asked the Secretary of State for Trade if the departmental working party on illegal discounting of air fares will report in the near future.

Yes, Sir. I expect to receive the report before the end of the Summer Recess.

Is the travel press correct in suggesting that this inquiry will—as the press puts it—end with a whimper in view of the inability of the travel trade to provide evidence of illegal discounting? If so, will the Minister make another appeal to the trade to provide evidence, as the illegal discounting to which the Question refers is against the law of the land?

As to evidence, I have not yet received the report and I dare say that it will still be possible for anybody with pertinent evidence in his possession to provide it to the working party. As to the quality of the reception of the report, I cannot comment on the press report. I have not yet had the report. We shall have to judge when it is in my possession.

Apart from illegal discounting, can my hon. Friend do something about the illegal changes when there are about different discrepancies in fares which, for anybody who knows the ropes, make a vast difference? Is he aware that three hon. Members were able to obtain tickets to attend the Inter- Parliamentary Union conference at a cost of £63·50 travelling from Lisbon as opposed to £180 for individual fares?

I suspect that that shows some perspicacity on the part of hon. Members. I find it difficult from time to time to ascertain the rather strange number of different fare structures, but I hope that in time the matter will clarify itself when people are more used to matters.

Does the Minister expect that the report will include a clear definition of what is and what is not illegal discounting?

That remains to be seen. The working party was given a very wide remit and I hope that it will tackle all these difficult problems. The real problem about illegal discounting—the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) referred to this—is not so much the fact that it can be defined as illegal as actually obtaining the evidence to establish the illegality.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the minimum load which the British Overseas Trade Board will consider for small businesses seeking to enter the export trade making use of the market entry guarantee scheme.

The minimum assistance under the market entry guarantee scheme is £20,000, whch implies that the applicant expects to incur eligible costs of at least £40,000 over the years in which the export venture is expected to incur an annual loss.

Forty thousand pounds is a large sum. Does it not knock out the smaller firm? Will the Government consider lowering the limit so as to encourage the smaller business to go into the export trade?

The size of the firm does not matter, in the sense that 70 per cent. of applicants have had a turnover of less than £2 million a year. In fact, it was the British Overseas Trade Board that fixed the limit because it believed that smaller firms would probably operate through local agents or distributors so that the marketing costs would be covered by commission or by a mark-up pro rata to sales and hence would not be at risk.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade upon what evidence his Department bases its view that the imposition of selective import controls would result in retaliatory action.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received calling for further import controls; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations calling for further import controls and have taken action in certain cases. I take the view that a more general policy of import controls would lead to retaliatory action against our exports because the majority of our major trading partners have the same problems of high unemployment as we have and would, therefore, be unlikely to acquiesce in restrictions which sought to deal with our problems at their expense.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is seen as an easy and attractive market by many manufacturing nations throughout the world and that countries such as Japan which have a most favourable balance of trade with this country are hardly likely to cut their own throats by taking retaliatory action against Britain?

I take the view that in certain cases—as we have done with Japan—it is possible to negotiate voluntary restraint arrangements, but more general restraint would provoke emulation and retaliation. It may be true that this is an easy and attractive market. That is a very good reason why British industry should make itself competitive to supply it.

Will the Secretary of State accept my congratulations on the way in which he, his Ministers and his Department have resisted the absurd notion that British industry will be made competitive and will able to do better in the world if import restrictions are artificially imposed? Will he continue this policy and continue to resist anything so absurd as generalised import controls?

We shall certainly resist generalised import controls but, as I have made clear on a number of occasions—most recently at the OECD ministerial council—unless we can relaunch world trade on to a course of a higher rate of expansion, there will, I am afraid, be further deterioration in protectionist directions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pressure for controls tends to come in respect of goods for which there is considerable demand, and is it not inevitable, therefore, that such restrictive controls, if imposed, as we found in the case of agreements under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, are bound to have the effect of putting up the cost of consumer goods, thereby adding to the inflationary spiral?

It is certainly true that consumers have a considerable interest in avoiding import controls. On the other hand, if the present levels of unemployment in the developed world and elsewhere continue, I have no doubt that in the end Governments will increasingly put the interests of their producers first and introduce further import controls.

One recognises that excessive protectionism could be be disadvantageous to the desirable promotion of world trade, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that adequate attention and justified action where necessary are applied in regard to the unfair importation of special steels which are brought into this country at prices little above the cost of production? There ought to be no anxiety at all that action in that area would result in retaliation.

