asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made to secure greater competition in the determination of air fares in Europe.

We are making less progress than we would wish because many other European Governments wish to retain the present tightly regulated system and we can make progress only by agreement. But we support innovative fares proposed by British airlines; we refuse fare increases when we do not think them justified; and at our initiative the Commission is examining air fares in the Community, with a remit to report back to the Council of Transport Ministers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the current level of standard air fares in Europe is ludicrously and unacceptably high in relation to other routes and is actively damaging to the increase of air traffic within Europe? Will he press this matter considerably further? What is wrong with further competition, particularly from the private sector, in order to improve the situation?

We believe that major liberalising steps are needed, because air fares too often are too high. More innovative steps, such as lower standby fares and "mini-prix" fares, should be approved. Because of our international agreements, we cannot decide on the level of international fares without the agreement of the other Governments concerned.

Is it not true that there is a necessity to protect existing capacity within the European airlines, and that there is a relationship between the losses of British Airways and the attitude being taken by the Government on a free air policy?

It is true that the world economic recession is adversely affecting the trade of British Airways and of other international airlines, but I emphasise that, against that background, our aim is to ensure that legitimate fares suit all categories of traveller. That is why my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his initiative in persuading the Commission to examine air fares in the Community and to report back.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the immense number of air tickets that are sold to what are termed "bucket shops" are in fact sold by the major airlines, including British Airways? In order to obtain a greater degree of competition, and to stop the aspect of illegality in this practice — which is frequently most welcomed by holidaymakers and travelers—should not the Government take a line and attempt to bring the whole "bucket shop" operation into a better perspective?

I appreciate the practicality of my hon. Friend's question. I believe that he is right in his view of public opinion, but I have tried to emphasise that the agreement that is made for airline routes includes an agreement about fares. Airlines—or their agents—are required to charge approved fares. It is not possible for us to legalise illegally discounted tickets except by obtaining the agreement of our international partners to lower fares. That is why we are making efforts in that direction.

However attractive and long overdue is the prospect of lower air fares in Europe, is my hon. Friend entirely happy that British Airways should be embarked upon the present policy of matching the competition, whether legal or illegal, at a time when it is in such desperate trouble that it is having to borrow millions of pounds to pay its wages bill?

My hon. Friend has not fully understood the purpose of, for example, Sir Freddie Laker, where, when lower fares have been negotiated on, say, the North Atlantic run, the result has been to increase the market available and therefore to increase the number of passengers who are able to afford to travel.

rose—

Order. This matter comes up again on question 14.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that the accounts of the British Airports Authority are as informative as those relating to similar international airports such as those of New York.

They are much more informative.

In what way are the British Airports Authority's accounts more informative than those of other international airports.

The annual report and accounts of the British Airports Authority have recently been commended by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Few other major international airports appear to produce reports and accounts that are as informative. For example, no comparable financial information is provided for each of the individual airports under the control of the port of New York and New Jersey authority or l'Aeroport de Paris.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied that Eurocontrol will be able to continue to discharge its responsibilities for air traffic control in Europe.

Yes, Sir. The recently agreed arrangements for the future of Eurocontrol will result in a continuing high standard of air traffic control, but on a more cost-effective and efficient basis than hitherto.

In view of the frequent and widespread delays experienced by British and European tourists, is there any possibility of widening the membership of Eurocontrol to make it more effective over a wider area?

The layout of routes must have regard to safety and the avoidance of areas set aside for military purposes. However, subject to, that, I accept the importance of my hon. Friend's point. There is a prospect of improving the service as a wider area of control is brought about.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the operation of Eurocontrol compares unfavourably with air traffic control arrangements in the United States, in that the productivity of air traffic control to get aeroplanes in and out of various airports and air passages is less good than the American system?

My noble Friend, who has responsibility for aviation matters will, I am sure, carefully consider the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the balance of trade in chemicals for that part of 1980 for which he has figures as compared with the same period in previous years.

