly accepted.

On what date will responsibility for anti-dumping measures pass from Her Majesty's Government and the House to the EEC?

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it will pass on 1st July of this year. However, we have recently enlarged our own Anti-Dumping Unit so that it includes 26 officials. We shall be keeping it in operation and using it to press those in Brussels to ensure that they take the same firm attitude as we do on anti-dumping.

Will my hon. Friend explain why his Department seems so reluctant to impose provisional duties when a prima facie case of dumping appears to have been made? When will his Department reply to the complaint about the dumping of Eastern European clothing that was made in March 1976 by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, a reply to which the federation is still waiting?

We have introduced a provisional charge to duty on Brazilian men's footwear. In October we made a similar provisional charge to duty on Spanish stainless steel as well as in respect of Eastern European alarm clocks. I recognise that the latter is not the most significant of industries, but it is important to employers and employees in that industry. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we have now reached provisional conclusions on the application by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation, which we shall be discussing this week with the federation.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that evidence of dumping has to be supplied by the industry concerned before the Government can investigate? Does he not think that the Government should have independent investigative powers?

We depend on information which industry has and which only industry can supply. That applies to the specific cases I have mentioned. There is expertise in Whitehall to work out whether there is justification for anti-dumping provisions. We are only too willing to discuss these matters with any industry and to assist it, especially in the use of posts overseas to gather necessary information.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the future development of Stansted Airport.

Our consultations on airports policy, which includes Stansted, should be completed within the next few months. I cannot anticipate what decisions the Government will reach after they have considered all the submissions made in the course of the consultations, about Stansted or any other airport.

Although the majority of people will probably not object in principle to a modest expansion of the traffic at Stansted, surely it is unreasonable, particularly in the light of the Roskill Report and the implications for urban growth, to permit unlimited expansion. Therefore, will my hon. Friend say quite clearly whether he is prepared to accept the principle of placing a ceiling on development, which I believe would be a good planning principle for applications concerning not only Stansted but all the London airports?

My hon. Friend knows very well that the consultation documents which have been issued by my Department have set out a whole variety of options which may be considered. In these circumstances, it would not be right for me to prejudge the report which will be made to the House in due course when all the submissions have been considered. As my hon. Friend knows, I have invited him to lead a delegation to see me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment so that all the submissions on Stansted that he wants to represent can be put forward.

Will the Under-Secretary of State accept that what the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has said applies equally to Luton and that the whole question of the smaller airports in the Home Counties needs to be reconsidered in the light of the great population increase in recent years and the unexpected increase in air traffic? These airports would not have been situated where they are had those developments been expected. Therefore, will the Government recognise that airport policy needs to be settled on a regional basis and not by building up the smaller local airports?

What I have said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) applies equally to all the other airports which are the subject of the consultations which are going on. The Government have, for the first time in the history of this country, been trying to devise a national airports strategy. That needs to be approached carefully and profoundly, and that we are doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is now able to indicate his intentions with regard to the document recently submitted to him by the British Insurance Brokers' Council.

I have already said that I welcome the BIBC's proposals. Wide consultation will, however, be necessary. I hope to make a fuller statement later this month.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that, if a practical system of control can be evolved by the industry, that would be preferable to a system of control by a Government Department?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from views which I have expressed before, I see no reason why a system of self-regulation, properly administered in accordance with approved criteria which are found to be practical, should not be at least as effective as any Government licensing system. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment invited the brokers' organisations to put forward proposals, but I cannot say that the alternative has been totally ruled out.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the appointment of the next Chairman of the British Tourist Authority.

Before Sir Alexander Glen's present term of office expires.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people think that Sir Alexander has been an outstandingly successful Chairman of the BTA? Many people hope that the Government will appoint to this important job a man of equally high calibre. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not do a Cable and Wireless on the tourist industry and appoint a party hack to this job rather than a man with some experience in the relevant industry?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous comment about Sir Alexander Glen, which I entirely support and endorse. As to his snide comment about the person whom the Government will appoint to this position, I can assure the hon. Member that we shall engage in the normal consultations which take place and that we shall appoint someone who is of equally high calibre and who, I am sure, will perform well the considerable and difficult duties of the BTA under its new constitution.

Would it not be a good idea to appoint the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) to this job? We would get much more work done in the House if we got rid of him.

The hon. Gentleman has ruled himself out of consideration by his comment about the appointment of a party hack.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as one who was instrumental in reappointing Sir Alexander, I pay tribute to the enthusiasm that he and his team have applied to their task? On the question of the appointment of another chairman, has not the time come to have a new look at the whole structure of the tourist industry, and possibly the Government's responsibility for it, with a view to giving to this vital sector of the economy the priority that it enjoys in other countries?