My hon. Friend has a later Question on that subject. We have already taken some action in respect of special steels. If he is assuming that his Question will not be reached, may I say to him now that, if he has information which we ought to consider, we shall certainly be prepared to look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representation he has received about preventing oil pollution of United Kingdom coasts from tankers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any further statement to make regarding the implementation of the Merchant Shipping Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what current action he is taking to reduce the threat of oil pollution from tankers on United Kingdom coasts.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what legislative action he proposes to take to deal with the increasing incidence of oil tanker pollution.

I have received a number of representations expressing concern, which I fully share, about the effects of oil pollution. The Government will continue their efforts to develop and bring into effect practical internationally agreed measures to improve tanker safety and reduce oil pollution. Important provisions in this connection are included in the draft Merchant Shipping Bill, which was appended to the recently published White Paper on "Action on Safety and Pollution at Sea." The Government propose to introduce the Bill next Session. The Government will also inform the House of the results of their stock-taking of our contingency arrangements for dealing with oil spills.

What has happened to the Government's proposal to IMCO that there should be mandatory special training requirements for the masters, officers and crews of tankers? What do the Government propose to do about the rerouting of the present tanker routes around our coasts so as to ensure that, as far as possible, they are further from our coasts than they are at present?

As to the recent conference on training and certification of seafarers, I am glad to say that agreement was reached, and I hope that in the not too distant future it will be possible for this agreement to be ratified by a sufficient number of countries. We took our part in ensuring that that situation was attained.

Does my hon. Friend realise what a sad disappointment it was to all Members with port constituencies that the Government failed to find time for his Merchant Shipping Bill, which would have tackled many other issues apart from oil pollution, including, for example, the taking of liquor on board fishing vessels? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that long-standing abuse and say what measures he hopes to take to cope with it?

I share my hon. Friend's disappointment because, as he well knows, we in the Department of Trade were most anxious to see the legislation implemented. But we have given a firm commitment that we stand by the terms of the Bill and we want to see it implemented next Session. The question of drink on board fishing vessels is a problem—it has been identified by inquiries as a problem in respect of a number of fatal accidents—and I hope that our measures will be acceptable to the House in due course of time.

Will my hon. Friend press forward with his attempt to get the 1973 international convention ratified, whether through the Merchant Shipping Bill or separately, and not be deterred by any blowing hot and cold on the Tory Benches, because it affects the safety of many of my seagoing constituents as well as the protection of our shores?

I am well aware of the need to ratify, and this is dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Bill. However, in view of the target date which has been established for ratification, it is not a matter which has to be dealt with at this moment. But we have made our commitment absolutely clear.

My hon. Friend has noted the connection in his Bill between the requirement for compulsory pilotage, statutory safety controls, improvement of working conditions and certificates of the competency of seamen, all of which touch factors which have contributed to major pollution incidents. In view of the recent statement by the spokesman for the Opposition that they will not introduce the Bill, is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on whether that will weaken our fight against pollution?

The Opposition's view about it is purely theoretical since they will not have the opportunity to do it. But I note that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in his only foray into merchant shipping matters during the time he has held this Shadow office, made a very ill advised speech in which he contradicted himself by saying, on the one hand, that it was necessary to have the Bill and, on the other, that if, by some mischance, the Tories were elected, they would not have time to do it, thus indicating that he has both feet firmly planted in the air.

Will the Minister take it that in what he calls my speech I said no such thing? Is he aware that the Government have now been in office for four years and have had plenty of opportunity to introduce the Bill? Since there is no other non-partisan legislation before the House at the moment, is there not plenty of room for the Bill to be considered this Session? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that WC recognise the great importance of this Bill and we shall bring it in as soon as we possibly can, subject, of course, to major economic and other matters which are bound to take priority for an incoming Government?

The hon. Gentleman is sounding rather like his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph); he has to reconsider the statements which he makes from time to time. What the hon. Gentleman is reported to have said is that the Bill would not receive priority under a future Tory Administration.

Will the Minister, for once, try to deal with the question of oil pollution and stop making party points? Is not his reference to an agreement with the French justification of the view that some of us have expressed that to wait indefinitely for IMCO and world-wide agreement on everything is tantamount to never getting the urgent agreement we need on some of these matters? Will he agree with me that, if the oil companies themselves are the source of the pollution, Governments ought to do their best to encourage the oil companies to provide a fund at the disposal of Governments or local authorities to clear up the mess which they are responsible for making?

