asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations the Government have received so far from trade unions against the majority report of the Bullock Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received to date on the Bullock Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received regarding the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy.

To date I and my Department have received 17 letters about the Bullock Report. None of these has been from a trade union.

Representations need not necessarily be made by letter. Would the Secretary of State agree that the work force has become demoralised by the continuation of pay restraint, by unemployment and by the manifest failure of the Government to adhere to any consistent industrial or commercial policy, and that they are therefore unlikely to be bought off with a couple of seats on the board?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a valuable comment at this point. I think that it is necessary to have a third phase. I regret the level of unemployment. I think that it would be desirable to have a system of worker directors.

In the context of representations, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the text of the speech last week of the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board, in which he pointed out the serious dangers of leaving middle management out of the participation process, describing them as "the odd men out"? In view of the recent Opinion Research Centre survey showing the serious decline in morale and motivation of middle management, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the interests of middle management are properly and fully taken into account in the process of consultation?

Yes, the position of middle management in the German system is one of the things that I discussed fully while I was there. It is certainly an important aspect of this matter. It is not necessarily true that a special constituency is the right approach, but it is certainly something that we shall consider.

Is the right hon. Member also aware of the considerable public hostility towards the idea that worker representatives on boards should be there by trade union appointment? Did he see the MORI survey reported in The Sunday Times some time ago, which showed that over 87 per cent. of all those polled opposed this method and that even 84 per cent. of trade unionists favoured election by all the employees of the company concerned?

I have seen that survey. I made it clear in my original statement when the Bullock Report was published that the method of selecting or electing worker representatives was a matter for consultation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that this important long-term decision should not be part of any short-term wage deal with the trade union movement? Will he assure us that he will do his best to make sure that it is not?

Certainly, and I notice that Mr. Murray said on television—I think I am quoting him correctly—that he did not regard this as any part of a shortterm deal. What we are going for here is a long-term settlement. That is why we are engaging in serious consultation.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever our views about the Bullock Report and industrial democracy generally, we would both agree, would we not, that a general tradeoff, with Bullock on one side and wages on the other, is highly unlikely when one remembers that some of the trade unions and their leaders are against Bullock and also against pay restraint? The argument is a fallacious one, to say the least.

I think that my hon. Friend's comments are very wise.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what differences he has discovered, at recent meetings he has had with EEC colleagues, between their machinery for worker participation and the majority proposals in the Bullock Report.

Most of our EEC partners have developed systems of worker participation suited to their own particular needs and traditions. Naturally there are many variations in the systems adopted in each country and between these and the majority proposals in the Bullock Report.

Is there any other country in the EEC where those who are allowed to vote on the principle of participation are subsequently specifically denied any say in the choice of who their representatives shall be? Will the Secretary of State understand that many of us who are interested in the successful outcome of the negotiations on industrial participation believe that this particular aspect of the Bullock Report makes a mockery of the phrase "industrial democracy"?

As far as I am aware, there is no other country which makes this particular provision in respect of the selection of worker directors. I have said that this is a matter which we must consider and consult about. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman wishes us a successful outcome to the discussions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in countries which have had Socialist government over the past few years the combination of industrial efficiency with worker participation in direction and Government help has been uniquely successful?

As a result of my visit to Germany, I certainly think that my hon. Friend's remarks are correct and that industrial democracy as operated there has been a significant element in the success of the German economy.

As the Secretary of State has said, there are a wide variety of different schemes in operation on the Continent. Is he aware that the Conservative Party cannot see why it is right to lay down a legislative framework? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by proposing legislation he cannot ensure the flexibility that is available on the Continent and which we wish to see in this country? Why does he wish to propose a legislative framework? We are against it.

I wish to propose a legislative framework because I think that there is no other basis upon which we are likely to have success. I am by no means certain that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that a legislative framework is inconsistent with flexibility. On the contrary, we would hope to work out a legislative framework which was consistent with flexibility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since his predecessor pushed hard to have a report by 14th December last year, we on this side of the House would be very dismayed if the Government were now to back off in respect of the early implementation of at least the essential elements of the Bullock Report?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. There is no question of backing off. We have said that we will provide legislative proposals to the House by the summer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the part of the TUC side of the Bullock Report which suggests that two to six weeks on a TUC residential course will qualify an employee to discharge the main line responsibility of a director of ICI when, as he will know, it normally takes 25 years, or does he accept the view of Commissioner Gundelach that employee directors function best on the stem of proven structure and that this normally takes up to 10 years to operate successfully?