The industry already has considerable priority, particularly in view of the enormous foreign exchange earnings which it wins—a net surplus probably well in excess of the £¼ billion which it earned last year. We are changing the constitution of the BTA by means of the devolution Bill, but I shall take into account any recommendations which the hon. Gentleman makes about structural changes.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made in the negotiations for renewal of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and if he will make a statement.

The first round of discussions about the future of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement took place in the GATT Textiles Committee in Geneva in December. There will be a further round of discussions at the end of February.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any report, if only an interim report, on how the negotiations are going, particularly as regards spreading the load more fairly by shifting it from the United Kingdom on to other developed countries, especially European countries? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the renegotiation is regarded by the textile industry as its last chance of survival and that if it is not taken it will face total despair?

Shifting the burden on to other European countries is already being increasingly achieved under the burden-sharing arrangement of the original MFA, which is still in operation.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the British textile industry wants the Government to adopt and maintain an extremely tough attitude in these negotiations? Does he also accept that any built-in increase in percentage terms, as we have endured in recent years, would be wholly unacceptable to the British textile industry? Is there not a need for a built-in regulator to take account of countries such as ours which have high import penetrations at times of economic recession?

I am aware, and the Government are aware, of the great importance of these negotiations to the textile industry. It is because we are aware of the effect of the growth rate of 6 per cent. each year under the existing MFA at a time of recession that we have put the emphasis in the negotiations on a lowering of the quota growth rates in particular circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall place great emphasis on securing these objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how much of the credit of £950 million for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has now been taken up.

The total value of contracts placed to date under the agreement is approximately £54 million. Other deals now in negotiation will add substantially to this figure when the related commercial and financial agreements are signed.

Does the Secretary of State for Trade agree with the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary that a danger is involved in the transfer of resources from the West to the Soviet Union in that it may enable the Soviet Union to fulfil its objectives in the Third World and produce goods to be sold back to the West at dumped prices?

We will take effective measures where the evidence is given to us by industry that there is dumping by a State-trading country such as the Soviet Union. In relation to the transfer of resources, there is a COCOM embargo which has been in operation for a long time. We strictly adhere to it. But as regards items in which there is no security or technological content, it is wholly in the interests of a Western country such as this one to get the advantages of trade with the Soviet Union, and we intend to use the rest of the credit under this agreement if we can.

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that by giving the Soviet Union credit at lower interest rates than those which can be obtained by British industry for its own development we are giving it an unnecessary advantage? Does not this operate against the employment situation in this country?

This question has been raised in each of the last three Question Times of the Department of Trade, and I give the Opposition credit for their perseverance though not for their ideologtcal myopia. Their attitude on the issue is not held by British industry. We did not originate the terms of this agreement. We were following the competition which had already been set by France, Italy and Japan. If British industry is to have a competitive edge in the Soviet Union, we have no alternative but to follow our competition down that road, although no further.

No ideological question is involved. What is the purpose of financing Russian industry—which is, in effect, what this means—by giving it credit at about 7 per cent. interest through money which costs the Government nearly 15 per cent. to borrow? That money is then used to manufacture textile goods which come back to this country and destroy jobs in the North-West and throughout the North of England. No ideological question is involved. This is purely a practical matter.

If our exporters are to gain a proper share in major contracts, there is no alternative but to supply competitive credit and interest rates in line with what the Soviet Union has been offered. We took great care to find out just what the Soviet Union was being offered. The figures are confidential, but I assure the House that we have in no sense improved on them and have no intention of doing so. The effect of following the Opposition's suggestions would be to lose the trade in these important contracts to other countries, and the Russians would still have their machinery with which they would be able to export to our markets.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will introduce a licensing system in respect of individual imports of paper products entering the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom's former EFTA partners under the duty-free quota system.

I see no reason for doing so.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that a system which decides whether to impose duties solely by reference to the amount of imports during the year perhaps leads to a rush to import early in the year and an artificial level of imports during the year as a whole? Is it possible to have a system which determines whether a particular batch of imports is necessary or unnecessary in deciding whether to impose duties?

The EEC-EFTA agreement as it affects paper and board products states clearly that there are to be no new quantitative restrictions between the Community and EFTA countries. I understand my hon. Friend to be recommending that we should examine the question of the allocation of the quotas. I am prepared to do so, although I must point out that we would have to state clearly in such a declaration exactly the criteria by which we allocated quotas and that for practical reasons that would be difficult and would also involve administrative costs. I will, however, look at the suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has completed his study of the Stock Exchange inquiry report on the company SUITS; and if he will make a statement.