In 1980 the United Kingdom had a crude surplus on trade in chemicals of £2,139 million, compared with surpluses of around £1,500 million in each of the two previous years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those are excellent results, for which the industry deserves high praise? However, does he also agree that such success is vulnerable to retaliation against any protective measures that we may take to assist parts of our home market that are facing competition from imports? Does he further agree that the success is vulnerable to competition from countries such as the United States, where fuel and other input costs are kept artificially low?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". The figures demonstrate that Britain, being extremely dependent on trade and access to other markets, has much to lose from the extension of widespread protectionism. I agree also with my hon. Friend's second point.

Is the Minister aware that Graesser Salicylutes Limited, in my constituency suffered dozens of redundancies in 1980, largely due to the strength of the pound and the need for energy subsidies, as well as high interest rates? Is he further aware that that company has also been hit hard through the importation from the Chinese Republic of Paracetamol, which has given it financial headaches?

Individual British companies have been having a difficult time. However, our chemical industry has been much more successful in maintaining a larger share of other people's markets than they have been in maintaining the same share of ours.

Energy price advantages in America have been mentioned. Does the Minister accept that the British chemical industry would pay £250 million less for its energy if the same prices applied as those in Germany and France?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a working party has been set up to establish the indisputable facts about the matter. There are as many opinions as there are people. We wish to get the right answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he expects to be able to make any reduction in the costs of security provisions for airline passengers.

My noble Friend does not propose to reduce the rate of the aviation security levy, but it will remain at its present level for the time being.

To what extent does my hon. Friend consider that the charge of £4 for a round trip airline ticket represents the true economic cost of providing airport security? Is he aware that airports other than those run by the British Airports Authority, which employ private security companies, need to charge rather less than 50 per cent. of that figure to cover their costs? In those circumstances, is it not high time that the Government either reconsidered the charges that the British Airports Authority is having to levy, or the security levy in general?

I am sure that my noble Friend will consider those points carefully. Centralised searching at Heathrow terminal 3 should lead to staff reductions, and similar arrangements at Gatwick are being considered. That will help to keep down the cost of the searching process.

In view of the addition to costs and the disruption of services caused by the practice, always unnecessary, but quite unnecessary now, of flying British shuttle crews from Belfast to Glasgow every night so that they may escape the dangers to which 1½ million of their fellow citizens are exposed, will the Government take steps to bring the nonsense to an end, in everybody's interest?

I shall ask my noble Friend to consider that. On the question of security costs generally, the answer is that the recent change made concerning flights to Northern Ireland has improved security and introduced greater convenience for passengers.

Why are there no plans to return those security tasks to private enterprise, bearing in mind the disproportionate rise in costs since the responsibility was passed to the British Airports Authority?

The system of financing the security costs enables my Department to keep a closer check on the standard of security arrangements. However, I shall ask my noble Friend to consider that proposal carefully.

Is the Minister aware that the standards of training undertaken by virtually all private security companies before the changeover were grossly inadequate?

I appreciate that a proper standard of skill is necessary, but it has been established widely at other airports. However, my noble Friend will certainly have regard to that matter.

Will the Minister think very carefully before committing the country to a whole new range of para-police personnel, as one finds at the moment in America, where one tends to be searched and manhandled by almost anyone with a flash on his shoulder?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes far wider than the main question that I am answering—

No.

The main question relates to important security matters concerning the safety of air passengers.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the implementation of his policy towards regional airports.

I am never fully satisfied, but the substantial capital investment programme announced on 11 December, together with the progress we have made in promoting new air services to airports outside the London area, demonstrates our commitment to encouraging the fullest use of regional airports to meet local demand.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he be more specific on the question of the transfer of charter traffic away from the principal airports in the South-East—Heathrow and Gatwick? What progress has he made in transferring major airlines from Heathrow to Gatwick, to make use of the unused facilities at Gatwick?