I do not need to be lectured at by the hon. Member on the making of party points: he never fails to do that himself. I am trying to deal effectively with the question of oil pollution. This requires enforcement action through the agency of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, and that is what the French Government and we are doing in relation to the rerouting plans.

Is not the short answer to all this that the Minister has lost the battle within the Government's legislation committee and that this valuable Bill has simply been pushed to the back of the queue by the Minister's more strident colleagues who insisted on their own more absurd legislation?

We have a rather better record to claim credit for in this regard than do the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's Department when he was in it. On the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raises, yes, we should have liked to do it, but there was urgent and necessary legislation, including constitutional Bills which had to be taken on the Floor, which took up the time of the House.

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

No date is fixed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's decision to allow British Airways to exercise its commercial judgment and purchase 19 Boeing 737s is to be welcomed? In connection with that principle, can he say whether a British Airways order for the B10 airbus will be a condition for a British share of the manufacture of that aircraft?

We thought that it was right to permit British Airways to purchase the 19 737s. As to any British contribution to the B10 and the association of British Airways with any such arrangement, I must make it clear that the Government have no power to require British Airways to purchase aircraft, and one would expect, therefore, that the independence of British Airways in this respect would remain unchallenged.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of British Airways whether he is satisfied with the discussions between the Department of Trade, the Home Office, the British Airports Authority and the British Tourist Authority on the subject of speeding up the processing of British Airways passengers, among others, when they come through London Airport? Would my right hon. Friend suggest, through the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, that it might be possible that when large numbers of foreign tourists arrive at Heathrow they should be processed equally through the British passport holders desk, past which no one is usually coming?

I am certainly very concerned about delays in passing passengers through Heathrow Airport. It is a serious matter. We are looking into it. There are many aspects to it, including the number of immigration officers. Nevertheless, it presents great difficulties. I know that the British Airports Authority is very much concerned about it and is doing what it can.

As the Secretary of State correctly observes that he has no power to require British Airways to order or to purchase aircraft, will he say what exactly is the status of the commitment to look at a purchase of further BAC111 aircraft? Is it a commitment that the right hon. Gentleman expects will be translated into a purchase, or was it just another little piece of window dressing to please his hon. Friends below the Gangway?

Certainly I expect that it will be converted into a purchase. The hon. Member may have seen the statement of Mr. Ross Stainton following my announcement.

May I ask what was either urgent or pressing about legislation to have an organisation setting one set of rules for one end of the shuttle at Heathrow, and another institution framing another set of rules for the other end of the shuttle, at Edinburgh and Glasgow?

My hon. Friend may be absolutely right. There may be nothing urgent about that particular provision in the legislation to which he refers and of which he is so fond. Nevertheless, the legislation generally may have been urgent.

I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree with me that a General Election is possibly not very far removed. Bearing that in mind, does he think that it is sensible for the Government to rush into firm contracts—I emphasise "firm contracts"—in a whole host of aerospace procurement areas at a moment when a different party is likely to be in power within the next few months? I am not referring now to the British Airways order for Boeings as such; I am referring to further contracts which are being mentioned in the press with regard to the 757 and others. Does the Secretary of State think that it is sensible for an outgoing Government to enter into firm contracts at this particular stage of a Parliament?

I understand from the hon. Gentleman's question that an incoming Government of his complexion might trammel British Airways' freedom in this respect. As to the proposed contracts under negotiation, it would certainly damage British interests considerably if there were unnecessary delays in making decisions about these matters. I think that it would be intolerable for this country to lose opportunities for collaboration overseas due to delays for which there is no good reason.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the film industry and his response to the Interim Action Committee report.

When I met recently the chairman of the Interim Action Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and some of his colleagues, I confirmed my acceptance in principle of the case for the setting up of a British Film Authority.

Will the Minister accept that the delay over this question is causing a certain amount of anxiety? Further, will he look at the representation by the production part of the industry on the film authority which is rather small? Perhaps it would be better to have larger representation. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the main problem with the industry at present is the question of taxation? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the industry's taxation proposals and no doubt will consider them but bearing in mind the implications of such proposals for other industries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that he does not have to wait for the setting up of the film authority to do two very practical things? The first is to look at the whole question of barring, which is causing great difficulty for exhibitors; the second is to do something urgently to restore the viability of the Children's Film Foundation, which is doing a marvellous job in preparing children's film with very little assistance from the industry by which it is supposed to be backed.

