asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he intends to take this year to reduce the nuisance from aircraft noise to people living and working near Heathrow.

There is no short-term solution to this problem, but we shall continue to encourage the progressive introduction of quieter, noise-certificated aircraft and to maintain the wide range of operational controls which are designed to minimise the disturbance caused by aircraft noise.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it should be Government policy to try to bring about a clear and definite cut in this pestilential nuisance which still causes great distress to large numbers of people? Will he make sure, in particular, that summer night time restrictions are increased from the present seven hours, which are not enough for a normal full night's sleep, and that within those hours no increase is allowed in the numbers of flights?

Over the years, my hon. Friend has vigorously and effectively represented the interests of his constituents in these matters. I assure him that the Government understand his views and will do everything possible to take them into account commensurate with the proper use of important national assets.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous contribution by the civil aviation industry to the economy of this country, particularly in invisible exports? Does he appreciate that in the current world recession civil aviation needs further regulations like it needs a hole in the head, especially at a time when aircraft are getting bigger, engines quieter and movements therefore fewer? Will he give an undertaking to discuss these matters carefully with the civil aviation industry before proceeding with any regulations?

It is necessary that airport authorities and the airlines should be able to make effective use of important assets in the interests of the national economy, but decisions will always be taken against a background of concern for those adversly affected.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the surplus or deficit on visible trade with the European Economic Community in January; and how this compared with the position in January 1980.

The figures for January of this year will be published at 3.30 pm today. Since the beginning of 1980, our trade with the European Community has moved from deficit into surplus.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he expects a healthy improvement in the figures for January 1981 compared with those for January 1980? Will he say by how much exports to our EEC partners have risen since we joined the Community in 1973?

I cannot anticipate what the figures to be announced at 3.30 pm will reveal. I can, however, confirm, as my hon. Friend states, that since 1970 our trade with the Community has grown from only 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of our total trade.

Is not this rise explained my the increase in our oil exports last year from £1·6 billion to £2·7 billion? Is it not also the case that, due to the recession, we are not importing so much—in other words, that unemployment is working as an effective import control, and that the underlying imbalance in our trade in manufactures has not been affected?

The imbalance in our trade in manufactures has been affected. It has been reduced considerably. Last year our exports accounted for 90 per cent. of our imports, as opposed to only 84 per cent. a year previously. Our trade in oil has increased. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to pretend that we should exclude this figure from our balance of payments figures. We are constantly told the hardening of the pound, based on oil, has affected our exports of other items. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make on adjustment for oil, he will also try to make an adjustment to reflect that fact.

Does the Minister recall telling me recently that our deficit in manufactures trade with the EEC in 1980 was about £5 million a day? Is he willing to enter into consultations and to undertake a study with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to find out the impact on jobs of a deficit of £5 million a day in manufactures trade?

My hon. Friend is right about that figure. However, he should accept, as I am sure that he does, that it represents a reduction of about £2 million a day on the figures of the year before. He should be careful about arguing that if we have a surplus with an area or country that is proof that something is wrong. There are a substantial number of areas in which we run surpluses.

If oil exports to the EEC are now running at about £3,000 million a year, does not that cause the Minister of State some concern about the imbalance of manufactures? To what extent is the present value of the pound responsible for this imbalance?

The hon. Gentleman probably was not listening. I explained to him that in 1979 our exports of manufactures, excluding oil, were about 84 per cent. of our imports. Last year that figure was 90 per cent. There is an improvement in our exports of manufactures excluding oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the current state of trade between the United Kingdom and the non-OPEC industrialising countries; and if he is satisfied with the trend in recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the United Kingdom's balance of trade with the newly industrialising countries in 1980.

The balance of trade with the new industrialising countries in 1980 resulted in a crude surplus of £396 million. The crude surplus with non-OPEC members within this group was £110 million. In both cases, there was a considerable surplus in trade in manufactured goods, and a deficit in other goods, primarily food and raw materials.

