asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is now taking to reduce aircraft noise.

We are continuing to encourage the development and introduction into commercial service of quieter aircraft and to ensure that aircraft landing or taking-off at airports designated under section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 are operated in such a way as to minimise disturbance.

As last month's report on the effect of aircraft noise on sleep shows that night disturbance to sleep does occur, and as the report also shows that over half the people living around Heathrow go to bed between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm, will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of bringing forward the beginning of night noise restraint by one hour. from 11.30 pm to 10.30 pm?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are strict quotas on night flights at Heathrow and Gatwick and the noisier flights are being phased out. I think the House would wish to acknowledge that my hon. Friend, who has been raising this matter since 1970, has played a considerable part in achieving the restrictions. Without his efforts, there would probably have been rather more noise incidence.

Will the Minister indicate the Government's view of the effect of the current recession in aviation on the ability of airlines, and particularly British Airways, to acquire in sufficient numbers the aircraft that will meet the new noise certification levels in 1986?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but it is a long-term consideration. One would hope and expect that the trading position of the companies concerned would improve considerably before the date he mentions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those living around Heathrow have been looking forward to a diminution of aircraft movement at night and not a substitution involving more movements by less noisy aircraft? Will he bear this factor in mind in relation to the peak period charges that are now being levied and consider whether that might have the effect of shifting movements sideways into non-peak areas?

I take the last point that my hon. and learned Friend raises. He is firmly supporting the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I am sure that my hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters will take full account of those points.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will list the references made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Competition Act.

Under section 11 of the Competition Act, my right hon. Friend has so far referred questions relating to British Rail's London and South-East commuter services, on which the commission has now reported, the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the Severn-Trent water authority. The Director General of Fair Trading has also launched two preliminary investigations under section 3 of the Act into possible anti-competitive practices by Petter Refrigeration Ltd. and T. I. Raleigh Ltd.

Although those references of public authorities are welcome, now that the prices charged by nationalised industries are going up very much faster than retail prices in general, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient powers under the Act to ensure maximum efficiency and value to the customer in public sector monopolies?

I hope that the commission's reports on public sector references will indicate ways in which costs can be cut and efficiency improved in order to contain future price increases which, in the public sector, I agree are causing a great deal of concern.

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what she is doing about the present monopoly in London evening newspapers? Will she assure the House that, if it later turns out that the present merger between the Evening Standard and the Evening News is simply a paving mechanism for property speculation in the vicinity of Fleet Street, she will see whether she has any powers to intervene?

As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have no powers to do anything about the monopoly to which he refers. What he described as a merger is in fact the opening of a new publication, a new newspaper. Anything that is in breach of the terms of the Fair Trading Act could properly be considered by the Government.

Will my right hon. Friend refer without delay the clearing banks to the commission, as they have started charging their customers quarterly interest without paying their depositors quarterly interest? That leads to an additional rate of interest to most captive customers of up to ½ per cent. a year. That is unacceptable and is an abuse of the monopoly power that the banks undoubtedly have.

I am sure that careful note will be taken of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the right hon. Lady ask the chairman of the commission whether he will try in future to produce monopoly reports on the private sector with the same speed and pungency as he produces them in the public sector?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the chairman has special requirements under the Competition Act, in the case of section 11 references, to produce those reports within a certain period. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will endorse my own view that those reports that have been presented have been excellent and thorough, despite the limited period of time. One would hope that certain monopoly reports could, where it is feasible and valid to do so, be produced slightly more quickly.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any new proposals for changes in companies legislation.

Yes, Sir. Over the last year my right hon. Friend has published two Green Papers and issued a number of consultative documents seeking views on possible changes. The response is being assessed.

In view of the Lords' decision on the Vestey case, may we have an assurance on exactly how and when the Government will introduce amending legislation to close the tax loophole? Will the legislation be made retrospective, so that the millions of pounds of unpaid tax will have to be repaid to the public purse by scroungers like the Vesteys?

