asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the ancient practice of masters of merchant ships imposing fines on seafarers will be terminated.

This practice will end when the new disciplinary arrangements recommended in 1975 by the Working Group on Discipline in the Merchant Navy are introduced. Provision for this is made in a Merchant Shipping Bill which is ready for introduction as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

In the sad event of the Bill not getting on to the statute book due to lack of parliamentary time, would the Minister object if an industrial agreement were reached between the owners and the unions? I am sure that my hon. Friend must be aware of the mischief that has occurred in the fishing industry over the years, with liquor being taken on board, for example.

If an agreement could be reached in the industry, I should give it favourable consideration. But that would be a second best solution. Any non-statutory scheme would be bound to have weaknesses. For example, a disciplinary committee or code of conduct would not have statutory backing, and that could lead to problems.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable anxiety in the shipping industry about the non-appearance of the Merchant Shipping Bill? I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be prepared to deal with such a Bill in a speedy and constructive manner. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore use his best endeavours with the Leader of the House to bring about the appearance of the Bill as quickly as possible?

The difficulty is that the Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill of considerable length. I cannot see that it would be possible for the Bill not to take up considerable time in Committee. That is the problem. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and I are firmly committed to the principles which we wish to see enunciated in the Bill and which are accepted by the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received to date about the delay in introducing a Companies Bill.

Three bodies have written expressing concern about the delay.

Does the Minister accept the distinction between those areas of company regulation with which the City regards itself as being competent to deal and those areas, such as insider dealing, with which the City does not consider itself competent to deal? Does he accept that this further delay can be attributed only to the Government and that if there are any further cases the Government and not the City will be to blame?

It is not profitable to follow that tack. The hon. Member knows that there has been a heavy volume of legislation on the Floor of the House this Session. He is trying to make a debating point out of a serious matter.

When my hon. Friend introduces the Bill, will he ensure that it contains provisions to ensure that companies disclose imports of manufactured goods and highlights the incidence of low pay as well as high pay?

The question of what is to appear in statements issued by companies has been set out in a document which I hope that my hon. Friend has read. That is a matter upon which we have had a large number of representations which are now being considered carefully.

Is it not wrong for the Government to mention a Companies Bill in the Queen's Speech and guillotine all major legislation that is likely to delay it and still fail to produce a Bill which undoubtedly would have all-party support? Even at this late stage, will the Minister introduce a Bill and see what progress can be made?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member makes the assumption, without having seen the Bill, that it will command all-party support. That remains to be seen. My right hon. Friend and I would have wished a Companies Bill to be introduced, but it has not proved possible thus far. We hope to introduce such a Bill at the earliest legislative opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as regards agricultural and industrial products, respectively; and what estimate he has of future growth of the New Zealand market for British manufactured goods.

In the year ending December 1977 total United Kingdom exports to New Zealand amounted to £287 million fob, of which 97 per cent. were industrial products. United Kingdom imports from New Zealand were £383 million cif, of which 96 per cent. were agricultural products, including wool. It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the future growth of the New Zealand market for manufactures.

Will the Minister confirm, however, that if one includes invisibles, the New Zealand trade is of very great importance to the British economy and that any attempt to diminish New Zealand's exports of lamb to this country would not only be bad for consumers here but would limit New Zealand's capacity to go on importing British goods? [Interruption.]

Too long.

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.

One reason why I have taken a little longer is the continued interruptions from Labour Members who have not the slightest interest in this very important subject.

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we regard trade with New Zealand—even without invisibles—as extremely important. I can give him the specific assurance that he seeks, because the Government have recently assured the New Zealand Government that we are determined to ensure that any EEC measures on sheepmeat should continue to provide satisfactory access for New Zealand's exports of frozen lamb to this country. Last year those exports were at 213,000 tonnes, and we intend to keep them at about that level.

Since, however, no cheese has come from New Zealand this year, since butter exports may be finished after 1980, and since those imports of mutton and lamb that we get are charged 20 per cent. tax on their value, and even they are threatened by the sheepmeat regime, are not any doubts about the future of trade the responsibility of hon. Members—wherever they may be in the House—who voted for our entry to the Common Market?

With regard to exports of lamb, New Zealand has the security of a 20 per cent. tariff, which is binding under GATT. Therefore, there cannot be any renegotiation of that without compensation.

Can the Minister make any comparison between the terms of trade of the United Kingdom with New Zealand and the terms of trade of the United Kingdom with the rest of the Common Market?