If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that we cannot have worker directors who have not benefited from 10 to 25 years' training on the board, I do not agree. It is a feature of the experience of many people that they learn while working within their company. We are proposing to elect to boards, or to select for boards, people who have worked in the company and have experience in the way that it operates. I would not accept any of the types of bar that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if it is his intention to include provision for the appointment of audit committees in large companies as an element of the proposed Bill implementing the recommendations of the Bullock Committee; if the subject will be dealt with in the forthcoming White Paper; and if his Department favours the appointment of audit committees in advance of legislation.

We are examining proposals for audit committees alongside the more fundamental reappraisal of the structure of companies, including the composition and function of the board of directors, following publication of the Bullock Report. I cannot anticipate the outcome of this.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the question of the management audit is completely separate from the issues raised by the Bullock Report? Is he aware that in North America the practice of appointing audit committees is becoming almost automatic? Does he not think that legislation without delay in this country would be highly beneficial?

I am aware of the experience in the United States and Canada, and we are considering it. I cannot agree that the two matters are as separate as the hon. Gentleman suggests. When we are looking at legislation in the post-Bullock situation, it is right that we consider the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has been putting forward challengingly for some little time, and that we undertake to do.

Will the Minister give us some idea of the timing of the whole of the Bullock programme? Is there likely to be a debate in the House in the near future? I know that the hon. Gentleman will say that that is a matter for the Leader of the House. Is there to be a White Paper? What is the likely timing of the White Paper? Surely the hon. Gentleman owes it to both sides of industry to give them some indication of the Government's time scale for the negotiations and decisionmaking process following the Bullock Report.

As for the debate, the hon. Gentleman has guessed absolutely correctly. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised were dealt with by my right hon. Friend when he made his statement. The most immediate matter of concern is that consultation will be going ahead to see whether it is possible to arrive at a reasonable consensus.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade by what criteria he decides on flight paths for aircraft take-offs.

The main criteria which I have to take into account are safety, technical and economic factors, and the importance of minimising nuisance from noise to people on the ground.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the present split in the Mole Valley take-off flight path has brought some welcome relief to Hampton and Hampton Hill, it has made conditions unbearable for many people in Whitton, Twickenham, Teddington and Strawberry Hill, as he knows from the 400-plus complaints that he has received from my constituency, which has been more affected than any other? Will he examine what can be done to relieve those places? Will he consider sympathetically any scheme to do so that does not add substantially to the noise in Hampton and Hampton Hill?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there is a division of opinion among his constituents. I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposals that are forthcoming. We want to arrive at the best solution of a difficult problem that will benefit all those who are affected by aircraft noise.

Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account in the selection of routes the approach of saturation level from the point of view of many people on the ground? Does he agree that the growth in movements and the projected growth from Heathrow are such that we should be re-examining the question of a third London airport at Maplin?

The question of the third airport at Maplin, which was not commended by the vast majority of those in the House, does not arise from this Question. As for the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, that is a consideration that is relevant to our deliberations on this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many on the Benches behind him are getting a little sick and tired of the pettifogging tactics of some Opposition Members who are trying to gain cheap publicity? Does he appreciate that the best advice we could give him, were he to ask us, would be to continue with the policy of giving encouragement to quieter aircraft engines so that the problem can be tackled fundamentally and not in the nit-picking way that is advocated by certain Opposition Members?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's advice. I shall come to him whenever I think it appropriate to seek his advice. The experience of the Government in dealing with noise at London and other airports has far exceeded the value of the work done by their predecessors, as is indicated by the clear evidence that is now on the record.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will take steps to negotiate increased import quotas for Welsh manufactured woollen garments and clothes exported to Canada.