I believe that my right hon. Friend's policy in encouraging regional airports gives substantial and welcome encouragement to the regional airports. I think that my hon. Friend will understand that the greatest growth is not necessarily in charter flights but in regular service flights with lower charges of the kind that I have mentioned. There has recently been an extension of the services that my hon. Friend asked about: for example, from Manchester to New York.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Manchester international airport on topping the 4 million passenger mark last year, increasing its passenger input by 29 per cent. and its freight throughput by 12 per cent., and attracting 10 new airlines? Is not that proof that a vigorous regional airports policy can work both in taking the pressure off Heathrow and in developing the regions?

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Manchester airport on its development. The Government will do everything possible to sustain that improvement by securing for Manchester extra services of the kind that I have given as an example.

I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that local demand should be the factor that determines the growth and size of an airport. Is he aware that many of the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) and for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), as well as many of mine, very much hope that he will keep a close watch on those who have a predatory eye on developing Hum airport? Will he acquaint himself with the Parley Lane situation, and recognise that he can help to make a name for himself in controlling Government expenditure by stopping this bit of nonsense?

I am attracted by my hon. Friend's proposition. With my noble Friend, I shall look at the questions that he has raised.

Does the Minister agree that this period of economic depression is the time when investment in our regional airports should be stepped up? In this connection, will he very much bear in mind Cardiff, Wales, airport?

Unfortunately, Cardiff airport did not qualify on a regional or national basis to benefit from the schemes recently announced. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's general point, he will appreciate that the scheme for assisting the development of regional airports is a very useful form of economic activity at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has had further discussions with representatives of the Indonesian Government concerning bilateral trade; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Trade, at the invitation of the Indonesian Minister for Trade, visited Jakarta on 7 and 8 January. He discussed textile matters and wider bilateral trade issues with the President of Indonesia and several Indonesian Government Ministers. Quota levels were discussed at which the European Commission might reach agreement with Indonesia on the quantities of some Indonesian-made garments which might be imported into the United Kingdom in 1981. Normal trading between the United Kingdom and Indonesia has been resumed.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement. Does not this example of our recent relations with Indonesia serve as a warning to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that there is some future in protectionist policies? Is it not now clear from this experience that the only way in which Britain will be successful is by manufacturing and selling to the best standards in the world?

My hon. Friend is right. What comes out of this experience is that those who argue that we can protect our industries without expecting retaliation have been misleading themselves.

Why is the Minister giving a false impression about the facts of the Indonesian argument? Is it not the case that the dispute arose not out of a unilateral imposition of quotas by Britain, but out of a breach by Indonesia of a set of quotas previously agreed between Indonesia and the EEC, and that the message is that world trade will be disrupted if countries such as Indonesia break bilateral and multilateral agreements, on which the whole of world trade must depend?

It was precisely to establish that point that my right hon. Friend went to Indonesia. He pointed out to the Indonesians that we were not discriminating against them, but that they were one of 41 countries with which we had agreements and that we could not allow those agreements to be torn up unilaterally. However, it is a fact that my right hon. Friend negotiated levels of access for 1981 that are only two-thirds of those for 1980.

Until the Indonesian Government release their thousands of political prisoners and end their invasion of East Timor, will the British Government cease all supplies of arms and military equipment, including training aeroplanes, to that country?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has extremely strong views about these matters, but he tends to be rather selective in choosing when to assert them. I have never heard him suggest that we should in any way interfere with our trade with Eastern Europe, for instance, or withdraw our ambassadors, which has been the demand in other cases, because of abuse of human rights there. Certainly we deplore the abuse of human rights wherever it occurs, but we try to separate that and trade. If we were to introduce a political acceptability test for trade we should sell very little to anyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further references are being made to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any plans to refer any matters to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.

On 20 November 1980 I sought the views of the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds on the scope and content of the consumer education pack which we are preparing for use in schools. It has expressed initial satisfaction and pleasure with my proposals in outline, and I await a more detailed response.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the broadened base of consultation, but will she, while consulting the urban ladies, not omit the rural ladies of the women's institutes?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I consulted the National Federation of Women's Institutes on children's reaction to advertising, and I recently received its report, which was extremely useful. I greatly value the extended communications that I have with the commonsense, grassroot opinions provided both by the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and by the women's institutes.