First, may I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post? I welcome the figures that he has announced, but do they not again underline the fact that, if we felt minded to try to restrict imports of certain goods from these countries, the retaliatory measures that could be taken against our exports would be more damaging to the United Kingdom than any net benefit from restricting imports?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind initial remarks. It is true that this is a substantial and valued market for the United Kingdom. These countries account for about 11 per cent. of our exports and 10 per cent. of our imports. It is advantageous that the trade should proceed by mutually satisfactory arrangements.

We welcome the growth of our trade with NICs and the healthy balance of trade that we enjoy with them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should do everything possible to encourage this trade not only because it helps to create jobs in Britain but because, by providing a market for goods in Britain, it therefore helps to put into effect the best overseas aid programme possible?

Yes. I very much accept that argument.

Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman is happy about the present balance of exports and imports? Will he compare the present position with what was happening years ago? Does he not realise, in spite of his complacency, that we are importing far too many goods while being unable to sell similar goods manufactured in Britain?

There is a sensitive relationship between what we buy from these countries and what we sell to them. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has manufactured goods in mind. In that sector we have a substantial surplus. The balance is made up by food and raw materials that we import from them. Surely this is trade that commends itself to all parts of the House.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us what effect on trade with the newly industrialised or industrialising countries will follow from restricting our source of agricultural supplies, such as that which has caused the closure of the Tate and Lyle sugar refinery in Liverpool?

I require notice of such a detailed and fast googly.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received about the distribution of unsolicited advertising material through the post.

We receive a number of complaints about such material.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is concern about the way that organisations such as the Reader's Digest manage to assemble lists of names and addresses and combine the right to buy goods with free entry to prize competitions? Is she aware that people are unhappy about such stuff coming through the post? Will she consider responding to the Lindop committee by way of an impartial answer to this problem?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the majority of complaints that we receive about such material are concerned, not about the fact that it has been sent unsolicited, but about the advertising content. Prominent among the complaints that we have received are those about the Reader's Digest. We have received complaints about Leisure Arts, which gave the mistaken impression that the recipients had won something substantial. We have also received complaints about a company called "The Joy of Knowledge", which gave a mistaken impression about education in Britain. It implied that it was giving a £50 voucher. I have referred a number of these complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. The Lindop committee was not conclusive that unsolicitied mail was disadvantageous and not wanted by the majority. It reached the opposite conclusion. However, we need carefully to watch the advertising content.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London office of the EEC Commission is pursuing an intensive advertising compaign to spread the joy of knowledge to many people who do not want to have it?

I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that so far I have received no complaints about that enterprise.

Would not it be simplest if the public were to follow the example of Members of Parliament and put quantities of printed material that they do not want into the wastepaper basket?

That is true of most people. It is where the content of such unsolicited communications is misleading in advertising terms that there is cause for concern.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that she is being much less forward looking than a previous Conservative Postmaster-General, who threw this concept out of the window and refused to countenance the idea of having unsolicited mail?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. However, he will know that a number of committees have considered the issue since the time to which he is referring. We have the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. I am satisfied that the balance that is struck at present is not unsatisfactory, but we must keep an eye on the content of these communications.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has to improve and strengthen the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been strengthened to perform its new functions under the Competition Act, and I have just appointed an additional deputy chairman. In consultation with the chairman, we shall keep its resources and procedures under review.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that in the recent takeover of Times Newspapers Ltd the commission could not respond in less than 10 to 12 weeks? Murdoch has taken over The Times, and perhaps that will be a lasting and fitting tribute to the new Secretary of State for Trade. Does he not agree that the time scales will have to be improved in future if this body is to be any use?

The speed with which the commission can work is affected quite substantially by the amount of evidence that it has to consider and the speed with which that evidence is made available. The commission said that it thought that it might take as long as eight weeks to consider the representations put before it in the case of Times Newspapers Ltd. I have no reason to doubt its judgment.