I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman those precise details by letter.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is quite conceivable that the trade between New Zealand and this country would be even greater had we not gone into the Common Market? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that I cannot help but intervene when hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who introduced this Question, complain about the lack of trade? It was people such as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and the majority of the Tory Party who sold this country down the river when they voted to go into the Common Market and thereby hampered trade between New Zealand and Great Britain.

I think that the consequences of those earlier votes are entirely understood. All that we can do now is to preserve whatever access is possible by pressing the Commission to widen or, at least, to maintain access for New Zealand foodstuffs of those kinds which can certainly be produced more cheaply than any others in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Airways.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what talks he has had with British Airways about the replacement of its existing fleet.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to approve the proposed aircraft ordering programme of British Airways.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had with British Airways concerning the replacement of the present Trident fleet with aircraft of British manufacture.

I shall be meeting the chairman shortly. At our last meeting earlier this month, the chairman put forward a proposal for the airline to acquire 19 Boeing 737 aircraft to replace its older Tridents. This proposal is now under consideration by the Government.

When does the Secretary of State expect to respond to that request by British Airways to buy Boeing? In reaching his conclusion, will he take into account the fact that this is a question not just of the immediate £100 million order but of a total fleet strategy at a replacement cost of £2 billion, and that given American ascendancy in the aviation market a transatlantic partnership rather than cross-Channel collaboration might offer the better prospect for Britain? Above all, his decision should be based on the long-term national interest and not on short-term political pressures.

I cannot at this moment tell the hon. Gentleman when a decision on this matter will be made. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he has stated many of the considerations that will obviously have to be borne in mind in formulating a decision on this question.

Will my right hon. Friend, in the meantime, have talks with the Secretary of State for Industry to make sure that British Aerospace produces the kind of aircraft that British Airways will need in the future, because the jobs of many people in British Aerospace depend on this being so?

My hon. Friend will realise that, in formulating a strategy for the future of British aviation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is necessarily closely involved.

Is not the dilemma of the lack of business and orders for the British airframe industry directly related to the previous Labour Government's folly in pulling out of the European Airbus project at the initial stages, when Rolls-Royce was offered participation in the engine and the airframe industry could have had a major stake in it?

I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman into discussing the history of the British aerospace industry, but in the course of my visits overseas I have frequently been accompanied by representatives of that industry who are busily trying to sell overseas.

Since a good deal is said about the quietness of the Boeing 737, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who travel to the House every week by Trident and have from time to time to go to Brussels by Sabena 737 much prefer the Trident? Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the question of the likely costs of spare parts? What are the facts of the operating costs? Is it not true that, whereas on the assumption of full load operating costs the 737 may seem to have an advantage, in fact, given a 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. full complement, the Trident has something of an advantage?

I am sure that the manufacturers of the Trident will be delighted to hear my hon. Friend's comments. But there are certain problems with the Trident at present, and a particular problem that will be coming up in the next few years is the noise made by the Trident and the necessity to move towards quieter aircraft.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the board of British Airways is statutorily bound by the legislation by which it was set up to consider the best interests of the corporation, as it sees them, and that it has done and should continue to do until it receives a directive otherwise? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the board's expressed preference for the Boeing 737 implies no criticism of the BAC111, of which it has a large fleet, but rather a preference for an aircraft that is larger than the BAC111 which is available at present?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has accurately stated the position of British Airways.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is very important that the right decision should be taken? In those circumstances, will he consider covening a conference of British Airways, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce so that the right decision may be made?

It is certainly of very great importance that the right decision should be made. I assure my hon. Friend that all of the three corporations that he has mentioned will be involved and consulted in the process of decision making. I trust that we shall be able to satisfy each of those bodies. But, of course, my hon. Friend will realise that the interests of those bodies do not always coincide.

If British Airways does not buy British aircraft or aircraft containing a substantial British content, who else in the world is expected to buy British aircraft?

As I said earlier, many people throughout the world are prepared to buy British aircraft. I suppose the same question could be asked about an American purchase of foreign aircraft. We have all welcomed the fact that recently United States Airlines has been prepared to purchase European aircraft. Will any company buy an American aircraft again? The answer is that, of course, they will.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he takes to ensure collaboration between the British Airports Authority and the British Tourist Authority.