At this stage I have nothing to add to the answers which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I gave on 6th December last.

Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the prima facie evidence of breaches of Sections 27 and 33 of the Companies Act 1967? Will he also undertake to examine the books of some of the shady outfits where Sir Hugh Fraser is supposed to have squandered his money, such as London gambling clubs and the Scottish National Party?

I assure my hon. Friend that both the Lord Advocate and I will pay consideration to all relevant matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what, at the latest date, are the figures for trade, both imports and exports, with EEC countries.

In the first three quarters of 1976, United Kingdom exports to the rest of the EEC were valued at £6,091 million on a balance of payments basis. The value of United Kingdom imports from the Community in the same period was £7,584 million.

Is it not fair to say that the current deficit is about £2,300 million per annum, which is even worse when taking into account the fact that no benefits have arisen out of the so-called devaluation of the pound? Does not my hon. Friend agree that, far from the 55 million people of the United Kingdom benefiting from our membership of the Common Market, the only people who have benefited have been those like the former Prime Minister, who got a £40,000 bouquet, and Roy Jenkins, who is new on £1,000 a week?

My hon. Friend is about right in the size of the deficit, which is running at slightly over £2 billion a year. He is not entirely right in saying that there has been no improvement or that there is no prospect of some improvement. In the first three quarters of last year, our exports to the other EEC countries rose faster than their exports to us Consequently our deficit with them reduced by about £300 million while our deficit with the rest of the world worsened by about £500 million. The question is how we can improve the situation further. That depends on the industrial strategy, on accelerated investment and on other matters which are really the responsibility of the Department of Industry.

Is not the reason why other countries of the EEC are doing well and we are doing badly simply a matter of productivity and taxation? When will the Government stop blaming the rest of the world for our faults, reduce company taxation and reintroduce incentives to people to work harder?

When the Conservative Government reduced taxation in 1971, 1972 and 1973, the deficit with the rest of the EEC rose even faster than it has done in the last two years. Our productivity is very comparable at present with the productivity of other EEC countries, but it is only in the last trade cycle that we have equalled their growth rate in productivity. In previous cycles, we were significantly below.

Is it not clear that the country was misled in the referendum campaign by hon. Members on both sides of the House who said that if we remained in the EEC there would be jobs for the boys, higher investment and greater opportunities for all? Has not that claim proved to have been an absolute lie, with our people not better off but worse off because of our continued membership?

I am sure that every hon. Member will draw his own conclusions in the light of the facts to which my hon. Friend has referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement regarding his policy on import substitution.

It is a major objective of the industrial strategy, and of our agricultural and energy policies, to ensure that no opportunity is lost for the development of competitive domestic production.

Will my hon. Friend accept that that is not a satisfactory answer? When will the Government introduce a positive policy of import substitution and not rely on the present industrial strategy, which is not working because it takes no account of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods?

My hon. Friend should not be so dismissive about our industrial strategy. There are nearly 40 sector working parties covering 45 per cent. of our manufactured output. It is for the industry and the unions to come to decisions which they will implement—in other words, it is a matter for them rather than for the Government. They are now looking at objectives in terms of the share of domestic and overseas markets in the next three to five years. This is a policy of deliberate import substitution.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that import substitution is as important an aspect of trading policy as export promotion? Therefore, why does the Department of Trade consistently emphasise export promotion while at the same time systematically ignoring import substitution?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we have now set in hand this large exercise in industrial strategy. Although it will not have an effect in the immediate future, I expect that it will have an effect in the medium term.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress he has made to date in preventing the dumping of textiles into the United Kingdom.

Anti-dumping duties have been imposed on ladies' rubberised raincoats from Hong Kong and on polyester fibre from Romania. Anti-dumping investigations are proceeding in cases on suits from Eastern European countries and on PVC-coated fabrics from Hungary and East Germany.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of competition from Hong Kong, a major section of the British shirt industry loses money on almost every shirt it produces? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do about the situation, since it is obvious that we cannot allow it to continue any longer?

I appreciate the severe difficulties that exist over the importation of shirts from Hong Kong. However, the hon. Gentleman's Question relates to the dumping of textiles. I do not think he is suggesting that these items are dumped. The subject of quotas is governed by the recent bilateral agreement entered into by the EEC in Hong Kong.

Is the Minister also aware that the anti-dumping requirement that it is necessary to prove that a shirt sold here is cheaper than a similar item sold in Hong Kong is made even more difficult by the problem of comparability? Since we do not wear the same type of shirts as those worn by people in Hong Kong, how does the hon. Gentleman intend to tackle the problem?