Will my right hon. Friend consider bringing shipping cartels within the ambit of the antimonopoly legislation, especially in view of recent evidence that British exporters are suffering positive disadvantage compared with their German competitors?

I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am sure that he does not expect me to give an immediate answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the monopoly position of the Press Association, which is a monopoly owned by local monopolies? It has occupied that position since the demise of Extel. Is he aware that I have recently discussed this matter with the Director General of Fair Trading? Will he make urgent inquiries to ascertain whether the Director General is willing to pursue an inquiry so that we can have a free flow of news in this country?

I shall certainly inquire of the Director General of Fair Trading about the consequences of the correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was much support inside and outside the House for his decision not to refer The Times takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that Mr. Murdoch should be subjected to such abuse from the Opposition for protecting hundreds of jobs by taking over a business which currently is losing £13 million a year?

I recognise that my decision was controversial. I do not complain for one moment about that. I take note of what my hon. Friend so encouragingly says.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the view just expressed to him is a minority view and that most hon. Members believe that he should have referred the matter to the Commission? Since he substituted for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a set of conditions upon the new proprietor of The Times and The Sunday Times, what sanction can he apply to the new proprietor if he breaks those conditions?

Question No. 16 addresses itself specifically to that matter and I shall deal with it then.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's decision to permit the new air transport services on the London-Hong Kong route.

The travelling public have the benefit of a wider varity of services offered by three airlines and of significantly reduced fares as a consequence of the competition. In the first five months of these services, the number of passengers on the route increased by over 50 per cent. compared with the corresponding period in 1979.

I am grateful for that information. Does it not prove that the customer has benefited greatly from competition on the route? Would not it be an additional benefit if that competition were created on internal, European routes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support he expressed in the first part of his observation. I shall take note of what he says.

If three airlines provide good competition, why not have four, five, six, seven or eight?

Laker Airways have been given a licence by the Civil Aviation Authority, but they are frustrated by not being able to get a corresponding licence in Hong Kong.

In order to keep a balanced view, will the Secretary of State say whether British Airways, British Caledonian and Cathay Pacific made a profit in the first six months of the open skies policy to Hong Kong? Does the 50 per cent. increase in passengers extend to first class and full economy fare passengers, without a full load of whom no airline can continue to fly at a profit?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that one should take a balanced view. None of the three airlines operating in intensive competitive conditions has given any indication that it wishes to withdraw from the business.

Does the Secretary of State agree that originally the independents which sought licences to operate on this route did not seek stop-over rights and that that situation has changed? Will he venture an opinion about why that is so? Does he agree that the only organisation that will suffer as a result is British Airways because they will be required to give something up, whereas the others cannot be expected to do so?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the stop-over arrangements sought by British Caledonian are subject to an appeal by myself and I cannot make a comment until the appeal has been resolved.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that in the success of increasing the number of passengers to Hong Kong some persons are using the cheaper fares for onward transportation to Australia? Will he bear that in mind when applications are made for increased services to Australia?

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will list the countries he has visited since May 1979, the costs of the visits and his estimate of the effects on British trade with with those countries.

With permission, I will circulate the list of the countries visited and the costs incurred in the Official Report. It is not possible to estimate the precise effects on our trade of most of the visits undertaken since the benefits are likely to be long term.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and look forward to reading the list in the Official Report. Is it true that the Minister for Trade has visited a large number of countries in company with British business men? Has he not thus generated an enormous amount of public interest in British exports, enabled British business men to contact Government people in those countries and so given British exporters a greater opportunity to export British goods?

My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been involved in a programme of visits covering practically all the leading 25 export markets with only two or three exceptions.

Do not such visits help the Minister and his colleagues to appreciate the difficulties facing British exporters? If they serve that useful purpose, will he use his influence with his colleagues to achieve an appropriate change in policies which are hindering British business men overseas?