There are discussions on barring currently in progress with the exhibitors. As regards the Children's Film Foundation, I understand that the full grant has been recently paid.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he has taken following the recent representations which he has had about the effect of imports on the chipboard industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has made to the European Commission about the dumping of chipboard on the United Kingdom market.

Price undertakings have already been given by a number of suppliers and my officials are in regular contact with the Commission about their observance. We have also drawn the attention of the Commission to the low prices in intra-Community trade and urged it to find ways of remedying the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since I and other Members of Parliament met him to discuss this matter, redundancies have been announced in a chipboard factory in Irvine, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie)? In view of the gravity of the situation, will the Government take unilateral action instead of just going cap in hand to the Common Market Commissioners? Unless firm action is taken now, there will be hundreds more redundancies in the industry in places such as Cowie, in my constituency.

I am aware of the notice of redundancies. I regard this as an extremely serious problem and one that revolves around the inadequacy of the present EEC anti-dumping provisions in regarding the Common Market as a single integrated market when the United Kingdom regionally is particularly vulnerable to dumping because of its efficient distribution system. For that reason, and because after the end of the transitional period no anti-dumping action can be taken against other member States—and we are now in that situation—we have taken this up at a high level with the Commission and we have insisted that measures should be taken to solve the immediate problem, which is caused by Belgian dumping.

Is the Minister satisfied that the below-cost dumping from States outside the EEC is being or will shortly be stopped by the Commission, or is he making further representations on that point? Also, is he aware that the jobs effect of the situation that has now developed extends far beyond the chipboard factories into the whole of the rural areas, through the sawmills and the forestry industry?

I am aware of the knock-on effects of dumping on the chipboard industry.

Is the Minister aware that a chipboard factory in my constituency, in an area of very high unemployment, closed down this summer on account of competition, of dumping, from outside the EEC? What further steps will he take about this? Can he say a little more about the long-term effects on the forestry industry if something is not done very soon?

I have already indicated what steps the Government are taking. We intend to see, so far as we can, that the price undertakings given in particular by the Swedes are maintained. If they are not, we shall consider pressing the Commission to take anti-dumping action, although there are difficulties here with the Commission, inasmuch as United Kingdom production accounts for 5 per cent. or less of the total Community market, and at present the Commission appears to be unwilling to act on that basis. However, we shall certainly press it to do so if necessary.

In view of the redundancies now taking place in my constituency, and the fear that unless something is done seven of the chipboard factories now manufacturing in the United Kingdom will have to close, is not this the time to tell the Commission "To hell with the difficulties", to take unilateral action and tell the Commission that we shall stop all imports into this country in order to keep our native industry going?

If we were to take unilateral action to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of chipboard into this country, that would be illegal under article 30, which is directly applicable, as a result of a decision of the European Court, in the courts of this country. Therefore, consistent with our legal powers, we are taking all the action we can. I still expect that we shall be able to be more effective, or at least that the Commission will be able to be more effective, than we have so far been, particularly in respect of Belgian dumping, where we expect and intend to get action.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the rumour that is going round the timber industry that some of the problem is caused by murky deals involving shipbuilding contracts with Eastern European countries, in exchange for which Eastern European chipboard is being allowed to flood our markets?

My understanding is that there is no truth in those rumours.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has recently conducted a review into the quality and scope of the trade statistics issued by his Department.

The overseas trade statistics are kept under continuous review.

But as the gross trading figures with our other EEC partners exaggerate the amount of the so-called deficit by including the food imports from other countries as well and a large amount of entrepot trade which flows primarily through Holland and Belgium, would not it be a good idea for the Secretary of State to make this clear by adjusting the explanation behind those views so that the anti-EEC forces in this country, small though they be, are not able to perpetrate the myth about a gigantic EEC deficit?

An article was recently published in Trade and Industry which brought out the point that the hon. Gentleman mentions. Therefore, those students of the subject who are interested can inform themselves about it.

Although the balance of payments statistics have improved under this Government, would not they be greatly improved if my right hon. Friend would reconsider the question of selective import controls, which have been demanded by both the TUC and the CBI? Many industries in this country feel that they have been jeopardised by dumping policies.