The hon. Gentleman's questions on taxation are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has already declared his intention in this matter.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the action taken by the Council for the Securities Industry in stopping dawn raids on public British companies, or does he intend to introduce legislation now to outlaw them?

The action taken by the CSI, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been admirably strong. There is a question as to whether legislation will be helpful in respect of disclosure of shareholdings. That is now being considered very carefully.

Is the Minister aware that that prevarication is most unsatisfactory, when it is abundantly plain, and should have been plain to the Government long ago, that legislation needs to be undertaken to tackle this abuse of the furtive acquisition of significant British companies by the use of nominees and overseas companies acting in concert?

The hon. Gentleman will see in due course that all those factors have been properly taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current overall level of import penetration of manufactured goods; and in how many sectors import penetration exceeds 50 per cent.

For the 12 months ended March 1980, import penetration of the products of manufacturing industry in total was 26 per cent. This can be compared with the 25 per cent. share of total manufacturing output which was exported. An import penetration of greater than 50 per cent. was recorded in only one broad sector of industry—instrument engineering—where the figure was 58 per cent., but exports in this sector in the same period were 59 per cent. of sales.

But, given that under the present Government the surplus in trade in manufactured goods has dwindled to almost nothing, and is now moving into deficit, and given that under this Government's policies any reflation of the economy is bound to lead to a huge surge in imports, in what precise circumstances can this Government ever take the country out of deepening slump?

In the first nine months of this year, compared with the first nine months of last year, the export-import penetration figures of British manufacturing industry improved—rather the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Would my right hon. Friend care to hazard a guess as to why people import goods instead of buying goods that are manufactured in the home market?

I think that it is sometimes because imported goods are cheaper, sometimes because they are better, arid sometimes because people need to buy imported goods because there are no domestically produced goods to take their place. That is what trade is all about. Everyone benefits from it.

In view of the disastrous levels of import penetration in the man-made fibres industry, which to a great extent arise from United States energy pricing policy and the unfair advantage that it gives to United States manufacturers, and which has caused disasters to ICI, Courtaulds and other major British companies and the people who work for them, will the Secretary of State urgently consider what action can be taken unilaterally or within the European Community to obtain better protection for British industry against blatantly unfair trading?

I consider this difficult matter the whole time. There is a question on the Order Paper about this subject. We should reach it, and I would rather go into the full details then. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, of course, "Yes". We shall review the matter; we are reviewing it now, and we shall continue to do so.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why people sometimes buy imports is that they do not know that they are imports? Is it not very important now to proceed faster with origin marking, so that we know when we are buying British?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs has a programme for the origin marking of a whole range of products. We are still in the statutory consultation period, but as soon as it is over we shall table the necessary orders, and we shall be going straight ahead with origin marking. We intend to do that for a range of products.

What benefits does the Secretary of State think trade has brought to the 6,000-plus people made redundant in the first six months of this year in the wool textile industry? More specifically, what provision will he make to ensure that imports from Portugal, the second low-cost importer, are curtailed preparatory to, and during, her entry into the Common Market? At present, they are losing the industry many thousands of jobs.

I am aware of the current severe difficulties in the textile industry, but the wool textile industry would not have employed the number of people that it employs now had it not been so successful throughout history in exporting. Indeed, the industry has built up its reputation, its skills and its success, on exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received concerning the Fisher report on Lloyd's; and if he will make a statement.

Decisions about the Fisher report are a matter for Lloyd's, and I understand that a general meeting has been arranged on 4 November for that purpose. I have received no representations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most serious issues now affecting Lloyd's is the lack of adequate powers and procedures for dealing with the growing problem of international insurance frauds? Will he make sure that if there are to be any new proposals for a Lloyd's Act that gap will be filled?