I do not have to leave our shores to be made aware of the difficulties experienced by British industry. It is true that such visits give politicians a closer idea of the problems confronting the commercial and trading communities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that great credit is due to companies which have not sat back in the face of the current recession but which have gone abroad to find new export markets and thereby overcome the recession? Does he agree that the high value of the pound has the advantage, which not all companies have appreciated, of enabling them to keep a marketing presence abroad and to find new markets?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friends comment. I agree that the high level of British exports bears testimony to the commercial expertise of companies engaged in exporting. The level of sterling clearly has its advantages and disadvantages to people engaged in exports, depending largely upon the domestic cost structure.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will refer the proposal of Associated Newspapers to obtain full control of the Bristol Evening Post and the Western Daily Press to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The proposed takeover does not require my right hon. Friend's consent under the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and the question of a reference under those provisions does not arise. The Director General of Fair Trading is, however, making the usual investigations to see if the takeover qualifies for reference under the general merger provisions of the Act. If he finds that it does, he will make his recommendation to my right hon. Friend in the normal way, and my right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as possible.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate the consternation that her answer will cause to the readers of the papers in Bristol and to the workers in the enterprises? Will she explain why her right hon. Friend has forgotten so soon his once-vaunted belief in free competition?

I have received no expressions of consternation from any members of the public, so far as I am aware. The law as it stands is the law and this is not a referable reference under the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act. If it were, obviously my right hon. Friend would consider it as such. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for is a contravention of the law.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people who come from the area served by the two excellent local newspapers value greatly the strong element of local control and management?

I also come from the area which is covered by the newspapers. I have noted carefully my hon. Friend's view.

Is not a whole new look at the statutory provisions governing newspaper mergers necessary? Does the right hon. Lady agree that in the spirit of the 1973 Act newspapers are special cases and that the House and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should look carefully at each case? If each case goes through without scrutiny the public will feel that we do not care about the concentration of a monopoly press in Britain.

Consumer and competition legislation comes under review from time to time in my Department. The matter is one of many that may be looked at when the legislation is reviewed.

Why is there not a mandatory reference under section 58, when clearly the newspapers are economically going concerns and they are not controlled by Associated Newspapers, which has only three directors out of eight on the board, and also when on the face of it the combined circulation would fall to be referred under section 58? If the right hon. Lady can convince the House that they are not referable, will she give support to a reference under the general merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act?

Within the meaning of the Act, Associated Newspapers is a newspaper proprietor in relation to the Bristol Evening Post group, which includes the Western Daily Press. No reference is possible under the Act: where an existing proprietor simply increases his control, although, as I have said, that may be a matter for a general reference by the Director General of Fair Trading under the normal as opposed to the newspaper merger sections of the Act.

May I tell the right hon. Lady that we take serious objection—

Order. A supplementary question is not a vehicle for passing information. The hon. Gentleman may ask a question.

Will the right hon. Lady re-examine the conclusions that she has come to about control in the light of the facts? Does she agree that there is no mathematical rule about whether someone controls a company?

Associated Newspapers already owns 60 per cent. of the shares of the parent company. The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is tantamount to being in control.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking to maximise the effectiveness of the new general agreement on trade subsidies code, especially with regard to loans at belowmarket rates of interest.

The Government fully support the GATT agreement on subsidies and countervailing duties. My Department is very ready to look into prima facie cases brought forward by United Kingdom industry regarding subsidies from which its competitors are benefiting and to invoke the mechanisms established in the agreement where appropriate.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although it is difficult to produce prima facie evidence, there is increasing evidence of low-interest Government loans in other countries, especially France? Now that the consensus agreement on export credit subsidies has collapsed, will he press GATT to recall the committee responsible for export subsidies to examine the matter urgently?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I will correct him on one small point of detail. The consensus has not collapsed. The negotiations about changing the basis of the consensus are faltering, but the consensus, as previously agreed, is firmly in place. The Government take the view that a credit race in which the developed countries compete with each other for the right to give away products is in no one's interest. We are pressing hard to get the negotiations under way again.