The White Paper on airports policy emphasised the relationship between tourism and the demand for air transport and the British Airports Authority and the British Tourist Authority already recognise the need for collaboration. The form this takes is a matter for the two authorities.

Is the Minister aware that when two or more jumbo jets arrive at Heathrow from New York at weekends, the large number of American tourists which they disgorge queue endlessly because there is only a skeleton immigration staff? To avoid giving a bad impression to valued dollar-spending tourists, will my hon. Friend suggest to the bodies mentioned in the Question that they should get together to ensure that the immigration staff is up to full quota; or, better still, could an immigration official journey on the plane and process the tourists in flight?

That is an interesting proposition. The chairman of the British Airports Authority and I propose to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss problems affecting immigration staff and the adequacy or inadequacy of such staff at Heathrow.

Is not the greatest contribution that could be made by the British Airports Authority to the comfort and convenience of tourists the earliest possible restoration of civilised conditions at Terminals 1, 2 and 3 at Heathrow?

The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, is aware of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the refurbishing that is taking place at Heathrow. The more quickly that this can be accomplished, the better and the more advanced will be the opportunity for, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, civilised treatment of users of Heathrow. Despite the problems that have arisen, I should not have thought that they had been treated in an uncivilised way.

Is the Minister aware that, although we in East Anglia are always delighted to have more tourists, we do not wish them to come in through an expanded Stansted Airport?

We have had a number of interesting reflections about Stansted in this House from time to time, and the hon. Gentleman has just asserted his rather negative approach. We have put forward a very modest proposal for the expansion of Stansted up to 1990 which, I think, commands a great deal of support.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the import and export figures for motor vehicles to date for 1978.

In the period January to March 1978 155,000 motor vehicles valued at £367 million fob were exported, and 218,000 valued at £491 million cif were imported.

Since the Ford Motor Company is the largest importer of motor cars into this country, why is the Department of Trade not giving the same attention to that company as it is to Japanese companies?

Altogether 70 per cent. of our car imports come from the EEC. A large proportion of these is accounted for by tied imports by the multinationals, of which Ford is the most important. Tied imports last year rose from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent. of our total market. At the same time, it is easier for United States multinationals in Britain to switch from Continental sourcing to United Kingdom production as United Kingdom production increases if they, rather than foreign companies, are doing the importing into Britain.

Does the Minister agree that, whereas Ford was the largest importer recently, it has also been the largest exporter? Is it therefore no coincidence that it is also the most successful company? Is that not what trade is all about?

Certainly, but I do not think that one can make a straight comparison between imports and exports. We expect a multinational that establishes plant in Britain not to have substantial imports, but certainly we welcome growing exports.

Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands more British cars could be sold in Europe if those cars were available? Is he further aware that customers there, as in Britain, are not prepared to wait three to six months to obtain delivery?

There is a problem about United Kingdom supply, particularly as regards last year. Partly as a result of industrial disputes and partly as a result of the marking down of production targets by management, we did not produce enough cars that people wanted to buy in this country. I am glad to say, however, that, particularly as a result of changes at British Leyland, this situation looks set to change.

What does the Minister mean when he says that he does not expect a company that manufactures here to import? Surely if we want multinational investment in this country at all we must accept that this is the basis on which companies undertake their operations throughout the world. Is it not the fact that Ford's agricultural equipment, which is a massive business for this country, is manufactured in three European countries but that this is greatly to the benefit of this country?

The hon. Gentleman should be a little more concerned about United Kingdom national interests and less about the interest of foreign multinationals.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade why it is no longer the practice to provide in the trade statistics the origin and destination of imports of gold bullion.

Gold bullion shipments are not included in the trade statistics. I understand that publication of the country analysis of gold bullion shipments, available from Customs records, ceased during 1977 to safeguard supplies to the London market.

Is it not possible to imagine circumstances in which the sale of gold bullion and the question of who is to sell it would be of great significance—a significance going well beyond the bullion market? Should not this information be publicly available rather than be suppressed, as is now happening?

It may indeed be of wider interest, but the origin and destination of gold bullion imports have been excluded from the trade statistics because that could reveal selling activities which some countries might regard as commercially confidential and they would be able to switch their supplies to other markets, which would not be in our long-term interests. That is why they have been excluded from the statistics.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek a meeting with the Japanese Minister for Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the progress of the negotiations between the EEC and Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the current trading arrangements between the United Kingdom and Japan.