That is precisely the question—whether our trade figures would be improved by action of the kind that my hon. Friend recommends. If as a result we lost exports, the balance of trade figures would not be improved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the United Kingdom imports of cotton yarn and knitted shirts from Greece during the first four months of 1978.

United Kingdom imports of cotton yarn and knitted shirts from Greece in the first four months of 1978 were 1,192 tonnes and 1,768,000 pieces respectively.

Do not those figures demonstrate that the informal agreements arrived at under the Multi-Fibre Arrangement have been thwarted by Greece in particular? Is not this another example of the fact that we should be much more able to protect our own industry if we were not bound up with the bureaucrats in Brussels?

The EEC imposed quotas on imports of Greek knitted shirts and blouses as from 7th July at the levels that we accepted last December. But my hon. Friend is quite correct in indicating that there has been a slippage, in that the quota was 0·95 million whereas imports in the first four months were 1·77 million. I think that action would have been taken sooner if the Commission on this occasion had not omitted the safeguard clause in the EEC-Greece agreement.

Have the Greek authorities connived at this extraordinary over-fulfilment of a year's quota in four months? If so, what action do the EEC or the Government propose to take against the authorities themselves?

I have no evidence—none at all—that there has been any lying on the part of the Greek authorities. The EEC-Greece agreement did not contain a safeguard clause. Therefore, there was the question of the legal authority under which the Commission would act in order to insist legally and mandatorily on the assurances which the Greeks had given last December. That authority has not been obtained. A quota has now been imposed, but the level of imports has been considerably higher than the quota agreed last December. But it means that in future years that quota at the agreed level will now be enforced.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the lack of any formal arrangements with many of the Mediterranean countries? Will not the Government press to ensure that these arrangements are formalised next year? Is my hon. Friend also satisfied with the surveillance arrangements for the MFA in general operating in the rest of Europe?

I am satisfied that the surveillance arrangements are effective. Where they appear not to be effective and where additional imports have come in over and above the quota level, this is largely for two reasons—first, that additional imports may have been licensed where they are only for re-export, and, secondly, that a large part of some countries' consignments were shipped at the end of 1977 and therefore do not count against the 1978 quota, although they count in the 1978 imports.

Is the Minister aware that according to the Knitting Industries Federation the Greek industry has no intention of observing the undertakings given to the EEC negotiators, so how will the Government enforce the new restrictions?

The EEC Commission now has power to enforce those restrictions, or to enforce the level of imports as it now is. I accept that it is well above the quota level imposed last year, but it will be enforced on that basis. We expect further action in respect of other textile sectors which might be breached to be taken soon, perhaps as a result of the meeting of the Council of Ministers tomorrow.

What representations has my hon. Friend received from the textile industry about the MFA? There is great concern on both sides of industry about the way in which the Commission is handling it, particularly in relation to Portugal.

The representations we have had from industry are that the renegotiated MFA is a very satisfactory arrangement, provided it can be enforced. It is true that there has been slippage in respect of Mediterranean suppliers and that the arrangements with Portugal have still not been finalised. But we have made very clear to the Commission what our position is over Portugal, and we do not intend to shift from that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the effect that changes to the membership of the British Tourist Authority emanating from the Scotland Bill will have on the independence of the membership of the British Tourist Authority.

The representatives of the national tourist boards will be in a majority on the board of the British Tourist Authority, as envisaged in the supplementary White Paper on devolution, but the size of the board will be maintained at its present level. The two independent members will continue to be appointed for their experience and knowledge of affairs generally and not to represent sectoral or regional interests.

But the Minister knows that this is totally changing the balance. Has he ever expressed dissatisfaction with the efficiency of the British Tourist Authority? Does not he agree that, as he has apparently always said, it gives outstanding value to taxpayers in terms of foreign currency earned compared with the amount of taxpayers' money expended in the overseas promotion of tourism? Apart from political expediency, what are the reasons for making this change, which can put at risk the efficiency of this organisation?

The hon. Gentleman has been much exercised about this change, but he well knows the reasons which lie behind it. As I have said, we made it clear in the supplementary White Paper on devolution that it was intended that the national tourist boards would, after devolution, exercise a decisive influence on BTA decisions and on the allocation of finance. That is the intention, and it will be carried out as a result of the change in the Scotland Bill.

How many extra tourists will be attracted to these islands by these measures?

I have no doubt that the BTA, which will remain responsible for the promotion of the tourist interests of Great Britain as a whole, both before and after devolution, will continue to do a good job.