My right hon. Friend mentioned common sense in her discussions with the townswomen's guilds and the women's institutes. Did they offer her any common sense in the matter of the use of gallons or litres in the sale of petrol?

I have not made this reference to them, but I feel that I know what their views are. I should like to make the Government's position clear. The Government have not required the change. I personally regret it. During the passage of the Weights and Measures Bill under the previous Government I carried an amendment to exempt the statutory imposition of metrication where gallons were used. This is a purely technical matter that has arisen within the industry because of technical difficulties with petrol pumps. I regret that the change has been necessary, but I accept that it has. I personally shall select garages that still sell petrol by gallons, wherever that is possible.

Since the right hon. Lady measures her car's engine in litres, I do not see why she should object if other people tend to measure petrol in the same way. Can she enunciate her principles on consultation? Is she consulting one organisation on one order? Surely on a consumer education pack one should consult rather more widely than one institution.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am consulting widely. The education pack, as he will recall from his own safety pratice, is not an order. It is an initiative of the Minister. I am consulting widely with all interested parties.

Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that, to a certain extent, the discussion by petrol companies with regard to technical problems is a smokescreen, and that the petrol pump meters that exist at the moment could be used?

I know that this is my hon. Friend's view, which he has expressed to me on a number of occasions. It is not, however, the view of those involved in the technical production of the apparatus. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the increase in the price of petrol in recent years has produced difficulties for the mechanism of existing petrol pumps in keeping up with the increase. That is not only true in this country but also in the United States, where, by coincidence, the price of petrol is $1·30-something. The United States is also changing—I believe that it will regret doing so—to metrication.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the United Kingdom balance of trade for 1980.

In 1980 the United Kingdom had a visible trade surplus of £1,039 million. The current account as a whole was in surplus by £2,281 million.

I welcome those figures, but will my hon. Friend confirm that our trade with the industrialising non-OPEC countries is broadly in balance? If that is so, should we not be wary about trying to introduce import controls, as to do so would mean that many exporting industries in this country would suffer as a result of our efforts to overcome the problems that certain industries suffer at the moment?

My hon. Friend is right. We had a small surplus with the countries about which he questioned me, but we had a substantial surplus on manufactures. They had a surplus with us on raw materials. It is a two-way trade, of strong benefit to us.

Do not these figures show that this country should be importing more rather than less? Will the Government consider advising Her Majesty to institute a new award for services to importing, to counterbalance and ridicule the award for services to exporting?

I very rarely hear the right hon. Gentleman make a remark that is not original. That suggestion was floated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) a few years ago—

He got it from me.

I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend did not reveal that fact when he reduced to laughter a Committee considering the Bill upstairs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our balance of trade with the United States would be more favourable if that country were not subsidising its energy costs? Has he any reason to think that the situation will change? If not, does he propose to take any fresh initiative on behalf of the British carpet industry?

As my hon. Friend knows, I made a statement in the House in December. The following day, I went to Brussels and persuaded the Council of Ministers to instruct the Commission to take up this matter with the Americans with a view to finding an answer to the problem. The Commission is committed to making a first report back at the February Council of Ministers. I shall keep the House in touch with developments.

Is the Minister aware that there is outrage in many sections of British industry about the continued capacity of the United States to gain a cheap, unfair trading advantage by artificially low energy prices? This has reached the dimensions of a scandal, and it is time that the United Kingdom, with or without the co-operation of other countries in Western Europe that are affected, took a stand on the matter. Is the Minister aware that it is ominous that he used the words "first report" to the next Council of Ministers. Does he not feel that this matter will drag on for months, with no remedy for British industry, which is suffering as a result of an unfair policy?