If we do not wear the same types of shirts as do people in Hong Kong, the problem does not arise because we do not import such items.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will set out the broad lines of the Government's foreign trade policy.

Our general policy is to work for a balanced expansion of world trade.

If that is a succinct summary of the Government's foreign trade policy, why has our country's trade been in substantial deficit on current account ever since February 1974, and what do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation beyond what has already been done?

The United Kingdom was, of course, in substantial deficit on current account well before February 1974. The last time we were in substantial surplus was as a result of the policies of the previous Labour Government. As regards action by which we hope that we shall be able to secure a surplus, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the forecast of perhaps the chief independent economic forecasting agency in the United Kingdom, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, suggesting that this year we might have a surplus—possibly the forecast was slightly optimistic—of nearly £5 billion.

May I wish you a happy new year, Mr. Speaker? May I ask the Minister whether, in examining the Government's foreign trade policy, he will look at the incorrect gearing of credits to the amount of credit taken up, as was so evident from his reply relating to the credit outstanding to the Soviet Union. It surely must be wrong that 72 per cent. of that credit is still outstanding when the money allocated could be used to give credits for other foreign trade deals in other parts of the world.

We had assurances last year from Mr. Gromyko, which were endorsed by Academician Kirillin and also by the Deputy Trade Minister, Mr. Komarov, on my recent Moscow visit, that the Russians fully intend to take up the credits in the near future.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our present visible trade deficit with the EEC accounts for the whole of our current trade deficit with the rest of the world?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make it his policy to assist British exporting firms by relaxing the terms of the three main forms of export guarantee, as suggested to him in correspondence by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun).

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to his letter of 15th December in which he raised problems faced by exporting firms which are unable to recover time-expired tender and performance bonds. He will by now have received my hon. Friend's letter of 6th January. I have asked ECGD to make further inquiries into these problems and to discuss them with the companies concerned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Why should ECGD performance guarantees be confined to contracts amounting to over £1 million when most contracts are for a smaller sum? Secondly, will the Minister examine the evidence in many countries that British bank guarantees can be called upon long after the expiry date? Is he aware that that situation is causing serious difficulty at the Sir James Farmer Norton & Co. Ltd. engineering firm, and that other firms have had difficulties in obtaining guarantees?

I understand that the commercial bond market can satisfactorily handle bonds below £1 million in value. We have had no sustained pressure to reduce the ceiling. Up to June 1975 the ceiling was £20 million, the figure then dropped to £2 million, and in November 1976 it went down to £1 million. I do not think there is any pressure to reduce it further. The banks have indicated that they can handle these matters satisfactorily. I appreciate that there is a problem because of the reluctance of clearing banks to regard bonds as expired unless they are physically returned to them. There is some doubt about the ability of overseas beneficiaries to make calls on the bonds if the figure has expired. I believe that the unfair calling cover introduced in November last year is relevant, and it is now available for all contracts regardless of size. We intend to discuss the matter with the firm mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister say what has happened to the promised review of the cost escalation cover provided by the ECGD, and in particular regarding the £2 million limit and the impossibility of aggregating several large units within that figure, although the contract price may be over £2 million, as in the case of the contract providing for the supply of turbines to Ontario?

Cost escalation cover is a different matter from the tendering of performance bonds.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many trade delegations visited Nigeria in 1975 and 1976.

There were nine trade missions to Nigeria in 1975 and nine in 1976 officially sponsored by the British Overseas Trade Board.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the information he has given is very welcome? Is he also aware that Nigeria is now the largest and most rapidly expanding African trading partner of this country? Will he take note of this matter and abandon the Department's morbid obsession with expanding trade with South Africa?

My hon. Friend is right in his comment since £700 million of trade is carried out with Nigeria as against over £600 million with South Africa. Trade missions are assisted by the BOTB, but without any direction from the Government. This merely reflects the wishes of industry in choice of market. I take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade to what extent the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC is responsible for the worsening of the United Kingdom balance with other EEC countries since entry.

It is not possible to identify separately the effects of our entry to the Community from other major influences on the pattern of our trade, except that there has been some switching of our sources of supply, particularly in regard to foodstuffs, after entry to the EEC in 1973.

May I also, Mr. Speaker, wish you a happy new year? Since the switch of resources mentioned in an earlier question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) seems to have played a part in maintaining a £2 billion deficit over a period of three years, and as there is no immediate sign of radical improvement, what advice is the Secretary of State for Trade tendering to his Cabinet colleagues concerning our continued membership of the EEC?

I believe that I have missed out up to now, Mr. Speaker, and may I also wish you a very happy new year?