The EEC Commission has requested consultations under Article XIX of the GATT about Canadian quotas in certain clothing imports. I hope that this will result in early action to amend the restrictions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in recent years a number of companies in Wales have worked extremely hard to develop an export market in Canada and that the steps taken by the Canadian Government last November in imposing quotas at the 1975 level could hit those companies disastrously? Will he give an assurance that he will take up the matter with the Canadian Government directly and that the products of certain Welsh companies, such as tapestry and tweed, can be brought into the category of speciality lines, which I understand the Canadian Government are willing to consider as exemptions?

I am well aware of the significance of the Canadian action. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Canadian Government have recently announced special arrangements in respect of special hardship cases and speciality items. I shall consider the possible inclusion within that category of the items that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If I feel that that would be of value, I shall take up the matter direct with either the Canadian or the EEC authorities.

Why is it necessary for the Canadian Government to impose quotas on a trade of such low proportions? If they feel that that action is appropriate, could we not be a bit sterner in the imposition of import controls or quotas on textiles that come en masse into this country?

My hon. Friend is not quite right about the effect of the textile trade on Canada. In the first half of 1976 Canadian imports of garments increased by 52 per cent. over the same period in 1975, which was a considerably faster increase in textile imports in those categories into Canada than into the United Kingdom. My main answer to my hon. Friend is that we are already protected under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and the 13 bilateral restriction arrangements that we have made through the EEC which limit almost all textile imports from low-cost countries not only in cotton but in wools, manmade fibres and knitwear.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further progress has been made in renegotiating 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. At that meeting the EEC spokesman made a strong statement in favour of renewal of the arrangement with major changes. A further round of discussions is expected to take place in Geneva at the beginning of March.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that these negotiations are regarded as crucial to the future of the British textile industry? Will he give an undertaking that the British Government will continue to pursue a most vigorous approach to these negotiations and will not be persuaded by anyone to agree to a built-in increase in imports into Britain? Will he also arrange for a recession clause to be inserted into the agreement? Will he tell the House when he expects the negotiations to be concluded?

I agree entirely that the negotiations are crucial to the textile industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that our approach will bear that in mind. We are discussing our negotiating position within the European Community, but I think that the first statement of the Community's position was right. The particular points that my hon. Friend mentioned, such as a recession clause, are among the matters that we have in mind in renegotiating the agreement.

Is it not the case that the original agreement was based on a demonstrably false premise—namely, that the developed world would always require more textiles?

The original arrangement was based on the premise that the developing world and the developed world had to trade, but there must be controls if there is to be a possibility of survival for the British textile industry and the necessary process of adjustment.

Will my right hon. Friend please take note that the last Multi-Fibre Arrangement was regarded among the textile companies as being meaningless in many respects? Many of the quotas were far too high Will my right hon. Friend press for something that will help the hard-pressed textile industry in respect of low-cost imports in future?

We shall press for a renewed Multi-Fibre Arrangement with major changes along the lines discussed with both sides of the industry in this country. I do not accept my hon. Friend's statement that the existing agreement is meaningless. On the contrary, it has provided a valuable degree of protection for the industry.

As changes to the Multi-Fibre Arrangement are undoubtedly very necessary, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that burden-sharing within the Community is also very important? When is there to be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his European partners the present burden-sharing arrangements and our own view that these are not fair to Britain?

That is a matter that will arise when the present arrangement is renegotiated. The burden-sharing arrangements within the existing agreement are a valuable feature of it and are the sort of thing that we wish to see continue.

Has my right hon. Friend read the 31st January edition of the American magazine Business World, which clearly shows the fundamental difference of approach between the American negotiators and the British and EEC negotiators? The Americans are anxious to make political capital in countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Brazil, and the EEC negotiators are anxious to see that the last arrangement, which cost 400,000 jobs to the textile industry in this country, is not repeated.

I have not seen that edition of Business World. I am aware that the United States' approach to the negotiations is different from that of the European Community. But the level of penetration of the United States market is much lower than that of the Community market.