It would have been unrealistic to expect a full and final report to be made to Council Ministers in February. President-elect Reagan and his Administration take office tomorrow. They will need time to consider the range of problems that they face. The Commission accepts the urgency of this matter and will press hard for an answer. One of the items that we seek is a deregulation of energy prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to take any steps to determine whether the restrictions in competition in the sale of milk are beneficial to consumers.

Restrictions on competition are normally a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand he is now considering whether to use his powers under the competition legislation over the supply of milk. If he does, then all aspects of the public interest will be taken into account in any subsequent investigation and recommendation.

Since the rise in the price of milk over the past 12 months has been higher than the current rate of inflation, have the Government given any consideration to the free importation of milk? Or would that lead to the end of doorstep deliveries?

This is obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The question of the ending of doorstep selling would be in the forefront of the mind of anyone considering any references on milk prices, milk availability and the price of milk in supermarkets. That is one side of the public interest, and it must be considered equally with the other side of that public interest.

Cart the Minister give the House a better reassurance? Does she not agree that the vast majority of people in this country think it essential that doorstep deliveries should continue? May we have a clear statement from the Government that they will do all that is possible to protect those deliveries?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably right and that a majority of people would prefer the continuance of at least a partial, if not an entire, doorstep delivery service. No doubt the Director General of Fair Trading will bear that in mind. If he makes a reference, the public interest and, indeed, public opinion will be a matter for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider in making its final report and recommendations. The criteria of the legislation are drafted in such a way that the Commission must take note, in its final recommendations, of all aspects of the public interest.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that the pure pursuit of competition can sometimes have adverse effects and put up prices? Estate agents' fees are an example of that. The ending of doorstep deliveries would rob us of a cheap source of protein and would only build up a surplus inside the EEC, to which we have to contribute.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—I am not accusing him of being disingenuous—one of the purposes of the Competition Act is to deal with distortions in competitions of this nature. The whole question of the doorstep delivery of milk is important. I believe that it affects a majority of consumers in this country. There is no question of its being abolished. The Government's position is clear, namely, the Government will follow whatever course is the public interest. Other distortions of competition are matters for the Director General to pursue under the Competition Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for considering the interests of users of air transport.

Broadly, yes. However, I should like to see closer co-operation between the air transport users committee and the airport consultative committees at Heathrow and Gatwick. My Department is currently discussing with the interested parties how this can be accomplished.

I welcome the existence of the air transport users committee, but will the Minister consider separating it from the Civil Aviation Authority and giving it its own budget? Would that not have enabled it to criticise the decision of the CAA to veto the plan by TWA to fly children free across the Atlantic when two adults were flying? Was that not an innovative and competitive move? Would not the move that I suggest enable the representatives of the passenger to criticise such an uncompetitive reaction from the CAA?

I regret that I have not yet had the opportunity to study the affairs of the air transport users committee to an extent that would enable me to give a full reply to my hon. Friend. I shall write to him on these matters.

Will my hon. Friend look at the Treaty of Rome to satisfy himself that it makes no exemptions for air transport and that restrictions in terms of both frequency and ticket pricing within Europe among EEC members are direct violations of the treaty? Having satisfied himself on that, will he set in motion the necessary corrective action?

I always start by indicating my respect for the constitutional opinions advanced by my hon. Friend. However, the application of the Treaty of Rome to air transport has never been tested in the courts. Until the issue is resolved in that or some other way, it is not clear exactly what are the implications of the treaty for air transport. It is for that reason that Ministers are seeking to make progress, along the lines that I have indicated, by way of agreement.

May I return to the original question? Will the Minister consider most carefully the independence of this body? Is he aware that there is a strong argument that because it is associated with the Civil Aviation Authority it lacks the independence that it should have?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that point. I assure him that serious attention will be given to it.

Does my hon. Friend not think it wrong that when an airline can no longer continue to operate a service for financial or other reasons—that being the case between Humberside and Heathrow—it can continue to hold a licence, thereby preventing, without application to the CAA, another airline from seeking to operate that service when it is financially competent so to do?