Lloyd's has made a valuable contribution to the country's economy for hundreds of years. I regard it as most important that Lloyd's should continue as a self-regulating body. The proposals that will come forward for consideration in the Bill place responsibility upon Lloyd's for dealing with matters of internal regulation to which my hon. Friend refers.

I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that he believes that Lloyd's should continue to be self-regulating. One would deprecate any Government interference—

Question.

We shall come to a question in a minute.

In a second.

In a long second, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments and his strong emphasis on the virtue of self-regulation. I shall report on the Bill when it has been submitted to Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current imbalance in trade in manufacturing goods between Great Britain and the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the deficit on visible trade with the EEC so far in 1980; and how this compares with the deficit during the same period in 1979.

In the first three-quarters of this year the United Kingdom had a crude visible trade deficit with the European Community of £448 million, a considerable improvement on the deficit of £2,589 million for the corresponding period of last year. In the first three quarters of this year the United Kingdom deficit in manufactured goods with the Community was £1,638 million—again an improvement on the deficit of £2,118 million in the corresponding period of last year.

Does the Secretary of State accept that since Britain had a favourable balance of trade with the Six before we joined the Common Market the figures demonstrate how disastrous joining the Common Market has been for British manufacturing industry?

I do not think that the figures demonstrate any such thing. The figures before and after entry cannot be compared in that simplistic way. Whether we are in the Community or outside it, nine out of our 10 leading markets are now in the Community. Our export and import trade with the Community is improving year by year.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the deficit fell by 80 per cent. in the first nine months of this year compared with last year? Does he anticipate that we shall move into surplus in the near future?

I am afraid that I cannot calculate the percentage as fast as that. I hope that we shall move into balance in due course. It is vitally important that we continue to improve our trading position in the Community. Trade is better than it has been for the last few years. I hope that it will continue that way.

Do the Secretary of State's figures refer to trade with the Six or the Eight?

The figures in my initial answer refer to the existing Community.

The deficit has come down by three-quarters since the autumn of last year. Would that process be further helped at this stage by lowering the value of sterling in exchange rate terms?

Much as I should like to debate that broad and interesting question with my hon. Friend it must await another occasion.

Is the Secretary of State concerned about the contribution to the imbalance in manufactured goods caused by movements of goods within multinational companies? Is he aware that many multinational companies import goods into Britain on terms which are totally unfair to our other organisations which are seeking to do a reasonable job on behalf of Britain?

There is a problem involving over- and under-invoicing by multinationals. That used to be a matter of concern for exchange control purposes but is no longer. It could now conceivably be a problem for the Inland Revenue and the tax authorities. Other than that I can see no reason why we should be worried about the cross exchange of goods between multinational corporations operating in Europe or anywhere else.

The Secretary of State indicated that our manufacturing trade with the EEC was £1,638 million in deficit for the first nine months of the year. Does he have to hand our trade balance in manufactured goods with the rest of the world? Why does he think that our trade with the EEC in manufactured goods has been so bad compared to our trade with the rest of the world since we joined the EEC?

Over several decades we have tended to have a larger surplus with the rest of the world than with the original Six. We had a larger surplus before we entered the EEC. The total current deficit with the whole world this year is £200 million. That compares with a £3½ billion deficit last year. The position has improved in nearly all markets, including the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the restrictions which have so far been imposed on the dumping of Russian-produced greetings cards in the United Kingdom.

Following discussions which my Department has had, these imports appear to have ceased. The question of imposing restrictions does not, therefore, arise at the moment.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that is not entirely so? Is he aware that I am informed by people who are in a position to know that not only Christmas cards but greetings cards generally are still coming into Britain? Does he agree that, of all countries from which they should originate, Russia is the worst?

My hon. Friend knows that contact between the industry and the European Commission about the antidumping complaint is continuing. I am disturbed to hear that there is some evidence of the trade continuing. We shall continue carefully to monitor the situation.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction concerning the anti-dumping unit in his Department? May we be assured that wool textile cases are also being taken up?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the anti-dumping unit in my Department is good and effective. It wants to help industry. It is willing to receive evidence and to assist in the preparation of cases to be submitted to the European Commission. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and encourage industrialists who have problems to send them to the anti-dumping unit in my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he will take to strengthen the trading position of the footwear industry.