Will the Secretary of State disillusion his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who imagines that the textile industry is protected under the existing agreement? Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has a better appreciation of that matter than his colleague has. When negotiating another agreement, will the right hon. Gentleman please be certain to relate the level of imports in any year to the state of the market and secure a clear definition from all the signatories to that agreement of what constitutes a cottage industry, so that there can be no cheating under the guise of helping "cottage industries" which are nothing of the kind?

My hon. Friend is well aware of the problem, both as a Minister and as a constituency Member. I do not think that he needs any education on the nature of the current arrangements. Whether the details of the arrangements should require that trade be related to the state of the market is one of the matters under consideration in the present discussion. I know what the hon. Lady is referring to when she speaks of cottage industries. That is a matter which is under separate discussion in Brussels and Delhi.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if it is his policy to encourage third country trading by British merchant houses.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the recent restrictions on the use of sterling in third country transactions is making this type of trading particularly difficult, and that the more flexible and cheaper facilities offered by the United States and Continental banks mean that valuable confirming business that took place in London is in danger of being lost? Will the hon. Gentleman discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the way in which the new restrictions are operating, and particularly how they are affecting trading of this type?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give us some examples. I am well aware that the new exchange control rules announced on 19th November require British merchants to borrow foreign currency to finance merchanting operations involving third country transactions, but there is a limit to the extent to which we can afford to tie up our external reserves in trade that is not directly geared to the future of this country. But even in that respect I certainly hope that the Eurocurrency market centred in London will be able to provide sufficient foreign currency for such transactions. The banks have indicated that that is their expectation.

Whether or not the Under-Secretary is aware of it, it is the case that, because of our traditional relationships or the relative weakness of the pound against other currencies, some suppliers and producers will insist in dealing in sterling. As our foreign competitors can continue to do so, are we not, for the sake of this once-and-for-all gain, prejudicing permanent benefit to our invaluable invisible earnings by this rather short-sighted measure?

That is not the view taken by those dealing in this field, but if the hon. Gentleman can give me significant evidence we shall consider easing the arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will initiate an inquiry under Section 32 of the Companies Act 1967 into the affairs of Labour Party Properties Ltd.

This is a company limited by guarantee and, in the absence of issued share capital, the directors cannot be in breach of the disclosure provisions of Section 32 of the 1967 Act. There are, therefore, no grounds for such an inquiry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to this problem the company seems to have been appallingly badly managed, leading to possible negligence by the directors? Now that it is insolvent and probably trading illegally, does he not think that he should put aside any party bias and appoint inspectors to see what has gone wrong in this disastrous example of a property flop?

What is abundantly clear is that the hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry until he was sacked, had not taken the trouble to do his homework in this matter. It is clear that Section 32 has no relevance. As for the criteria for investigation under Section 165, neither I nor my right hon. Friend is in the least concerned with the identity of the directors or the aims and objects of the company, except in so far as they relate to an inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no part of the Labour Party's business to become property speculators, as apparently was the case way back in the 1960s, and that we should all now welcome the recent statement by the newly elected Labour Party Treasurer, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who has made it clear that under his stewardship we shall get out and honour our obligations?

I do not think that that has anything to do with me in my capacity as a Minister who may authorise an investigation under the Companies Acts. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that the company in question was at any time engaged, as my hon. Friend said, in propert speculation.

Will the hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, advise the Putney Labour Party which section of the Act it should use to try to recover the £40,000 it has lost in this wretched company? It has lost its headquarters as well, and the Minister should be concerned about that.

I am delighted, as the House will be, to know the hon. Gentleman's compassion for the Putney Labour Party. I have enough difficulty advising the Hackney, Central Labour Party, without becoming involved in the Putney Labour Party.

Has the company had any assistance from what is known as the "lifeboat" provided by the Bank of England, which, at a cost of several hundred millions of pounds, rescued a number of City companies two years ago?

I am aware of that lifeboat. My involvement as a shipping Minister is with lifeboats of another kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in renegotiating the Bermuda Agreement.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the present position of Bermuda Agreement negotiations with the United States of America.