I have not heard of difficulty in that respect. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to give me a note of the circumstances that he has in mind, I know that my noble Friend would want to consider the issue carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response has been made to the working party report on advertising control.

We are considering the working party's recommendations and will announce our conclusions in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the circumstances in which it would be necessary for the Director-General of Fair Trading to apply to a court to have an advertisement banned before it appears, would be so rare that it seems unnecessary to have such legislation? Should we not give up trying to comply with the EEC draft directive and instead rely on the good sense of the advertising industry, which has proved quite adequate until now?

Work on the proposed Community directive on misleading and unfair advertising, which has been temporarily suspended, will resume in Brussels early this year. That will have to take account of the special features in our system. Our legal and voluntary regime works well on the whole, and we should not wish to do anything to undermine it.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not control that is required for alcohol and tobacco, but total abolition?

That is a matter for others of my right hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what reactions have so far been received to the consultative document on the purchase by a company of its own shares.

Very full and favourable. In the light of these reactions, my right hon. Friend told the House on 18 December of the Government's intention to deal with this in the next Companies Bill.

May I assure my hon. Friend that his response will be widely welcomed in industry and in the City, bearing in mind the great success of this measure in the United States? Have we an understanding that such a provision will be introduced in the next Companies Bill? If it is introduced, it will be met with considerable approval in industry.

I appreciate the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to the issue. Subject to appropriate safeguards, we see no reason why company law should prohibit any class of company from buying its own shares. That is permissible in many other countries, and I confirm that it is our intention to include a provision to that effect in the next Companies Bill.

Bearing in mind that the Companies Bill is not contentious in party political terms, will the Minister reconsider the decision that he announced previously, that he would not publish draft clauses prior to the introduction of the Bill? Is he aware that the precedents for publication were widely welcomed not only by the financial press, but by many other experts, and that it is a useful way of ensuring that matters are debated by those who are experts, rather than just having a debate in the House of Commons after publication of the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of consultation on technical clauses whenever possible and whenever time permits. Indeed, that would be our wish. As he knows, wherever possible there has been a good deal of consultation on draft clauses. However, we shall very soon be in a position to publish the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will list figures illustrating the balance of trade of each member State of the European Community with non-European Economic Community Countries and with each other for the last five years.

Full information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am therefore making available certain summary statistics. As even this involves the provision of 92 separate figures, with permission I will publish them in the Official Report.

The public are quite rightly very interested in a proper perspective of our trade with Europe. As one-fifth of our exports to Europe are in terms of oil, can my hon. Friend say to what extent they arise out of our membership of the Community and to what extent they arise purely out of factors of geology and geography? If we were to subtract this trade in oil, what would be the true position of our trade with Europe, and what would be the implications of that?

I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that the figures that will be published in the Official Report do not include the figures that he has requested. Our exports of manufactures to the EEC have been increasing dramatically, and this year they covered 90 per cent. of our imports in manufactures, as opposed to 84 per cent. a year before. Our trade with Europe in manufactures is our fastest growing area for trade in such goods. My hon. Friend need not be quite so obsessive about oil.

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) disappears under the mound of statistics that he has invoked, will my hon. Friend explain to him that our trading difficulties do not arise in any way from our membership of the EEC and would not in any be facilitated by turning the EEC into a free trade area, as a good many seem to want? On the contrary, the fault lies in ourselves and in the uncompetitiveness of British industry.

My hon. Friend is right in saying that withdrawal from the EEC would be a disaster for many British companies which have been reorientating their trade towards the EEC, and which would find themselves having to send in those exports over a tariff barrier which they do not have to do now. I hope that Labour Members who argue the case for withdrawal will spell out to the electorate the full details and consequences of withdrawal.

Will my hon. Friend point out that the oil companies provide employment in Britain, and that it makes no more sense to exclude oil figures than it does to exclude the figures of other industries where we are perhaps less successful?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the values of exported manufactured goods during each of the past four years; and what are the corresponding figures for imported manufactured goods.