Apart from the extra tourists who will wish to come to see the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), will not the Minister agree that, since tourism in Scotland is second only to tourism in London in terms of earning money for the United Kingdom, it is only right that the Scottish Assembly should have control over the industry in Scotland? We would most certainly not object to there being a London tourist authority.

It is right that the British Tourist Authority should maintain control over the general promotion of Great Britain as a whole because there is no doubt that if control were fragmented between the three boards there would be a loss overall to Britain. At the same time, it is true that under the Scotland Bill, as the hon. Lady knows, the Scottish board will be able to spend more money on tourism if it is funded by the Scottish Assembly.

Does the Minister think that the Scottish Executive will follow the Government's example in removing non-Socialists from the public boards of this sort and replacing them with ex-Labour Party agents and others who do not receive a decent pension from their employers and need a handout from the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman is presumably needled by the example of the Kent education authority. I do not know the political views of the members of many public boards, but, if they were known, I should be surprised if the balance were not very much in favour of the Tory Party.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects the credits extended to the USSR will have been completely taken up by that country.

I cannot forecast when the balance of the £950 million credit made available will be taken up.

Is it not the case that the extension of these credits has enabled the Russians to use their own resources for the building of further prisons and the import of further prison equipment—racks, bars, torture chambers and so on—in order to deal with the dissidents? Would not the interests of such heroes as Shcharansky and Ginzburg be better served if we discontinued this line of credit?

I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the result of these credit arrangements is correct. If we do not provide the Soviet Union with credit on comparable terms with that provided by our major industrialised competitors, we shall get even less business from it than we do now.

When considering the question of credit to Communist countries, will my right hon. Friend look at China, which has recently announced that it is prepared to accept credits—a new departure for it? Will he, along the lines he has just been explaining, seek to increase our trade with China through that means?

I hope shortly to visit China, and no doubt that will be among the matters I shall be discussing with the Chinese. I hope that I do not have to come back early from my visit.

Now that President Carter has shown that he is prepared to limit the export of advanced technology to the Soviet Union when it breaches its international obligations, should not the British Government be consulting the American Administration and other friendly Governments to see whether a concerted policy can be worked out on the matter?

We try to concert credit arrangements in respect of the Soviet Union and as we do more generally. I should be surprised to find from the figures of our trade with the Soviet Union, which I have not readily to hand, that American sales to the Soviet Union were not rather greater than our own.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what effect he expects EEC directives to standardise noise levels on mowing and grinding machines will have on imports and exports.

If these proposals became directives without further amendments, the effect on our trade might well be negative, but we shall seek to change it to avoid this.

Will my hon. Friend accept that if there is a problem with noise from mowing machines or, for that matter, grinding machines, whether in Brussels, Bonn, Bolton, Bombay or Baghdad, the individual countries are better able to deal with it themselves? Since my hon. Friend has said that the legislation is likely to have no effect at all, will he cease taking part in this kind of useless negotiation? The Common Market, whatever one's view of it, is making itself a complete laughing stock in making such proposals.

The Commission started work, I understand, on a draft directive to harmonise lawn mower noise limits because existing limits in German legislation constitute a technical barrier under article 100. I am bound to say that there seems something to be said for the view that the Commission's whole approach to harmonisation, if it is based on examples like this, is ridiculous and misguided, and we certainly intend to block this directive.

I thank the Minister for that last comment, but does he not agree that the logic of such a proposal might be that the Government should ask the Commission to propose a draft directive that the level of noise of all motor cars should be reduced to that of the British Rolls-Royce?

That is an ingenious suggestion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that almost all of our population, irrespective of whether they are pro-Market or anti-Market, are fed up to the eye teeth with the silly, stupid directives that keep emanating from Brussels? Is it not about time that Ministers went over there with no noise at all and gave the Churchill sign in reverse, which would please the people of this country?

That is broadly what we intend to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many letters he has received from the hon. Member for Twickenham concerning all aspects of aircraft noise and action which might reduce it since March 1974; and what action he has taken.