As the shift in resources has been about 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. in our trade, and as the larger part of that shift has been in food—which is putting up the price of food in this country—would it not be a very good thing to shift some of that back to food elsewhere than the Common Market?

Ultimately that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I think I should leave it to him.

What steps is the Minister taking, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Industry, to improve the delivery of British motor cars to the Community? In particular, what steps is he taking to improve the availability of servicing and spares facilities?

All the British car firms—not only Leyland but also the three American multinationals—are rationalising their motor vehicle plans to take in the EEC, and they are certainly extending their distribution network. There have, however, been substantial imports from the European subsidiaries of these companies which account for about one-quarter of our total car imports. But, of course, there are also counterpart exports by the British companies to the EEC.

The Minister said earlier that we were merely following the French, Gemans and Italians in financing credits to the Soviet Union. Does he not think that it might be advantageous, rather than to follow our EEC partners, once in a while to do something new such as, for instance, offering low-interest loans to other East European countries such as Hungary and Poland to buy British aircraft rather than leave these massive loans in the hands of the Russians and not have them taken up?

That is a remarkable suggestion coming from a member of a party that has shown continuing and consistent opposition to COMECON trade. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we offer exactly the same conditions of credit and interest rates to our exporters to COMECON countries—where in 1975 we had a surplus of £100 million, and probably nearly £50 million last year—as we offer to exporters to other areas of the world.

In answer to earlier questions, the Minister gave the impression that the Government's arrangements for helping to promote trade and identify markets are all very satisfactory. Does he recall that the Select Committee on Overseas Development, in its report last year on the small area of the Caribbean, indicated that the present institutional arrangements for promoting British trade and investment, identifying markets and co-ordinating aid were totally inadequate? The Select Committee made a recommendation that a new trade development agency should be created. If that is true of the Caribbean, is it not also likely to be true of other regions? What are the Government doing to improve their own performance?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. An improvement in our balance of payments position to a degree reflects the adequacy of existing institutional arrangements. However, I am prepared to look at the proposal for a new trade agency. I am not being unfair when I say that this has been thought of before, and I know that there are practical difficulties about it. However, we shall certainly look at it.

The Minister indicated that we have exactly the same terms on our COMECON trade as we have in respect of other countries. I understood him to say earlier that the rate of interest on the Russian credit was confidential. Can he please say whether it is confidential or whether it is the same as our terms of other trade?

The question referred to COMECON, and there the conditions are exactly the same. With regard to the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement of February 1975, it is true that there are special terms in respect of that which merely reflect the competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he proposes further appointments to the board of the Aircraft Corporation; and if he will consider appointing someone from the South-West of England.

May I wish you a happy new year, Mr. Speaker, and tell the House that my right hon. Friend expects to announce further appointments to the Organising Committee for British Aerospace in due course. I will keep in mind what my hon. Friend has asked.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that further appointments to the board are needed, because we very much hope that vesting day will not be long delayed? The interests of the workers in the Bristol area would be protected by someone being appointed from the South-West. The workers feel that because of the undue delay over the Bill their interests are being neglected.

I wholeheartedly endorse all that my hon. Friend has said about getting the Bill through Parliament as soon as possible and getting the board set up. I am sure the workers in the industry will endorse that as well. In the meantime, I would say that members of the Organising Committee have so far been appointed on the basis of their personal suitability rather than because they represent particular interests or places.

I assure the Minister that there is no political motive when I endorse the Question and say that we in the South-West would be delighted to see an appointment made from that area. With regard to the Organising Committee, is it the intention of the Minister's Department to make statements to the House about the way in which it is proceeding? Can we be assured that the functional aspects of management will be properly analysed and appointments will be made to ensure that full managerial efficiency is obtained?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to what I said to my hon. Friend. With regard to the Organising Committee, I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman was not here on that late evening of 1st December when we had a full debate on these matters.

Will my hon. Friend impress upon the Organising Committee the importance of getting on with producing the HS146?

We are very much aware of the urgency of what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will endorse once again what has been said about the need to get the Bill through and to get the board set up to set about creating a new, prosperous future for the British aircraft industry.

While doing my best to ensure that we do not run out of Questions, may I refer the Minister to the fact that the British Aircraft Corporation has already sold BAC aircraft to one East European country? Will he give serious consideration to reallocating part of the funds of the Russian loan and, in consort with the Department of Trade, consider the possibility of financing further sales of British aircraft to countries, be they in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, that may well be attracted to the aircraft by the availability of long-term low-interest credits?

Although I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his expertise in keeping Question Time going, we do not need it. If he wants an answer to that question, why does he not put down a Question?