I am not satisfied with the current level of our trade with Japan. Our views are well known to the Japanese and I have no immediate plans to seek a meeting with Japanese Ministers. The EEC Commission expressed our views to the Japanese Government last month and received a number of forecasts from the Japanese. There will be other meetings later to see whether these forecasts have been fulfilled.

Do the Government have any plans to introduce measures specifically designed to discriminate against imports from Japan?

There are certain arrangements with Japanese exporters which limit certain types of Japanese exports to this country. We are now watching the development of that relationship in the light of the assurances given by the Japanese authorities. I have no further plans to announce.

How effective does my right hon. Friend think the bargaining strength of the Community has been in making the Japanese aware of the need for more direct measures to increase their imports?

I think that the bargaining strength of the Community is valuable to us in all these trading relationships, notably in our relationship with Japan. The visit of the Commission to Japan recently has had an influence, and, together with the United States, I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Japanese that trade is not simply a matter of exporting.

Does the Minister agree that as a trading nation it is unthinkable for us to contemplate protectionism, except on a specifically short-term basis? Does he also agree that, if our products are not competitive with those of Japan, regrettably the fault must lie here rather than in Japan?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to contemplate protectionism provided that it is only on a short-term basis. I have noticed from time to time that short-term protectionism turns into long-term protectionism. As for the subject of competitiveness, I agree that if we are not competitive we cannot expect to trade successfully. The complaint about Japan is that in respect of imports—not just in respect of this country but other supplying countries—Japan seems to reject imports even if they are competitive.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his Japanese counterpart, will he ask him why it is possible, apparently with merely a nod and a wink from the French Government, for the Japanese to limit their car exports to France to less than 3 per cent., whereas it takes many meetings by him to try to secure any restraint from Japanese exporters to this country?

The French use their muscle.

The answer is quite simple. It was only when the imports of Japanese cars had risen to the sorts of levels my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has mentioned that we took action on the matter. If we had taken action before, we might have got a lower level of restraint.

What support has the right hon. Gentleman been giving to the British motor component industry to get more British components into Japanese motor cars? Has he discussed this matter with Japanese Ministers in recent months?

There has been a considerable selling drive in that respect, and a mission from Japan has been visiting this country to investigate the possibilities. I hope that these sales increase, but unfortunately at present they are still at a very low level.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that Mitsubishi car exports to Britain and Western Europe are Mitsubishi-Chrysler car exports, because those two conglomerates are combined? Will he also recognise that as Chrysler is subsidised by the British taxpayer the fact of this taking place is an insult to the British taxpayer and deserves the immediate attention of his Department?

I do not know that it was any part of the agreement made with Chrysler that Chrysler internationally should stop its activities in international trade.

Is the Secretary of State aware that last year the Germans exported 22,000 cars to Japan and the British motor industry managed fewer than 1,400? Will he turn his attention to finding ways of helping British companies to export to Japan, as other countries seem to be able to do, and not just inhibit the exports of efficient countries to this country?

We have done a great deal to encourage British companies to export to Japan. Indeed, in recent years British companies have made considerable efforts to export to Japan. I do not accept that the principal criticism in this matter now lies with British companies.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many company insolvencies there have been since February 1974 to the latest available date.

There were 20,159 in England and Wales between 1st April 1974 and the end of 1977.

Now that the Government have been forced to make some amends to small companies for the damage they did earlier in their period of office, would it not be a good idea if the Minister consulted his right hon. Friends to see whether the same principle could be aplied to a wider range of business enterprises to remove some of the difficulties standing in their way?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman follows proceedings in this place at all. He seems to have an invincible ignorance about economic matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there were 11 bankruptcies during this period occasioned by the fact that the Tories voted against the Bill to relieve bankruptcy for the Clay Cross councillors, thereby adding to the total, and that the Tories were aided and abetted by a couple of dozen Members on the Labour Benches?

The Question deals with company insolvencies.

Is the Minister aware that during the period not only were there record bankruptcies but there was a substantial fall-off in the formation of new companies? Is he aware that exactly the same thing happened during the period of the last Labour Government, from 1964 to 1970? Does he now agree that bankruptcies and the inhibition of the creation of new companies are the inevitable consequences of a Labour Government?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be imprisoned by his own ridiculous slogans. Even though the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed it, the fact is that the whole of the Western world has been going through an unprecedented industrial recession—unprecedented at least since the 1930s. This inevitably leads to a position in which insolvencies grow. The hon. Gentleman simply will not look these facts in the face. The reality is that there are signs now, which no doubt Conservative Members will not recognise, that the level of insolvencies is past its peak. Do they welcome that?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the latest balance of trade figures.