Figures on the preferred balance of payments basis are available only for the first three quarters of 1980. These show exports of manufactures at £26·3 billion and imports at £22·8 billion. With permission, I will circulate the rest of the information in the Official Report.

Has the Minister taken into account the fact that there is a surplus in our manufacturing industry, and that we have over 2 million unemployed? What new ideas is he promoting to encourage our manufacturing industry further to export? Will he take another look at the import system? We have a surplus of coal, textiles and boots and shoes, and imports are coming into Britain in greater quantities than are required. Do we not have greater facilities than we need for importing—facilities that are greater than those for exporting?

The figures that I have given the hon. Gentleman in answer to his original question are a bad basis for the assertions that he has made. Last year we sold to the rest of the world £3,500 million-worth more of manufactures than we bought. If we did as the hon. Gentleman suggests or implies and started to stop the flow of exports into Britain other countries would do the same, and as we have a surplus we should be the losers.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, pound for pound, and job for job, the service sector is every bit as important as manufacturing industry? As his is the sponsoring Department will he say whether he has seen the recommendation sent today to the Treasury by the chairman of the British Tourist Authority? Will he consider it and make sure that he supports it?

I have not seen that document. I am not prepared to commit myself to supporting it before I have seen it. I usually work on the principle — as do most Ministers — that if something is good enough for my hon. Friend to associate himself with it, it is probably good enough for me.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the level of United Kingdom aid to Ghana.

Yes, Sir.

Is that Minister aware the Ghana is one of the poorest countries in the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that it has a young and democratic Government, who will be judged in a few years time on the basis of their economic performance? Will he seek to do even more than he has done already to ensure the survival of democracy in that poor Commonwealth country?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. When resources are available I hope to do as he suggests.

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). However, is my hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that when giving aid to countries such as Ghana it is advisable, to a large extent, to attempt to tie that aid to the products of British industry? Is he further aware that, following a recent visit, it has become clear that whereas many nations giving aid tie it specifically to their own products, we have been generous in the extreme and our money is being used to make purchases elsewhere?

I disagree with my hon. Friend. A great part of our bilateral aid is tied to British exports.

Does the Minister recall that he recently told the Royal Commonwealth Society that his priority was aid to the poorest countries, especially Commonwealth countries? How does he justify the massive 34 per cent. cut in aid to India between September 1979 and 1980? Is that not another case of double standards from the Government?

I regret that this question is about Ghana, not India.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will increase the amount of aid to Zimbabwe.

A substantial programme of aid to Zimbabwe over the next three years is well under way. It is too soon to say what we might do in the future.

Does the Minister agree that we have a duty to give more aid to Zimbabwe because Britain exploited that country and its people for generations? If the British Government are hard up, why not place an expropriation order on the wealth and property of people such as the Duke of Montrose? Is the Minister aware that he left his son in charge of more than 8,000 acres of land in my constituency while he deserted to Rhodesia to collaborate with the traitor Smith, and then returned to Britain scot-free to take an oath of allegiance in another place?

I do not agree with the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question.

I shall endeavour to make my question a little more relevant than that asked by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Is my hon. Friend aware that Zimbabwe needs people with expertise—technicians and people with other skills? Is he further aware that Britain has a surplus of technicians and people with skills? Will he establish a special programme to encourage people to work under contract for the Government of Zimbabwe, backed by my hon. Friend's Department?

It is for the Zimbabwe Government to make a request for expertise. We have already sent many people to Zimbabwe. A donors' conference is to be held in March, when no doubt a shopping list of requests will be produced.

Does the Minister realise that the current level of white emigration from Zimbabwe—I do not necessarily refer to emigration to another place—coupled with the reluctance of the banks to indulge in capital investment in Zimbabwe, could result in a serious economic and financial position for Zimbabwe this year?