The Government are assisting the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation in preparation for their next round of negotiations with South Korea and Taiwan. They are working with the federation on possible anti-dumping cases against East European footwear. New representations have been made to the Canadians and Australians about their quotas on footwear. Discussions are taking place in the Community about possible areas of compensation from these countries. Brazilian exports of footwear have fallen dramatically from 1·2 million pairs in the first quarter of this year to ½ million pairs in the second. Following our representations the Brazilians have reduced their export tax on raw hides to 18 per cent. from 36 per cent. and finished leathers to 5 per cent. from 18 per cent.

I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend says. Is he aware that workers in the footwear and clothing industries have started a campaign to buy each other's products and that this is going well? Can my right hon. Friend help to expand and extend that campaign throughout British industry by, for example, encouraging British farm-workers to buy British cars and British car workers to buy British apples? Could he assist in that by telling people that Fiestas are made in Spain and Granadas in Germany, because many people do not know?

I agree that the footwear EDC in particular is doing an extremely valuable job in bringing the retailers and producers closer together. That should happen in as many industries as possible. My hon. Friend has advertised the position of the Fiesta. He is free to do that on repeated occasions.

Is it not unfair trading within the EEC that the Italian shoe industry should encourage a cottage industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Italian housewives are encouraged to make up shoes at a cost in our currency of 50p a shoe, or £1 a pair? Is he aware that many of those women contract a fatal disease from the glue used in the making up process and are not subject to the provisions of any Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as we are? Is that not unfair trading? Can my right hon. Friend do something about it?

As my hon. Friend knows, repeated representations have been made to the Commission about certain aspects of the Italian shoemaking activity. Concern has been expressed along the lines that he mentioned. It is a significant complaint. However, the real reason why Italian shoes are so successful is that their design is excellent and consumers actually want to buy them. That is the heart of the matter. It is one of the principal reasons why the Italian industry is so successful.

Does not the Secretary of State think that when asking people to buy British it might prove more helpful if he took every opportunity to praise British products rather than ostentatiously praising foreign products, as he has done twice during Question Time?

I spend my whole life praising British products. The more competitive that British products are with overseas products, the happier I shall be. I believe that one of the best things that has happened in a long time is the successful launch of the Mini Metro. I hope that it proves very successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on South-East commuter fares to be published.

My right hon. Friend presented the report to Parliament and published it on 2 October 1980, The commission has found, as have a great many commuters, that performance could be improved, and has made a number of constructive recommendations for the better running of British Rail's London commuter services, particularly in the key areas of efficiency and productivity, and service levels and standards. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is pursuing with the chairman of the British Railways Board the action to be taken on these and other important areas of the report.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that commuters have had a rough time during the past few years because of rising prices and deteriorating services—although not necessarily in my constituency of Reading? Will she discuss with the chairman of British Rail the pricing policy that he is undertaking, and ask him to shift some capital resources towards the commuter area?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is pursuing with the chairman of British Rail the action to be taken following the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the following main areas—improvements in efficiency and cost control, by which a better service may be provided for no increased cost, the cost and effectiveness of rolling stock and design and the objectives for the board's operation of the London and South-East commuter services. Naturally, efficiency and cost are key questions in relation to future price increases. I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's question.

If it is necessary for British Rail to increase public expenditure to meet the objectives of the report, will the Minister support that expenditure?

That is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the ordinary commuters who live on the South-East coast were at one time offered special low rate fares by British Rail because the train had to go past Sevenoaks before it turned around? Is she aware that British Rail have now abolished that offer? Is not that sharp practice?

I cannot comment on that instance. However, I am aware that commuters in the south-eastern area, including the area to which my hon. Friend refers, are far from satisfied with the service that they receive, and that may be one aspect.