No, Sir. I am not.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the first quarter of this year there was a visible trade deficit of £518 million, with an alarming increase in imports? Does he think that the trend will be better in the next quarter?

The latest Treasury forecast, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, was of a current account surplus for 1978 of about £750 million. But it is still our expectation that the rise in exports this year, at about 3½ per cent., will be substantially less than the rise in imports of 7½ per cent.

Why is the latest Treasury forecast of the current account surplus about half the forecast of the current account surplus that the Treasury made three months ago?

It is because of the changes in the international climate and the marking down in the level of growth in world trade.

Is it not a fact that since the early 1950s or mid-1950s every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has re-flated the economy the balance of trade has got worse than in the preceding cycle? Is not the lesson of that that if we are to protect British jobs and British industry, and not export unemployment, the Government must take steps to protect us against low-cost imports?

As my hon. Friend knows as well as any hon. Member, the Government have taken considerable measures to protect jobs and business against low-cost imports, above all in textiles, where, in effect, free trade is at an end and where the level of potential access to the United Kingdom and EEC markets is now under very precise regulation, but also in sectors such as steel footwear, and consumer electronics.

Does the Minister consider that the forecast of surplus that he has just announced as the latest Treasury forecast is likely to be maintained with the exchange rate at about its present level?

It is true that last year the pound lost most of the price-competitivenes that we gained as a result of the changes in 1976. But we still have a position over cost, particularly labour costs, which is better than it was two years ago. Whilst it is true—and this needs to be remembered—that the pound has certainly appreciated against the dollar, it has not appreciated against the mark or the yen, and it is now back to the point, roughly, where it was before uncapping.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the total tonnage and value of imported crude oil into the United Kingdom during each of the past four years; and if he will also give the corresponding figures of exported crude oil in 1976 and 1977.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the exporting of oil is rather easy and therefore has increased because our supplies have been there? Because it is easy to export oil, does that mean that our exporters are not interested in the other forms of energy, such as coal? Why do we not put some pressure on our EEC friends to purchase coal from this country, and therefore give some help to miners' morale?

North Sea oil is a premium crude with a very low sulphur content. While there is demand in the United Kingdom for this product to a degree, it certainly cannot be fully absorbed in the United Kingdom, and a certain amount is bound to be exported. I do not think that this in any way discriminates against attempts to maximise the export of coal. Although this is primarily a matter for the Department of Energy, I understand that we do all we can to promote exports of coal to the EEC and elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the development in United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to the rest of the EEC to date in the current year.

No, Sir. I am not.

In that context, does the Minister agree that once again we have a worrying trade deficit with most areas of the world excluding the underdeveloped countries and the oil producers? May I ask him to resist the temptation to single out the EEC for particular attention on this score? Is he aware that United Kingdom manufactured exports to other EEC countries have done especially well in the past six months? What other measures than the right rate for the currency does he plan to introduce to encourage United Kingdom exports to other EEC countries?

There is a special problem over the export of manufactures to the EEC. Certainly our deficit in that respect grew last year compared with the year before. In the first quarter of this year it has grown markedly again. The crude trade deficit in manufactures in respect of our trade with the EEC went up in the first quarter of this year to £401 million compared with £168 million a year ago. There is a problem here. Our concern to assist the export of manufactures is shown by our introduction of the market entry guarantee scheme for small exporters and the joint and several liability scheme for the jumbo contract exporters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, if oil and food are excluded, our deficit with the EEC Six last year rose further, to about £1,400 million, which is three or four limes our deficit with Japan?

I cannot give my right hon. Friend the precise figures. Certainly what he has said sounds about right. The visible trade deficit with the EEC last year was just under £1,700 million compared with a visible surplus with the rest of the world of £66 million.

Does the Minister agree that the trade deficit, on an overseas trade statistics basis, in the first quarter of this year is running at an annual rate of about £2,500 million deficit?

That is about right, although of course in terms of inflation the value in real terms is not as great because it has stayed at about that figure for some years and to that extent the export-import ratio has improved to a level today of about 86 per cent. That is slightly better than our export-import ratio, it is fair to say, as compared with North America and Japan, although not as good as with Western Europe.