I have received 205 letters from the hon. Member in the period. I have taken these into account in reaching decisions on noise abatement matters.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we do not always agree with everything that he has done and has not done in this connection, his continuing courtesy in dealing not only with those 205 letters but in holding about a dozen meetings and replying to about 50 Questions has been appreciated by some of my constituents? Will he now say what further action he will take to extend the hours of the night ban at Heathrow and speed the introduction of quieter aircraft?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. No doubt my reply will feature in his election address—and his reply might well feature in mine in due course. He knows, from discussions that I have had with him, that the most effective way of getting a solution to the problem of noise, or at least a partial solution, is the acquisition and operation of quieter aircraft. We have set out our policy in that regard in the White Paper, and I have nothing to add at this stage to what was said then.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in contrast with the protests made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), there have been no protests about noise levels with regard to Teesside airport? Will my hon. Friend therefore think again about giving it B status? Will he tell us the outcome of the discussions that he has had about this matter in recent days?

I do not think that I have had any problems or complaints about noise from Teesside, but I have had other complaints, and my hon. Friend has adverted to one of them. I do not believe that there is a case for having a category B airport at Teesside. We had a useful meeting the other day with those who were propounding that cause, but I believe that they understood at the end of the day, having regard to the fact that Newcastle was a B category airport, that there was no real case for a category B airport at Teesside as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the future use of Biggin Hill airfield in the light of the representations he has received following the publication of the White Paper on airport needs.

The views of local residents will be taken into account in discussions between my Department and Bromley borough council about the future role of Biggin Hill airport.

Is the Minister aware that the proposal in the White Paper for Biggin Hill to be a general aviation centre has no support from any of the parties concerned except the British Airports Authority? Is he further aware that the airport is at present doing a very good job for the purposes of club flying and pilot training? Does he realise that the threat of the takeover is putting back genuine plans for local development at the airport, which is sorely needed and must be pursued in the public interest?

I am bound to say that there has been very little activity about modernising the facilities at Biggin Hill, and much needs to be done. As for lack of support, discussions are still continuing and it would be quite premature to judge at this stage whether the proposal which has been made will have support. There is opposition, but that was fairly predictable.

Is the Minister aware that the council of the London borough of Bromley has made it clear that it has no plans to relinquish either ownership or control of Biggin Hill airfield? Will he confirm, therefore, that there is no question of the council being overridden by either the British Airports Authority or his Department?

We have made it quite plain that there will be no imposition of British Airports Authority ownership. That is a matter for consultation. I hope that the consultations will proceed without a lot of the emotional talk which has been iterated by both hon. Gentlemen in questions today.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent representations his Department has received concerning the banning of imported goods in the manufacture of which whale sperm oil is used.

None, Sir.

Despite that reply, does the Minister agree that there is considerable concern about this matter and that for almost all the products concerned there is a viable alternative to the use of whale sperm oil? Are there any insurmountable administrative difficulties in imposing such a ban?

The existing controls on the import of whale products result from conservation reasons under the Endangered Species Act 1976. I understand that in the case of the sperm whale there is no danger of extinction, and at any rate until adequate substitutes are available—particularly for the purpose of lubricating leather, which is its main use—I do not think that we can contemplate a ban. I know that there is concern about this matter, and the Government have been encouraging a number of research projects in order to find substitutes for sperm oil, particularly in the lubrication of leather and in engineering applications.

Will the Minister think again on this? Is he aware that the marginal advantage of sperm oil—and it is marginal—over alternative products in the treatment of leather is as nothing compared with the threat of the total destruction of the whale species in the world?

If scientific evidence could be produced to indicate that there was a danger of the destruction of the sperm whale, then certainly, under the 1976 Act, we would contemplate a ban.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has had discussions with his EEC colleagues on imports of motor vehicles into the EEC from third countries.

This subject has been discussed between the member Governments of the EEC on a number of recent occasions.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the European car market is now a single and undivided market and that it is therefore very necessary to discuss with his colleagues the question of the plans of the Japanese motor industry to increase production by 4 million cars during the next four-year period?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an arrangement with the Japanese authorities in respect of this year, and there will be further discussions later this year in respect of 1979. This is a matter which is discussed within the EEC, and more generally the balance of trade between the European Community and Japan is discussed. The hon. Gentleman knows that at the recent summit meeting Mr. Fukuda made certain pledges concerning Japan's exports in the fiscal year 1978.

However many discussions there may be, is it not action that is required? Is the Minister prepared to take unilateral action if, as we expect, the Commission continues to procrastinate and thereby prevent effective action?