Is the Minister aware that users of the Central line, where it passes through Essex from Debden to Ongar, are subject to a special premium charged as a result of the refusal by Essex county council to make a subsidy available towards the running of the line? When the right hon. Lady is considering the high cost of fares to commuters will she have a word with her right hon. and hon. Friends about that matter because people in my constituency and the adjoining constituencies are subject to a burden which is greater than that imposed in any other constituency?

Essex county council's spending priorities are entirely a matter for that council. They have nothing to do with British Rail.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what will be the next reference under section 11 of the Competition Act to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what will be the next reference under section 11 of the Competition Act to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

We have a number of prospective candidates under review and I hope to make an announcement very shortly. Meanwhile, I intend to extend the terms of reference of the Severn-Trent Water Board reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to include the question of scope for more extensive optional metering.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that announcement will be welcomed by those concerned with those matters? Will she note that section 11 references are a useful reinforcement of the Government's competition policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no shortage of candidates for the investigations, which have proved to be extremely popular and effective. It is simply a question of choosing between competing priorities and demands.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the value of cars exported from Eastern bloc countries into the United Kingdom over the past five years.

I shall publish full information in the Official Report, but between 1975 and 1979 imports from the Eastern bloc increased by £36 million, compared with an increase from the European Community of £1,573 million. The first half of this year shows a downward trend in imports from the Eastern bloc.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that it was hypocritical of us to retaliate against the Russians following the invasion of Afghanistan by trying to prevent our athletes from going to Moscow, while at the same time allowing Russian cars to be imported into Britain? Will he say what he is doing to ensure that the Mini Metro is sold to Eastern bloc countries?

It is not for me to ensure that the Mini Metro is sold to Eastern European countries. That is the job of the management of British Leyland. I sincerely hope that we can get British cars into the Eastern bloc. We have a surplus on our trade with the Eastern bloc this year, and I do not wish to see that disappear. As the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, I am sure that he is in favour of liberal trading policies, in the great tradition of his party.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not a question of the total value of Soviet imports, but the price at which they enter Britain? It is a political price. The Soviet Union supplies 25 per cent. of all cars sold in Britain for less than £3,000. That is a damaging practice. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people think that it is not an example of the fair, free and liberal trade to which he referred?

I understand the complaint about Eastern European car imports. That complaint has been made especially by Sir Michael Edwardes. However, the share of the market taken by those cars has fallen fairly significantly in recent times. It is an indication that the consumer is more discriminating than some of us sometimes think. I do not think that there is any real competition for British Leyland from those cars. In any event, I hope that that is the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many trade missions will visit Kenya during 1980.

The British Overseas Trade Board expects to provide financial support for a total of five trade missions to Kenya in 1980, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has recently returned from a trade visit there.

Is the Secretary of State aware that that answer is welcome only as far as it goes? Is he also aware that Kenya, like Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola and other countries in that area, offers enormous opportunities for British trade, and will continue to do so during the next decade? Does he agree that it would be healthier to develop that trade than to be involved with the Republic of South Africa?

We are doing all that we can to increase our trade with Kenya, and there is a small surplus on our trade. We must continue our efforts to expand our trade even further. The Kenyans have twice visited Britain to discuss bilateral trade negotiations since we came into government.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current state of trade between Israel and the United Kingdom.

The value of United Kingdom-Israel trade for the period January-August 1980 has fallen slightly from the equivalent period in 1979. Two-way trade for this period totalled £327·4 million, comprising British exports of £156·2 million and Israel exports of £171·2 million.

Has not the time come when the Government should stop authenticating Arab boycott documents that are designed to interfere with free trade between two friendly democracies?

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I must have answered that question at least five or six times. He knows our policy towards authentication. I understand his concern about the present arrangements. We are going as far as we can to satisfy him. I am conscious that we have not gone quite as far as he wishes. The matter is very much on my mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further measures he intends to introduce to improve consumer protection.