Can my hon. Friend tell us what happened to all those people who said that the creation of an enlarged market would be a great thing for this country? Will he arrange for such people to be shot forthwith?

Such people fail to say that we also became a more exposed market ourselves.

Which of two things is more important to the Minister now that we are in the Community? Does he enthusiastically welcome the fact that we have an open trading system in the Community and want to help our country improve its exports, or is he really more interested in proving to the House that he was right to vote against our entry to the Community?

I am concerned—sometimes I wonder about the hon. Gentleman—with what is in our national interest. If the open market trading system is in the interests of Britain I support it. If it no longer is in our interests we shall have to consider alternatives.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now discontinue Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for trade with South Africa.

No, Sir. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover is available for civil exports to South Africa in accordance with the Department's normal underwriting criteria.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary discouraging private business from having too heavy an in- volvement in the economy of South Africa? Is it not slightly bizarre that the Foreign Office should be discouraging trade with South Africa while the Department of Trade is promoting it?

I have certainly noticed my right hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that the dependence of this country on raw materials from Southern Africa is a form of exposure which I would willingly see reduced. On the other hand, I do not see that it harms this country, particularly at a time of high unemployment, if we maintain credit terms for South Africa in line with those of our major competitors.

Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage an increasingly political role for ECGD? Will he comment on the reports that the recent ECGD backing for the Pan Am-Rolls-Royce deal involves accepting the total commitment to the liability of any future default by Pan American on terms which American air engine manufacturers would not accept?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the success of that deal and, having done so, will no doubt devote his attention to the relationship between his supplementary question and the Question on the Order Paper.

Is it not time that my right hon. Friend had a meeting with the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, both of whom have said that our membership of the EEC implies a common foreign policy? Is it not strange that we will soon be the only country left in the EEC which continues to give export credit guarantees to South Africa since the Germans and the Dutch already have such a ban?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is misinformed as to the position of the Netherlands and Germany.

Why do the Secretary of State and the Government take different views about extending ECGD facilities to South Africa and to Chile, the regimes of both of which, as I understand it, the Government oppose? Could it have anything to do with the fact that such action against South Africa would affect the standard of living of the British people whereas such action against Chile would not?

We have made our position on human rights in both countries perfectly clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he is making to the Japanese Government about the level of import duties on United Kingdom confectionery and biscuits.

We and the EEC will continue to take every opportunity to impress on the Japanese Government the importance of reducing these high tariffs as quickly as possible.

Will the Minister reconfirm that the present rates of duty are now a significant barrier to trade? Will he give the House an assurance that he will do everything he can to impose a quite different point of view upon the Japanese?

Certainly. The level of the Japanese tariff on confectionery, chocolate and biscuits is about 35 per cent. Our aim is to get a reduction of this by about 50 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just another example of many showing that the Japanese Government are interested in free trade only when it suits Japanese manufacturers and are not concerned with the trade of other people?

It is certainly our intention, in the multilateral trade negotiations, to ensure that we secure a fair deal from the Japanese. Certainly in this sector we have not yet secured that. We intend to press the point hard.

Since the Minister is critical of the Japanese and their rates of import duties against our exports, may I ask him to take on board the fact that it would be counter-productive to impose any quota or barrier against trade with Japan and all other countries which wish to export to us?

There is a great deal of difference between access to the United Kingdom market for Japanese goods and access to the Japanese market for our goods. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the export-import ratio of cars, for example, to the EEC is 1:4 and in the case of Japan 1:28.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek a meeting with the British Franchise Association.

I have no plans for such a meeting.

Will the Minister accept that responsible franchising can provide opportunities for expansion for small businesses? If he does not accept that, may I ask him to agree to meet the association to exchange views with it?

I certainly support the newly-formed British Franchise Association—it was formed only a few months ago—in so far as it performs a useful service. If the association approaches us and would like to have a meeting, we would certainly be glad to discuss matters with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many road vehicles assembled in Ireland from Japanese components are being imported into the United Kingdom.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimated that about 60 of these vehicles were registered last year—all in Northern Ireland—and about 30 in the first three months of 1978.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Japanese are building up capacity and a sales organisation in Ireland so as to rush into this country large numbers of these vehicles by the back door, using methods which would not be allowed in Japan? What action does he intend to take to safeguard us from this eventuality?