Is the Minister aware that it is difficult for industry to produce prima facie evidence, for example, of dumping? Is he further aware of the massive demonstration being staged here today of textile, clothing and footwear workers, who are worried sick about the loss of their jobs under this Government? What do the Government intend to do? Will they merely tell the workers to go back North and to join the ever-lengthening dole queues?

The Minister will answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question about the GATT. I repeat what I said, with the added proviso that the Department stands ready to help industry to put together a case if evidence of any kind can be produced to show that there are grounds for further investigation. The Government are prepared to work with industry to assemble a case and to help industry to put it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent assessment he has made of formal and informal trade barriers erected by other countries which are encountered by United Kingdom exporters of textiles and clothing.

The Government keep all barriers to our textile and clothing exports constantly under review and pursue every appropriate opportunity to get them reduced.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the massive demonstration of textile and clothing workers in London and around Westminster today to show their grave concern at the loss of 100,000 jobs in the past 12 months? What response does he expect to give to the report of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, which drew attention to the huge barriers that our wool textile exports face? What hopes can he give that that barrier will be reduced?

I am aware of the demonstration. The great anxiety in the wool textile trade is recognised in all parts of the House. The recommendations of the Select Committee covered many matters outside the responsibility of the Department of Trade. In due course, I shall publish our response to the recommendations.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy has been to operate under the multi-fibre arrangement negotiated by the previous Government and to improve on it and rectify its defects? Is it therefore not the height of cynicism for the Opposition to complain about that policy?

That is a trenchant and valid comment. The MFA is bound to be the framework within which we operate, to reconcile not only the interests of textile producers but also those of United Kingdom customers and our wider trade relationships. The agreement is for renegotiation, and we shall take into account all the representations that are likely to be made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that partly because of the barriers a £12 million investment project by Courtaulds, in my constituency has been shelved? Is he also aware that among the many textile workers from my constituency here today there is bitterness about the bad effects on the textile industry, and man-made fibres in particular, of the over-valued pound and high interest rates.

I am politically a sufficiently near neighbour of the hon. Gentleman to appreciate the serious unemployment problems that he has to contend with. I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that the United States Adminstration are deregulating their oil prices. I hope that that move will be extended to natural gas to bring about a more equitable relationship in the competitive nature of the respective economies.

Has my right hon. Friend any up-to-date information about the response of the United States to the EEC representations about feedstock and fuel prices, since the Minister of State, Department of Industry, said that he expected it to be sent to Washington early in February?

I understand that the negotiations are almost at the point of fruition and that, indeed, we may have information tomorrow. I shall make it my responsibility to see that my hon. and learned Friend is informed as soon as I am.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the effect of feedstock prices has been to increase import penetration in the United Kingdom of polyester filament yarn from 7 per cent. to well over 25 per cent. and that a serious imbalance and disruption is occurring in trade relations in textiles and man-made fibres between the United States and the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that the EEC is a past master at putting such matters aside month after month, and that we have been dealt with in that manner? Will he come back to the House at an early stage with a definite report on what the EEC or the Government intend to do to stop unfair trading by the United States?

I am well aware of the degree of penetration of the United Kingdom. I am therefore delighted that the United States Administration have deregulated oil prices. As I said, I hope that that will be followed by deregulation of natural gas prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the collision which occurred on the River Thames on the evening of Friday 30 January in the vicinity of Greenwich.

At 1918 hours on Friday 30 January the United Kingdom registered vessel "Blackthorn" and the Panamanian registered vessel "Frederika I" were in collision on the river Thames in dense fog. The "Blackthorn" remained afloat and was subsequently secured, but the "Frederika I" sank shortly after the collision. I am pleased to say that no lives were lost and all crew members survived the experience without injury.

May I pay tribute to Mr. Graham Barnard who, as a result of the courage that he showed, was to a large degree responsible for rescuing three of the people who were in the river after the collision? May I also mention the speedy way in which Greenwich district hospital accepted those affected as patients? May I ask that the inquiry be a thorough one to ensure that incidents of this kind do not happen again on the river Thames, particularly in that area of the river, where the currents are exceedingly dangerous?