An economic assessment bas been made by both sides, which makes it clear that our proposals will benefit both the airlines and the travelling public. During the recent visit of the United States Vice-President, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I made it clear that we hope the Americans will be prepared to negotiate meaningfully at the next round of talks on 28th February in London.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all wish him well in his efforts to secure a better share of the air transport traffic for British airlines, particularly on the North Atlantic? Has he yet discovered, however, that the United States authorities have no intention of restricting their airlines by a policy of single designation on the North Atlantic? Does he agree that his policy is therefore becoming impractical in that direction, as well as unlawful, in trying to force single designation in this country?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I note what he says about the impracticality of my proposals. I hope that he will not take on the responsibility of negotiating on behalf of the United States Government. They are perfectly capable of making that point themselves if they wish. I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing that I am doing in this field is unlawful. I have the right under the law to negotiate on this basis, and that is what I propose to do. Of course, it is open to the House, if hon. Members do not like the agreement when it is made, to express that view, but there is nothing unlawful in what I am doing.

Since the Sherman Anti-Trust Act expressly forbids United States carriers from entering into discussions with other airlines without the consent of the Federal Government, would it not be helpful for the British Government to allow British Airways to enter into such discussions, since that might persuade the Americans to be more flexible?

Airlines are, of course, represented in the discussions that take place in the course of this renegotiation. But if the United States Government have proposals to make—I hope that on 28th February they will have—they will be carefully considered.

In retrospect, does not the Secretary of State feel that these negotiations have succeeded only in souring our relations on civil aviation matters with the United States, particularly at a time when crucial decisions on Concorde are being approached? Does he not feel that the best line he can take is to suspend the discussions on the Bermuda Agreement and broaden our discussions with the United States to take on board such matters as Skytrain?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his remarks. Under the existing Bermuda Agreement we are entitled to fly Concorde into New York. Evidently one of the characteristics of the agreement is that it does not yet enable us to enforce that right. That is an inadequacy in the Bermuda Agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in trying to get a better agreement in that respect as well as in others.

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

With permission, I shall answer this Question at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total value of imports into the United Kingdom for the first nine months of 1976; and what proportions of this were manufactured goods, including machinery and transport equipment, fuel, food, drink and tobacco, raw materials and chemicals, respectively.

£22,000 million cif, of which manufactured goods, excluding chemicals, accounted for 47 per cent., chemicals 6 per cent., fuel 19 per cent., food 14 per cent., drink and tobacco 1 per cent. and raw materials 10 per cent.

Is the proportion of manufactured exports still too low, despite price competitiveness, because of the falling value of the pound or the fall in real wages? What is wrong? Has it been due to exporters lacking energy or to the protection of foreign domestic markets?

The level of manufactured exports is never something that any Minister in the Department of Trade can be entirely satisfied with. One would like to see it higher both relative to our total exports and in absolute terms. Of course the industrial strategy, which brings together both sides of industry with the Government, is precisely intended to increase our share both of domestic markets and of markets overseas. The reasons for the lack of success in the past are very deep, and the industrial strategy intends to get at the roots of some of these in the medium term.

In view of the speed with which the EEC dealt with the dumping of bearings, may we have an undertaking that before these matters go over to the EEC the Minister will get rid of many cases that are sitting in his Department?

We shall certainly endeavour to wind up as many of the cases as we can before 1st July 1977. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said about the EEC. However, most of the applications that we have had from British industry are concerned about exactly the reverse.

Why does the Minister want to see a higher proportion of Britain's exports represented by manufactured goods?

Because that is in the interests of Britain as a major manufacturing country within the West.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that concern is being expressed in certain parts of British industry about the apparent development of protectionism against British manufactured goods? For example, it is alleged that British Leyland is importing from the United States machinery the equivalent of which is being built in this country, while its goods are still restricted by the United States. Also, in the shipbuilding industry the intervention by the Irish Government denied a Merseyside contractor getting a contract even though the price he tendered was 40 per cent. below that of his nearest rival.

We are concerned about tariffs, particularly in respect of textiles but also in the case of certain manufactures that my hon. Friend has mentioned which are significantly higher than the tariffs on imports into this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that, consistent with the requirements laid on us under GATT, we do everything possible. particularly in the multi-lateral trade negotiations, to reduce overseas tariffs.