The Competition Act is now on the statute book. The grant to citizens advice bureaux has been doubled. Orders and regulations have been introduced dealing, among other things, with upholstered furniture, dangerous novelties, advertisements and quotations, and petrol price display. I intend to make a number of further orders and regulations which will benefit consumers in due course. These will deal with the country of origin marking. which I hope to lay before the House by the end of next month, estate agents, consumer credit, consumer safety and VAT inclusive pricing.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the consumer has had a raw deal from this Government with the consumers' tax—VAT—increased from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent., high interest rates, the artificially high value of the pound and the fact that there have been 10,000 price increases in this year alone? Will she consider bringing forward legislation in the Queen's Speech to restore the consumer advice centres, because they are needed much more today than they ever were in the past?

I find it very difficult to reconcile the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of this Government's record on consumer protection with his own party's policies—in so far as it has any policies—of calling for higher inflation through a measure of reflation and less choice for consumers through extreme protectionism, which represent the most blatant anti-consumer policies of any political party for many years.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's diligent activity in this area, will she hesitate a little before placing additional bureaucratic burdens on industry at the present time? Will she bear in mind that the best protection which the consumer can possibly have is the ability to buy the best goods at the best prices, from whatever source in the world?

In considering any consumer protection legislation, one must balance very carefully the benefits to consumers and the cost to industry and make sure that any new regulations that one introduces do not result in the costs outweighing the benefits to the consumer.

Will the right hon. Lady have a look at the highway robbery that is now taking place as a result of increases in medicines that are not sold to the NHS? In some cases the price of non-proprietary drugs have risen two or three times in the last 18 months, and I have a seven page list which I can give the right hon. Lady if her Department does not have it.

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, but it is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that matches are being imported from the Soviet Union indicating both the origin and the quantity, which satisfies Customs and Excise, but that subsequently labels are stuck over the top indicating that the product is made in Austria? Will she ensure that in her forthcoming legislation the country of origin is shown to the consumer as well as to Customs and Excise?

That is the purpose of the origin marking orders which I propose to lay before the House but which do not include matches. It may well be that the practice to which my hon. Friend has referred is in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that one area where consumers still get ripped off is doorstep selling for cash? Will she now go ahead and legislate on doorstep selling and tell the EEC Commission what it can do with its directive?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, negotiations with the EEC on the doorstep selling directive have been extremely prolonged because of the difficulties that we have encountered in the way in which it cuts across British law, which we feel is more effective. I am certainly keeping an eye on this whole area to see whether any malpractices arise which give need for further or new thought on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress has been made in finalising the United Kingdom negotiating position in relation to the re-negotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement.

The Government consider it essential for there to be an effective successor arrangement to the current MFA, and that the arrangement should be the best deal it is possible to obtain for the British textile industry—taking account of British interests as a whole. We are continuing our consultations with all interested parties on the detailed provisions of our negotiating position.

Bearing in mind the devastation being suffered in textile communities and towns throughout the length and breadth of the country, does the Secretary of State acknowledge the deep anxiety felt in those communities about the current negotiations that are taking place? Can he confirm that the language which he has just used does not imply a weakening of resolve by the British Government to look after the interests of British workers and industry? Will he insist that it is not simply a question of an acceptable MFA but one which is at least as firm as the present arrangement?

I understand the deep anxiety felt throughout the House about the current grave situation in the textile industry. There is certainly no weakening on the part of the British Government in their resolve in regard to MFA 3. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, while he must do his best to protect the British textile industry, one of the problems is that textiles are manufactured by countries which are undergoing development? This is one of the first products which many of those countries produce. Therefore, they are coming into competition in the textile world.