I should like to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the staff of Greenwich district hospital and to join him in praising the gentleman to whom he referred. I believe that great credit was due to a waterman and a tug skipper who acted with initiative and skill in bad conditions in assisting the crew of the sunken vessel. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the importance of the inquiry, and I agree. When we have had the opportunity to consider the terms of the preliminary inquiry, we shall consider whether a formal investigation should take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the main exports from the United Kingdom to the countries comprising the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC); and what steps are being taken to increase trade with them.

Machinery and transport equipment account for more than half the value of our exports to the SADCC countries. Manufactured goods and chemical products are also important. All the British Overseas Trade Board's export services and the resources of our posts are available in support of our trade with these countries.

Is the Minister aware that those countries between them comprise enormous natural, mineral and agricultural resources and are likely, over the next 10 or 15 years, to become immensely important markets for Britain both in terms of exports and imports? Would it not be a healthy trend as far as possible to move our trade away from South Africa and towards this area?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. These are important markets. They account for £300 million worth of exports at the moment. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's thinking is wrong in the second part of his question. If, as he puts it, our trade was moved away from South Africa, a number of those countries would be adversely affected. What we wish to see is an expansion of our trade with both areas.

What percentage of our current trade with those countries is directly financed by our own aid programme?

If my hon. Friend cares to table a question on that subject, I shall give him the answer. I am afraid that I. cannot give it off the top of my head.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the trend since 1970 for the United Kingdom to have a greater share of its total trade with the European Economic Community and a lesser share with the rest of the world.

Such a trend has been evident for some 30 years. However, our membership of the Community, with a market of some 270 million people, has, not surprisingly, led to a quickening in this trend. We welcome an increase in our trade wherever it occurs.

As the community consists of industrial countries, and the prospect for industrial countries in the foreseeable future is one of much slower growth than in the past, is not this trend to say the least a little unfortunate? Should not our exporters be devoting much more attention to the great potential markets in the rest of the world, particularly in the developing countries where the prospects fro long-term economic growth are much better than in the industrialised countries?

I do not think that this is an either-or situation. We are now naturally inside a market of 270 million people with no external tariffs against us. That is a good opportunity for us, operating within a very large home base, to build up our trade. But I see no signs that British industry is neglecting the rest of the world. Indeed, wherever I go in the world, I find British industry extremely active in seeking out business in new markets, and I encourage it in every way that I can.

Is not one of the side effects of our increasing trade with the EEC that there is more European investment in this country? Is not that in itself a good thing?

My hon. Friend is correct.

Is not the reality that we shifted power away from the United Kingdom Parliament, and that the EEC is lethargic about measures such as anti-dumping legislation, so that implementation of anti-dumping legislation and the multi-fibre arrangement has now moved to the EEC and the Government cannot take independent action? Is not the textile and clothing industries lobby here today a measure of the anxiety about that because of the continued job loss taking place in those industries?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely concerned about the state of the textile industry, as are the Government. But it does no good at all to identify the wrong causes of the industry's problems. I must tell the hon. Gentleman frankly that the MFA is administered here. We administer and monitor the quotas, and we ensure that they are enforced. Since we came to office we have strengthened the arrangement in a varity of ways. I therefore do not accept that our membership of the EEC is a source of the textile industry's problems. The MFA, as negotiated by the Government of whom the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) was a member, is in place and is doing its job.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, as he has already been criticised by an anti-European for not exporting enough to the EEC and is now being criticised for exporting too much, the chances are that he has it about right?

Modesty forbids me from agreeing with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade to what extent the various measures imposed by the United States of America to protect domestic industry known as the Buy American Act constitute an effective non-tariff barrier to British exports; and if he will make a statement.