What machinery exists to protect British industry against the re-export of manufactured goods from our Common Market partners?

I am not quite clear as to the exact relation of that supplementary question to the Question on the Order Paper, but my understanding is that, under Section 7 of the Import Duties Act 1953, there are normal drawback facilities which apply in these cases. I am not aware of difficulties. Perhaps my hon. Friend will contact me about any of which he knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the position with regard to access for Concorde to Kennedy Air port.

I am disappointed that the New York authorities have not yet given their approval for Concorde. We and the French have been in touch with the United States Administration at the highest level. We are considering what further action might be appropriate.

Is it not the case that Air France and British Airways are operating Concorde to Washington with a 90 per cent. load factor? Does not the evidence to date indicate that the noise levels and the environmental impact do not constitute a problem? In these circumstances, I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman has said and suggest that he should bring the maximum pressure to bear on the new American Administration about what to us must be an entirely unsatisfactory and unacceptable delay. Would it not help if he pressed on with the introduction of services to the Far East, which might serve powerfully to concentrate American minds and also the minds of those considering orders for Concorde in that part of the world?

We are bringing pressure to bear on the United States Government. We have indicated to them that this is a matter with which public opinion both in this country and, we believe, in France is deeply concerned. The development of services to the Far East is a matter for other countries besides this one and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are certain problems. I do not think that we should be diverted from the present problem of getting Concorde into New York as our principal objective in the development of this aircraft's international routes.

Has not the "dirty tricks brigade" in New York had the field to itself long enough? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and as the previous American Federal Administration were known to be helpful, will the right hon. Gentleman put it to President Carter that we shall regard it as a test of the sincerity of his commitment to fair play that the trial authorised by former Secretary Coleman should be allowed to take place as soon as possible, and that that trial will disprove all the fabrications by the anti-Concorde industry in New York?

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we have made our feelings plain to the United States authorities at the highest level. I would not agree that the field has been left to the "dirty tricks brigade". On the contrary, a successful exhibition organised by the Consuls-General of France and Britain has persuaded a considerable segment of influential New York opinion that it would be valuable if Concorde were allowed into New York.

Is my right hon. Friend pushing energetically enough for the inauguration of regular flights to the Far East and Australia, since it is highly desirable to get this matter settled as soon as possible?

Yes, we are pressing. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend must remember that there are problems regarding transit of India which are not yet resolved, and there are also problems relating to the availability of aircraft and trained crews. The question we have to decide is where our priorities lie. I have indicated that in my judgment—and I think that British Airways agree—the first priority is to get Concorde into New York.

Is the Secretary of State aware that our negotiating position is very strong in this matter? Is he further aware that he has the full support of the Conservative Party for getting Concorde into New York and that we wish him the best success in his endeavours?

I am grateful to the hon Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the estimated gross foreign currency earnings attributable to United Kingdom tourism, the amounts spent by United Kingdom citizens on holidays abroad and the resultant balance on the tourist account, for the years 1975 and 1976 respectively.

With permission, I will circulate this information in the Official Report.

Is it not clear from that reply that, at a time when there has been little else to cheer about, the growth of tourism in the past year has been one of our success stories? What positive ideas do the Government have for encouraging the tourist industry and this healthy trend?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remark that this is one of Britain's great success stories. Indeed, I myself recently said so loud and clear on television. On the question of improvements, we have the tourist guidelines which we brought in in November 1974, and these are gradually coming to fruition in conjunction with new policies about which, I hope, we shall soon be able to make an announcement, particularly in respect of the so-called "fragile" areas.

What?

For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, that is to promote the potential of tourism in the development areas.

The Government are blocking a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) to make Scottish banknotes legal tender. In the light of that, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it would be legal for any tourist to take an unlimited quantity of Scottish banknotes out of the United Kingdom, since the Government would regard it merely as a suitcase full of waste paper?

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

Why do the Government persist in spending so much on promoting tourism in Scotland and Wales compared with the amount spent in England?