I suppose that that could happen, but we have done a great deal to help Zimbabwe. We have forgiven £20 million of debt and rescheduled the remainder of the debt that is owing to Britain. We are doing what we can to help.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not contrary to the practice of this House to attack the character or motives of Members of another place?

The right hon. Gentleman is right. I listened carefully, and on balance I thought that the Member of the other place would not have thought much of the attack.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he has for continuing financial support at a reduced level to the Institute of Development Studies.

For the academic year beginning 1 August the Government intend to provide, in 1981, £895,000, in 1982, £820,000 and in each of the years 1983 to 1985, £755,000, at January 1980 prices.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to congratulate him and his right hon. noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on the part that they played in persuading the Government to reverse their earlier decision to phase out support for the next quinquennium?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Equally, the Institute of Development Studies should congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work that he has contributed to that satisfactory solution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is prepared to open consultations with the EEC on the European development fund.

We already keep in close touch on all important issues with the Commission and other member States, both informally and through the appropriate machinery which deals with the fund.

Is the Minister aware that on several occasions I have strongly criticised the operation of the European development fund? Is he further aware that I have been informed that the European Court of Auditors has also strongly criticised the operation of that fund? When will he take a stand against that disorganised bureaucracy in Brussels?

We take a constant stand on that issue. We work closely with the Community to ensure that the aid produced by the European development fund is used properly for the best interests of the developing world.

Is the Minister aware that the money being distributed by the EEC invariably goes to countries that have not been directly connected with Britain or the Commonwealth? As this is a natural growth area in future years, through the EEC, does the Minister think that there should be more consultation to ensure a better and further distribution of money?

Yes, but the position is improving. There has been some criticism that too much money has gone to the Francophone countries. The tropical Africa advisory group of the British Overseas Trade Board recently examined that question and concluded that the main reasons were unfamiliarity of British firms with the European development fund, lack of interest in smaller contracts and an unwillingness to launch into new markets. The ball is very much in the court of British industry to seek out the opportunities.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what will be the approximate disbursements of official aid in the current financial year for development of energy resources as between coal, oil, gas, nuclear and renewable sources of energy.

Details of expenditure for the current financial year are not yet available.

Does the Minister agree that developing countries with few or no assets in the form of hydrocarbons could find that renewable sources are extremely important, namely, solar, wind and tidal power? Will he give an assurance that that will be reflected in the balance of the aid programme that relates to energy help?

I think that that will be the case. Disbursements of project aid on energy projects in 1979 amounted to £34 million, about three-quarters of which went to non-renewable power projects, and the remainder to renewable projects. I hope that that will continue.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what contribution will be made by the United Kingdom to the world food programme in 1981–82; and what contribution is being made in the current year.

For 1981–82 no decision has yet been taken. In this financial year we are contributing about £4·2 million in cash and commodities from our pledge for the biennium 1979–80. On top of this we are supplying 50,000 tonnes of cereals to the world food programme's regular activities, 30,000 tonnes to Africa under the international emergency food reserve and £350,000 to the programme for 20 lorries.

Is it not a fact that in the current year our contribution is a great deal less than that of most countries in Western Europe, and that unless that position improves and a substantial amount of support is given in 1981–82 the description of "shameful" will be justified?

I do not agree with that. The final figure has not yet been agreed. The hon. Gentleman will be made aware of it when it is agreed, and I think that it will be satisfactory.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what the most recent studies of the rural development section of the Overseas Development Administration have been.

Three papers for the world conference on agrarian reform and rural development in 1979, and a paper for the Commonwealth Secretariat in November last.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sorry that he did not mention the topics of the papers. Can he assure the House that this unit will examine specific examples, rather than generalities?

I think that it will examine specific examples, because each country section has now taken the whole concept of rural development on board and a separate administrative unit is no longer necessary. It is widespread throughout the ODA.

Are the studies to be published?

The three papers for the world conference on agrarian reform and rural development have been published. I assume that the Commonwealth Secretariat paper has also been published.