My hon. Friend is right. That is the major problem in arriving at the kind of satisfactory MFA 3 to which the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) referred. The MFA is a contract, if I can describe it as such, between the poorer countries, the low-cost producers, and the developed world. The question at issue is whether we can manage to negotiate another contract of the same kind. There were discussions last week on this subject, but that is the key issue.

rose—

Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from either side before calling the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

As well as understanding the deep anxiety of the industry, does the Secretary of State understand that the industry—both management and unions—places a major part of the blame for its catastrophic decline at the door of the Government because of their complacent policies? When will the Government substitute positive action for sympathy in order to save the industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action to ensure that there is a Lancashire cotton, textile and allied industry worth saving before the MFA comes up for renegotiation?

Of course the textile industry places the major part of the blame on the Government for its problems, just as the textile industry placed the major part of the blame on the Labour Government for its problems when the Labour Government were in office. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 150,000 people lost their jobs while the Labour Government were in office. Therefore, this problem is not new. Several hundred thousand people have left the textile industry in the past 30 years. Of course, I realise that the Government are being blamed for many things, and all Governments will so be blamed for transitional difficulties.

While praising my right hon. Friend's efforts in these negotiations, may I ask him whether he agrees that a root problem is the artificially low pricing policy on energy followed by the United States Government, which is affecting not only this industry but others, including paper? Can he confirm that he and his right hon. Friends are seeking to do something about that?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a major problem with the low feedstock prices in the United States. It is not just in fibres that this is causing difficulty. As my hon. Friend said, it is also causing problems in chemicals, plastics and a range of European industries. I am now in the process of considering our response to the United States proclamation that they would retaliate against other parts of our textile industry unless we raise our quotas by the end of the year. These matters are now under consideration, but frankly I do not think that we shall make very much progress in discussions in the United States—if we decide through the Commission to discuss these matters with the United States again—until the American election is behind us.

Why is it that when he is asked about whether the MFA will be renewed, the Secretary of State always uses the phrase that the Government are committed to a successor to the MFA? Is there any reason why he uses that particular form of words? Secondly, does he agree that one of the Government's objectives ought to be a recession clause in the MFA, whereby the capacity of this country to absorb imports was related to the strength of domestic purchasing power?

As I said in the last debate which took place on this matter on 30 July, all the trading arrangements that at present apply to textiles were negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman himself and his predecessor. They were not negotiated by me but by the then Labour Government. I am working within the trade framework which I inherited from the Labour Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been received to increase expenditure on overseas development in developing countries.

The Government have received a number of representations arguing for such an increase.

Does not the Minister realise that there has been disappointment on both sides of the House at the Government's response to the Brandt Commission report? Will a more favourable response be included in the Queen's Speech?

Regarding the hon. Gentleman's second point, that view has been expressed. With regard to his first point, I suggest that he awaits the Queen's Speech.

Will the Minister confirm to the House that aid to overseas countries is now running at almost the same level as our contribution to the EEC? Does he not agree that the Government's response to the Brandt Commission report should be firm and negative and that we should indicate clearly that the time has come to cut these contributions?

The Government's response to the Brandt report has been justified as correct.

The Minister must surely be aware that his answer is totally unacceptable to Labour Members. Having regard to the 14 per cent. cut that he announced earlier this year, will he assure the House that he will not accept further cuts in the aid programme?

I am aware of the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I cannot comment on his second point at this stage.

Would we not show our enthusiasm for the Brandt exercise if we were to take a full and active part in the forthcoming world summit on aid to the underdeveloped countries?

We shall play our full part in the forthcoming summit on the Brandt report.

Will the Minister either confirm, or preferably deny, the weekend reports that overseas aid is being considered as one of the targets for he further round of Government expenditure cuts? If this is so, will the Minister give an assurance that he will resign his position?

There is not much future in commenting on highly speculative press reports.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning developments in aid to Zimbabwe.

Britain is providing the £75 million already announced, and implementation of programmes within this is under way. In addition, we are spending £6 million this year in training Zimbabweans already on courses before independence, and we have forgone payment of £22 million of official debt.