What my hon. Friend says is not entirely true inasmuch as, under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, which includes development areas, the funds we have cover the north of England as well as Wales and Scotland. I am aware of the point that the per capita expenditure is much lower in England, but that is because most of England is not in development areas, whereas almost the whole of Scotland and Wales is.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the balance of funds in respect of tourism in Wales is very strongly on the positive side? Will he also confirm that the funds given to the Wales Tourist Board are very much less than the funds given to the Irish Tourist Board, and that if we were to get the equivalent in Wales a still stronger balance of pay. ments could be achieved there?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the proposals to help the export efforts of the electrical power plant industry made in the CPRS Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what conclusion he has reached on the CPRS Report into the power generating industry with respect to further assistance for exports.

The Government are considering very carefully the recommendations of the CPRS Report on the United Kingdom power plant industry, and the question of export assistance is part of that consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the CPRS Report made it clear that a stable home ordering programme is a condition of export success? Is he aware also that the report made certain comments about turnkey contracts and export finance which require very detailed talks? Is he further aware that, despite the deletion of some parts of the report on, I am sure, legitimate grounds of commercial confidentiality, it is no secret that many of our competitiors in this area cheat? What is my hon. Friend doing about it?

Questions on a steady domestic ordering programme and the other main recommendations of the CPRS Report are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The question of export aid in regard to turnkey problems is a matter for the National Enterprise Board, which is carefully examining it. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement very soon on the question of general export aids, but I cannot prejudge today the outcome of our study of the report. The question of practices by our overseas competitors in respect of assistance for power plant exports is also one into which we are looking carefully. If my hon. Friend has any evidence, we will take it up with the countries concerned.

Will not my hon. Friend accept that "soon" must mean soon—in other words, the end of the month or thereabouts—if we are to defeat the problems faced by the industry? Does he not accept that there are fears that overseas competitors, particularly on Middle East contracts, are putting out hard-nosed, commercial propositions masquerading as aid? Will he take up this matter if specific examples are brought to his notice?

I have already indicated that we will take up these matters if they are brought to our notice. On the subject of the mixing of aid concessions and hard-nosed trade credit, we are aware that in France the policy involves crédit mixte, a system which we do not operate in this country on the reasonable ground that it leads to war in terms of export subsidy. We believe that the better policy is to try to obtain international agreement to withdraw such aid. Where there are particular cases in which softer terms are offered, the ECGD will examine the matter without prejudice. Where we feel that it is right and proper, we shall match such an effort.

Does the Minister believe that to force the power plant industry into one massive monopoly supplier will assist the consumer?

That was the recommendation of the CPRS Report, and we are examining it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will issue a general direction to British Airways to present him with proposals for the reorganisation of management on industrial common ownership principles.

No, Sir, but I am considering how industrial democracy might be best applied in British Airways.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what is proposed in the Question is a more democratic system of management than anything proposed in the Bullock Report and is especially suitable to publicly-owned industry, of which British Airways is such an outstanding example?

Present experience is confined to small and medium-sized firms rather than to major nationalised industries, but my hon. Friend's comments will be taken into account.

Would the Minister like to know that I agree with the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) that such a structure would be much more democratic than the structure envisaged in the Bullock Report? If the Minister changes his mind and gives such a direction, will he ask the board of British Airways to recommend where employees are to raise the capital to purchase British Airways from the taxpayer?

I am gratified that the hon. Gentleman has some form of agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) in making more democratic the structure of the management board of British Airways. However, the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks were a littte cynical and not at all constructive.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will publish a statement on his policies for import substitution.

The Government are concerned to ensure that every opportunity is taken to stimulate competitive home production. Our work on the industrial strategy and our agricultural and energy policies are structured with this consideration in mind.

Does my hon. Friend accept that some of us are disturbed at the silence of the Department of Trade on this subject? Does he appreciate that many of us believe that import substitution is as important a part of trade policy as is export promotion, and that we look forward to the day when the Department will establish a unit and a plan for import substitution?

I agree that import substitution is the other side of the coin of export promotion. My hon. Friend should be assured that we have a significant input in the Department into industrial strategy. The action ultimately to be taken in industry is discussed by the three sides. We hope that there will be a significant increase in the share of domestic and overseas markets that can be operated within the 40 sectors that are being examined.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has completed his study of the Stock Exchange inquiry report into the company SUITS; and what action, if any, he intends to take.