The effect of the Buy American Act 1933 on British exports is difficult to quantify because of the wide coverage of the Act. There have been numerous individual complaints from British firms, and successive Governments have made representations to the United States authorities on their behalf.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many British firms, particularly our computer firms, are having difficulty in penetrating the United States market, due to the existence of this statutory code? Will he therefore ensure that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets President Reagan shortly this item will be on the agenda so that the curious situation which has persisted since the 1930s is reviewed and, one hopes, brought to an end?

I cannot write the agenda, but I will certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's views are given wider coverage on this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Buy American Act does not apply to the trade in defence hardware? Will he therefore use his influence to persuade the Americans that the two-way street of reciprocal sales and purchases of defence hardware between the United States and the United Kingdom becomes indeed a two-way street and does not remain very much a one-way street in favour of the United States as it is at present?

I think that my hon. Friend makes a very pertinent observation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied the United Kingdom trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not include components produced by either forced or slave labour.

asked the Secretary of Trade what representations he has received about British products being undercut in price by imported Soviet goods made in part or in whole by forced prison labour.

One Member of the House has corresponded with me on this subject. The Government, and I have no doubt all Members of the House, would deplore the sale in this country of products manufactured in forced labour camps. My powers to prohibit imports are limited, but, where justified, anti-dumping action can and will be taken under established procedures, and my Department is ready to advise on those procedures.

As my hon. Friend agrees with me that it is quite wrong for the West to benefit from the very unfortunate situation of the dissidents—largely Jews and other religious minority groups—in Soviet Russia, does he think that there is anything that the Government could do to lead either Europe or the rest of the world into some system of inspections whereby countries receiving goods from overseas have a right to ensure that the manufacture of those goods is not at the expense of native labour which is grossly underpaid?

My hon. Friend shares my distaste for trade in these items. I intend to discuss with my EEC colleagues, informally at first, the possibilities of taking action against this type of trade.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet received the report on the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and when he will make a statement.

I have now received the report of the group of officials which, with representatives of the CDC, has been reviewing the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I am considering the report. The Government's conclusions on it will be made known to the House as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend confirm article which appeared in The Sunday Times on the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which indicated that one of the causes of the report's delay was a foolish and footling argument about whether CDC borrowings in the City and, indeed, overseas—which do not affect this economy—are counted as part of the public sector borrowing requirement? If the CDC cannot borrow from that source because the Treasury's view is upheld, will my hon. Friend consider making additional commitments from the bilateral programme of the ODA?

I will not confirm the report which appeared in The Sunday Times. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we shall consider anything. Many of these factors have already been raised by the chairman of the CDC, Lord Kindersley, but I am afraid that at this stage there is little that I can add to the answer which I have given. The same applies to the Adjournment debate tomorrow night, when I doubt that I shall be able to say more than I have today.

Is the Minister aware that the CDC has been outstandingly successful not only in development terms but also in commercial terms? Will he use all his influence to expand and not contract its activities?

I entirely agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I shall certainly bear in mind the question of expanding the CDC's activities as best we can.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what special contribution Her Majesty's Government have made towards the Special United Nations Campaign to bring clean water and sanitation to poor countries.

No special contribution has been made, but we shall continue to finance from the aid programme a wide range of water and sanitation projects, and to provide training and advice.

Is the Minister aware that Britain would not have achieved the greatness that it has had it not been for Chadwick's report last century on clean water and sanitation? However, in the Third world 10 million people and more are dying each year because of lack of clean water and sanitation, and the World Health Organisation points out that more than 80 per cent. of all known diseases in those countries are due to lack of clean water and sanitation. Given those figures will not the Minister give an assurance that he will again try to get some money from the Treasury to help this very good venture in the Third world?

We have already tried, and we are currently engaged on 44 drinking water and sanitation projects in 28 countries. Development aid for current water-related projects amounts to more than £80 million.

Bearing in mind that this is the centenary of Disraeli's death and that he attached great and real importance to sanitation, will my hon. Friend think again and do something special in this regard to commemorate that great Conservative statesman?