We would certainly regard trans-shipment via Southern Ireland as a direct export and therefore coming within the assurances which the Japanese have given us concerning heavy commercial vehicles—that is, vehicles over 3½ tons. It is, however, true that goods assembled in the Irish Republic which have paid the common external tariff can have free circulation in the EEC, whether they circulate as parts or made-up vehicles. Nevertheless, I believe that the Japanese accept that this is a sensitive sector and would not encourage the particular manufacturer, J. Harris, to engage in this activity. There are many rumours about an invasion of the British market, but the figures show that this has not materialised.

Can the Minister confirm that this subject was included in a recent discussion in Tokyo between the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Japanese associations, to the satisfaction of both sides?

What the letter from MITI said was that there would be no direct exports to the United Kingdom market of heavy commercial vehicles. We have no reason to doubt that that will not be adhered to. The problem relates to the rather different situation of an assembler in Southern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has had to date on the Interim Action Committee on the Film Industry.

My advisory body, the Cinematograph Films Council, is considering the report. I have also received a number of written and oral representations, and my Department is discussing the report with other interested Government Departments.

I declare an interest in this matter. Do the Government intend to introduce legislation in this Parliament to establish a films authority? Is the Minister aware that successful films such as "Star Wars" and the Bond films were made in this country but with American money? Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the matter and take some positive steps to help this industry, which is a dollar earner?

There is not parliamentary time, even if we were ready at this precise moment—which we are not—to introduce a Bill to establish a British films authority. This matter certainly requires consultation, and it requires quite a lot of detailed study to clothe the broad blueprint, which is all that the Interim Action Committee provided in its report. As I say, there is also the problem of the parliamentary timetable. However, this is a matter on which we are making as much progress as we can. I shall draw the financial issue raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that British film exports used to make a substantial contribution to our export earnings but that this has steadily diminished in recent years due to the disadvantageous position in which the British film industry finds itself as a result of discrimination on tax grounds? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore treat with the greatest possible urgency the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and impress upon the Chancellor the need for speedy action if we are to keep together the residue of skilled technology which remains in this country on which our film industry depends for its future success?

I have already given an assurance about that. There are also many co-production agreements which, I believe, affect the issue here. The Interim Action Committee is looking, in particular, at five other subjects, apart from the establishment of a British films authority, one of which is the promotion of overseas sales of British films. I look forward to an early report on that score, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for legislating on worker participation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is still engaged in consultations about employee participation.

The Government's consultations on this subject are continuing, and our proposals for legislation will be published shortly.

Will the Secretary of State at least confirm that Bullock is dead, and will he therefore allow me to stand him a glass of Wincarnis in the Tea Room to celebrate that event? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he has at least learned the message that worker participation should be based on election by the work force rather than on nomination by the trade unions?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to see our proposals. I do not believe that he will have to wait very long, but will he please wait that small amount of time?

Will the Secretary of State accept that the diversity of British industry means that a simple universally applied scheme is unlikely to be very effective in promoting employee participation, and will he approach this matter in a more flexible manner than that adopted by Bullock?

It has always been our view that any arrangements for this purpose should be flexible. The question has always been to define what sort of statutory fall-back, if any, there should be if voluntary arrangements cannot be negotiated.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is one area where half a loaf can be worse than no bread and that, while it is essential to press ahead with legislation as quickly as possible, it is vital that we do not compromise on certain matters, such as equality of representation on boards?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that half a loaf in this case is necessarily worse than no bread. If he examines the situation in many other countries, he will find that their systems have evolved, and evolution is sometimes a sensible approach to problems of this kind.

Would it not be to the advantage of both the country and the House if we could have agreed legislation, or agreed proposals on this subject since there can be nothing to be gained from its going back and forth with changes of Government? Does the Secretary of State recall that a scheme on profit sharing which, as a Treasury Minister, I took through the House was subsequently repealed by his Government when they came to office but they are now proposing to bring it back in again because it is the scheme proposed by the Liberal Party? On worker participation, would it not be possible to have a scheme which was uncontroversial and which took us forward by evolutionary steps, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on both sides of the House there has been too much legislative yo-yo over the years, I agree. On this specific matter, as he should know, when the consultations on the Bullock Report began, I emphasised, in particular, the need for agreement, if it were possible, and the need for legislation which would have a wide degree of acceptance. I cannot say that the endeavours to achieve that position have resulted in any success, and what the Government are now facing is the need to publish their own proposals and attempt to win support for them.