This is an area in which there have been discussions between the industry of this country and the industry of Japan, which were followed up in February and March by discussions between the representatives of the British Government and the Japanese authorities, resulting in a letter, a copy of which was published in Hansard. This is the action that has been taken, and this is having the effect of restraining Japanese exports of cars to the United Kingdom.

asked the hon. Member for Kingswood, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many officially redundant churches are presently owned by the Church; and what is their estimated aggregate book value.

Two hundred and twenty-four churches which have been officially declared redundant are at present in Church ownership. Of these, the future of 157 has yet to be decided while the remaining 67 await transfer to an agreed new use. In all, the future of 574 redundant churches has been resolved since 1969. Nearly half of these have been or will be converted to alternative uses; one-quarter are being preserved by the Redundant Churches Fund, a body financed by the Church and State. The remainder have been demolished.

I am sure that the House will be grateful for that very informative answer, but will my hon. Friend confirm that the Church has not made any money from the disposal of redundant church buildings during the last 10 years? Secondly, are the Church Commissioners satisfied that there is close enough liaison between the Church and local authorities about putting redundant church buildings to alternative and possibly socially valuable use?

The Church Commissioners derive no financial benefit from the sale of redundant churches. Two-thirds of all net proceeds of sale is made available to the diocese in which a redundant church is situated. This money can be used for building new churches and for work on existing ones, and money can be transferred to pay the stipends of the clergy and for the housing of the clergy. The remaining one-third is transferred to the Redundant Churches Fund. The total net sale proceeds dealt with in this way since the scheme started in 1969 have been £3,219,000.

Will the hon. Gentleman arrange to have a list printed of the remaining redundant churches, with their ages and their geographical position, and put it in the Library?

Yes, we can certainly do that.

I was impressed to note from my hon. Friend that the Church Commissioners' aim is to achieve the best use rather than the highest price. Will he have a word with his fellow Commissioners to see whether we might get similar better ethical standards applying in the private residential sector, where the top of the market seems to be the aim of the Church Commissioners?

That is not the Question on the Order Paper, and I am afraid that I could not say anything at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the latest available figure for imports and exports to and from the original six EEC countries and the United Kingdom.

Our exports to the original six EEC countries in the second quarter of this year were £2,750 million and our imports from them were £3,446 million.

I suppose that my hon. Friend has some difficulty in getting out pathetic figures such as those, in view of his position on the Common Market at one time. Is he also aware that if the Franco-German plan, announced at Bremen, is accepted, this will result in further German domination of our industrial economy and that those figures will thereby get worse? In other words, Herr Schmidt will have succeeded where Hitler failed in dominating this nation. My hon. Friend would do well to draw up contingency plans with his colleagues to get out of the Common Market, otherwise we shall not solve this problem.

The trade results of the currency stabilisation proposals cannot, on the basis of the nature of the proposals, be estimated at this point, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in the first half of this year the export-import ratio in our trade with the EEC stood at 84 per cent., which, while it was a reduction on the level of last year, was nevertheless rather better than our export-import ratio with North America, which stood at 76 per cent.

On the other side of the coin, can the Minister confirm that Ford would not now be setting up its new motor car engine plant at Bridgend in South Wales if Britain were not within the EEC, so that Ford is therefore certain of being able to send these motor car engines from South Wales to its other assembly plants throughout EEC countries?

The hon. Gentleman may be right, but it is also true that the British Government have given very substantial aid to Ford under selective Industry Act schemes. That money would certainly continue to be available whatever the position with regard to the EEC. The wider consequences of Britain being outside the EEC would, of course, have to be calculated very carefully on both sides and not in respect of only one investment.

Can my hon. Friend say what is the latest figure, at an annual rate, of our deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC Six?

No, I do not think I can give my right hon. Friend that information directly, but I shall certainly let him have it by letter. In respect of trade and manufactures, our export-import ratio with the EEC Six—poor though it certainly is, and much though it has deteriorated—remains better than it does with the rest of Western Europe, North America and, indeed, other developed countries over the last few years.

Is the Minister aware that the crude trade deficit with the whole of the EEC over the whole of last year amounted to £2,300 million and that the deficit on invisibles was £300 million? How much longer must this go on before the Government do something about it?

The visible trade consequences of a reduction of tariff barriers probably still remain less than the consequences of sharp changes in the exchange rates, and of domestic inflation differentials, but it remains true that visible trade with the EEC is very poor and that the invisible trade pattern is considerably worse. It has changed from a surplus of £380 million in 1973 to an estimated deficit last year of £300 million, and it has been a steady, regular decline.