Will the Minister tell the House what approximate proportion of the £75 million is being spent in kind on assisting Government services and agencies, and what is being spent on new and additional projects that might not otherwise have taken place?

We are discussing with the Zimbabwean Government the quantity of aid for land resettlement. The discussions have not yet been completed with the Zimbabwean Government. When agreement has been reached I can give an answer on the balance that will be available.

If, in the Minister's words we are encouraging generous aid from other donors, should we not begin by setting a better example ourselves? Does not the Minister agree that the aid quotas for Zimbabwe fall far short of the sums that were discussed prior to independence?

Yes, but the previous Anglo-American proposals were a different ball game. There was no international reaction to the figure that was proposed then, which, I think, was plucked out of the air. Our pledge of £75 million is generous, and it will be one of our largest aid programmes in Africa.

As one who visited Zimbabwe during the Summer Recess—as, I believe, did my hon. Friend the Minister—may I ask whether he recognises the political significance of the British aid programme in assisting that country to resettlement? In view of that, will the Government consider the possibility of making the £75 million available over an 18-month period, rather than over a three-year period?

No, we have budgeted for the £75 million to be spent over three years, and that has been accepted by the Zimbabwean Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further progress has been made in gaining new orders from the World food programme for the canned fish processing industry.

Since May 1980, 10 further orders for canned fish, totalling 536·2 tonnes, have been placed in response to requests from the world food programme.

The Minister's reply is totally unsatisfactory because there is a serious situation in the fish processing industry in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that unless further aid is granted from the world food programme—rather than cash—in order to produce positive canned fish orders the industry in Scotland will go out of fexistence?

I much admire the persistence of my hon. Friend on the question of canned fish. However, the problem is that there is a limited demand for canned fish in the developing countries, and other countries supply it. We do our best to help my hon. Friend and the industry in his constituency.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the world food programme includes the canning of kryll, which is a small crustacean now in glut in certain Arctic and Antarctic waters, having been the diet of whales which are now reduced in numbers?

I have never come across kryll in dealing with the world food programme, but I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend about it.

Will the Minister say whether canned fish is included in the food programme for Zambia? Since the Minister's discussions with President Kaunda a few weeks ago, many events in that country rest on the success or failure of the food programme. Is there anything more that the Minister can do in this urgent situation?

We shall keep a close eye on the situation and do what we can to help.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is now the estimated sum which his Department will expend on support for overseas students in the United Kingdom in the current financial year; and approximately how many students will benefit.

£41 million, from which about 12,000 students and trainees will have benefited during this period.

Is the Minister aware that I have evidence from the University of Sheffield that the savage increase in overseas students' fees has had a damaging impact on the intake of overseas students? Does he not agree that if this phenomenon is widespread he has a duty to bring compensatory funds to bear to support overseas students, particularly from the poorer countries, whose chances of higher education have been virtually eliminated by the Government's policy to date?

I do not think so, but if the hon. Gentleman sends me the figures that he mentioned I shall look at them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether further cuts in the aid budget will need to be made in the current year.

No, Sir. But all public expenditure plans are constantly under review.

Is the Minister saying that his Department's forecast expenditure for the coming year is not as safe as it should be? If so, is that not an appalling commentary on the Government's attitude to overseas aid expenditure generally?

The answer to the first part is "No". There is therefore no answer to the second part.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the last time round overseas aid suffered more than its fair share of cuts, and that we are not just talking about charity but about looking after our future trading partners?

There certainly were cuts the last time round. I hope that there will be a satisfactory solution to the Government's current examination of the future programme.

During the recess did the Minister visit India or any other country suffering grave hardship, hunger and poverty, to refresh his memory of what the programme is all about? If so, does he agree that both compassion and enlightened self-interest require an increase, not a decrease, in the programme?

I hope that the programme will be increased when we have our economy right. I have visited Zimbabwe and Zambia during the recess, and I visited India earlier in the year.