I think of sanitation every morning.

Has the Minister taken note of the voluntary efforts by the Women's Co-operative Guild and many other voluntary organisations in respect of the "Buy a bucket of water campaign"? Does not that put to shame the reactions of the Government to the North-South Brandt report, because while voluntary organisations are prepared to take action the Government seem to be lagging behind?

The Brandt report in its North-South approach is, I think, directed both to Governments and people. I commend what the hon. Gentleman said about the women's organisation.

Will my hon. Friend remember what Peel used to say about the advantages of abolishing the corn laws? Perhaps he will comment upon the proposition that it would be better if we did not dump all this expensively produced food so as to undercut Third world producers, thus preventing them from providing their own sanitation and clean water.

I shall study the analogy contained in that remark.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why there has been a one-third reduction in United Kingdom bilateral aid to India.

Bilateral aid to India has not been reduced by one-third. Net disbursements in financial years 1978–79 and 1979–80 were £113 million and £98 million respectively, and we hope to provide at least the same amount in 1980–81 as in 1979–80.

Nevertheless, does not the Minister agree that this was a substantial cut? Before agreeing to it, did he consider the effects of a cut of such a magnitude on the most populous Commenwealth country? If so, why did he allow such a serious cut—albeit, not one-third—to go ahead?

Cuts affected many countries throughout the world, and particular attention was paid to India to which we give a great amount of aid. Britain provides more aid to India than any other bilateral donor and on softer terms than most. According to World Bank figures, British aid amounted to 34 per cent. of net bilateral disbursements by a member of the Aid India Consortium in 1979–80, which is a pretty good record, and I know that India appreciates it.

Is not India, like other Asiatic countries in the Commonwealth, treated less favourably for development aid purposes than Commonwealth countries and others in Africa because under the Common Market Lomé convention, under French influence, a disproportionate amount of aid tends to be steered to Africa to the detriment of Asiatic countries? What can be done to rectify that?

That is not so with regard to our bilateral aid. However, if my hon. Friend is referring to aid under the Community, it is perfectly true that the original Lomé agreement is directed more towards the African countries than towards the Asian countries. That is something that we are constantly trying to massage rather more evenly.

Do the Government still adhere to the principle laid down by the previous Government of aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries? If so, why did my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) not receive a more favourable answer on the question on aid to India?

The policy is the same—aid to the poorest. If the hon. Gentleman examines the answer, he will find that it is not so bad as he thinks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid.

As I explained to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 1 December, we accept in principle the target of 0.7 per cent., but we are not committed to a target date for achieving it. Preliminary estimates suggest that our 1980 oda/GNP ratio will be substantially below the level recorded in 1979. Technical factors, including for example the fact that no promissory notes in respect of the International Development Association were deposited before the end of the calendar year because of a failure by the previous United States Congress to ratify, played an important part in this.

As the Government plan a reduction of more than 14 per cent. in the overseas aid programme which they inherited from the previous Labour Government, will the Minister at least have the honesty to admit that the Government have now abandoned any intention of meeting the United Nations' target, yet the same Government have such a distorted sense of priorities that they propose to spend possibly up to 10 times the annual overseas aid budget on a replacement for the Polaris missile?

Absolutely not. Our policy of achieving 0.7 per cent. is the same policy as that of the Opposition when they were in Government.

When my hon. Friend is considering what economies he will have to make, will he give the House an undertaking that no economies will be made in aid to Zimbabwe, a newly-emergent Commonwealth country that has a great future and which is badly in need of overseas help?

I recognise what lay behind that question, and, while the Government would like to do what they can, it would be risky to give an assurance of that nature. However, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

If the Government cannot reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, will the Minister reconsider the paltry amount of £75 million that we give in aid to Zimbabwe, in view of the critical situation there and the urgent problem of resettlement?

We constantly think of the problems of that country. A donors' conference will take place towards the end of March. We must wait and see what happens then, particularly in regard to aid from the United Kingdom and other countries.