In the light of the evidence in my possession, I have concluded that there are no good grounds for appointing inspectors under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not yet concluded his inquiries into the matter.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that all the findings of his investigation are passed on to the Lord Advocate, who is in charge of prosecutions in Scotland, because if Sir Hugh Fraser or anybody else involved in breaking the law is seen to be getting away scot-free it will bring the law into disrepute by encouraging people to believe that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

There is.

My Department has acted in close liaison with the Department of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and all relevant information has been passed to him. Any action that he takes must be a matter for him and not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade for how long negotiations on arrangements for imports of women's and children's sandals from Poland and Czechoslovakia have been going on in order to settle the 1977 quota.

The European Commission invited Poland and Czechoslovakia towards the end of last year to enter into negotiations about restraining their exports of women's and children's sandals to this country.

Is the Minister aware that some of my hon. Friends and I came to his Department in August to discuss the subject of sandals but that since that time well over 1 million extra pairs have been dumped in this country? Does that not make a mockery of the negotiations?

That contradicts what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the rapidity of negotiations organised by the EEC. The EEC has a responsibility in regard to the intergovernmental bilateral considerations, of which the hon. Gentle. man is well aware. A satisfactory arrangement was reached in regard to Romania, but in the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia there have been difficulties in organising discussions with the EEC, but I hope that they will begin soon. I give the assurance that if we are not soon in sight of a voluntary solution, which we would prefer, we shall have to examine some system of quota protection.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the trade deficit on a balance of payments basis with the EEC for 1976.

Figures on a balance of payments basis are not yet available for 1976 as a whole. On an overseas trade statistics basis, our crude trade deficit with the rest of the EEC in 1976 was £2,222 million—£164 million less than in 1975.

Is the Minister aware that month after month we have been told that the figures will improve, but that if one takes the December figure the deficit is now running at a total of £2,600 million? When on earth shall we see the so-called benefits of membership of the EEC?

The answer to the last point is, on a strictly economic basis, a matter of conjecture. However, the hon. Gentleman is not right to say that there has been no improvement, because in the first three quarters of 1976 the United Kingdom's deficit with the EEC was reduced by £300 million while our deficit with the rest of the world worsened by nearly £500 million.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures with the EEC show an improvement only if we include Denmark and Ireland, which were in a free trading relationship with us before we joined the EEC, but that if we take only the Six the situation is even worse?

That is a different point. My right hon. Friend may well be correct in saying that, but if we examine our trading experience since we entered the EEC we see that it has deteriorated markedly, although in the case of our trading with Japan and the United States there has been a somewhat more pronounced deterioration compared with our trading with the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if, having regard to the increase in noise nuisance and possible hazard to which residents living under the flight paths will be subject if the proposed extension to Heathrow terminals is permitted to go ahead, he will forbid this development.

The noise and safety implications will be taken carefully into account in the consideration of proposals to expand Heathrow, but I cannot anticipate the outcome of the present consultations on airports policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposal substantially to expand the facilities at Heathrow is almost tantamount to the creation of an additional facility? The consequence must mean that people who live underneath the Heathrow glidepath will suffer a greater degree of annoyance than has happened hitherto. If it is necessary to expand the number of landings in the area, would it not be more reasonable to expand landings elsewhere—for example, at Stansted instead of at Heathrow?

The considerations that my hon. Friend has invited me to undertake are part and parcel of the consultation process, which, we hope, will shortly be concluded. As to the increase in the facilities at Heathrow, my hon. Friend will know that there is an increased use of the larger-bodied, quieter-engined aircraft, and the conclusions that he has drawn are not necessarily true.

Do not people living around Heathrow already suffer from an intolerable nuisance, and if another terminal is opened will not the nuisance inevitably increase? Will the Government allow that to happen?

I hope that the intolerable nuisance to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not the correspondence with me in which he indulges. I do not regard the correspondence in that light. I have said on many occasions that people who live under flight paths are faced with real difficulties. The Government are taking steps—and have done so steadily since 1974—to moderate some of these difficulties.