asked the Secretary of State for Trade, in view of the fact that 1981 is the International Year of Disabled People, if he will take steps with British airports and British airlines, respectively, to improve facilities for air travel by disabled pepole, especially those confined to wheelchairs.

The provision of facilities for disabled air travellers is a matter for the airports and airlines concerned, and a good dealhas been, and is being, done to improve the lot of the handicapped when they travel by air. Airport and airline representatives have participated in the meetings reviewing the special meeds of disabled passengers held under the auspices of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the last Minister for Social Security. We encouraged the widest possible airport and airline representation at last Thursday's conference on "Transport without Handicap".

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have just prayed for the tranquility of the Realm? Is he further aware that the difference between what the airlines say is available to disabled passengers and what actually happens is vast and intranquil?

I, of course, take careful note of my hon. Friend's point. My information is that the British Airports Authority has improved the facilities available, and it is known that further improvements will be made in 1981. Similarly, the airlines' organisation has produced for its airlines a new set of standard procedures for the medical clearance and sympathetic handling of disabled passengers.

Will the Minister give a lot more support to the "Access to the Skies" campaign for the disabled to help give it real teeth? Will he make sure that the fourth terminal at Heathrow airport and the third London airport will provide for such a success from the beginning?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall encourage the relevant authorities and the airlines to do everything they can to be helpful in these directions.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the current levels of imports and exports; and if he will make a statement.

Our current trade position is strong. This reflects in no small way the fine achievements of our exporters.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the corporate public wailing of the CBI seems to be in marked contrast to the privately expressed views of many of its members, huge numbers of whom are importers of raw materials and who find great benefit in a strong pound? Is it not strange, since the Labour Party won the 1964 election on the basis of wailing comments about an £800 million deficit, that we never hear anything from it about the position in January when our balance of payments surplus was, I think, £957 million?

I am sure that the Labour Party will use this question as the occasion to join my hon. Friend in congratulating our exporters on their magnificent performance.

Is there any sound economic reason for our seeking now to increase further the surplus on our balance of trade?

I would not have thought so.

Can my right hon. Friend offer a prospect of action on the problem of the importation of cut-price pianos which have been brought in from East Germany and Poland at commercially unreal prices in an attempt, presumably, to earn hard currency in the West?

I believe that the matter is now before the European Community.

Is the Minister aware that exporters deserve congratulation, not only on their achievements, but because they are battling against the Government's economic policy and the over-valued pound? Will he say clearly whether the Government want the pound to stay at its present level, or do they agree that it is over valued?

The whole point of having a freely floating pound is that it shall be freely floating, and not subject to the oppressive value judgments of politicians. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to know that the pound, relative to the dollar, has fallen by 9 per cent. since October 1980, and relative to the basket of currencies by 3½ per cent. during the past month.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will reconsider existing trade arrangements with South Africa.

No, Sir. I have no reason to think that existing arrangements are inadequate.

In view of the obstinate refusal of the South African Government to implement the United Nations plan in Namibia, will the Minister impose sanctions against South Africa? As the Nigerian President, who is visiting Britain this week, is calling for an oil embargo against South Africa, will the Government reconsider the deplorable decision to grant shares in North Sea oil licences to Unilon, which is a South African company, and to Charter Consolidated, which has South African connections?

The Government take the view that dialogue and contact are the most constructive bases for our relations with South Africa. They are far to be preferred to ostracism and isolation. We work on exactly the same principles in our dealings with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the former President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), said that it was important that we increased our trade with South Africa, and that if we stopped trading with people with whose policies we disagreed we would soon be bankrupt? Is not what the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) said yet another example of the double standards of the Labour Party in Government as opposed to in Opposition?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He was right to say that if we applied a political acceptability test to our trade we should have to strike a large number of countries from our trading lists, and a large number of people would be out of work.

Does the Minister agree that if Unilon is given the right to prospect for oil in the North Sea it will be carrying the hand of friendship a little too far?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who will explain the basis on which the licences are allocated.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply. Is he aware that he could have said that it was a matter for the EEC? Does he understand that such replies are irritating and that he should say what the EEC is doing about these matters?

I content myself with thanking my hon. Friend for his opening remark.

Will the Minister confirm or deny the allegation made by "Anti-apartheid" that British owned and operated tankers, with the connivance of the British Government, have been playing a central role in secret international deals to breach the OPEC embargo on oil supplies to South Africa?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question on that subject, I shall endeavour to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet concluded consideration of whether collusive tendering should be made a criminal offence.

I am still considering the many useful representations received. Views were sharply divided on the desirability of creating a new criminal offence, and I am weighing these arguments carefully before coming to a decision.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the consultations and considerations that have been taking place since July have continued long enough, and that we should make up our minds whether collusive tendering, which is an evil, is to be legislated against, or whether extra powers should be given to the Office of Fair Trading to stamp out the offence for fair-minded business people and local authorities?

I agree that major competition issues are involved in collusive tendering. As with other restrictive agreements, it is subject to registration under the restrictive trades practices legislation. As my hon. Friend knows, collusive tendering is especially deceptive and difficult to detect. It is difficult to find concrete evidence. That is why my Department issued a Green Paper on the subject. One of the problems confirmed in the response to the Green Paper concerns the practicalities of enforcement. It has been pointed out that the existing law on fraud may suffice in clear-cut cases. The matter deserves urgent and diligent consideration.

Is the Minister aware that simply because something is difficult to detect it is not a reason for not making it a crime? As the Liesner committee reported on the matter two years ago, and as collusive tendering amounts to little more than a conspiracy to defraud public authorities and ratepayers, should not the practice be made a crime immediately?

If something is difficult to detect it is usually equally difficult to enforce. Laws that are impossible to enforce are not likely to have a deterrent effect on those who break them. As collusive tendering could be a fraudulent practice—and, in some cases, is so—the law on fraud may suffice. I want to examine the representations. I consider it to be an important competition issue. I shall reach my decision on the basis of all representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the practice known as red-lining by which companies refuse to provide credit for purchases to all consumers living within a particular area.

Red-lining is not, to the best of my knowledge, widespread. The Director General is, however, compiling information about credit scoring generally. If the hon. Gentleman has any information on red-lining, I am sure that it would interest the Director General.

Does the Minister accept that in my constituency recently the whole of the White City estate was red-lined by one company until a local newspaper, The Shepherds Bush Gazette, took up the matter? The practice is taking place both there and in other places. Will the Minister take a tougher line on it?

I have just overheard an hon. Member asking what red-lining means. I confess that until a recent National Consumer Council report brought the problem to my attention I thought that red-lining was a local Labour Party practice ruling out certain party candidates lacking the requisite qualifications. As a result of the report, I am aware that red-lining is a valid consumer problem. I hope that all decisions about whether to provide credit are based on sound commercial judgment and that, in principle, a person's creditworthiness is determined only on his or her merits.

If the Government do not have any red-linings to offer, what about some silver-linings? Is the Minister aware that during the past few days people in Bolsover and other constituencies in the North—and I suppose in the South also now—have been playing merry hell because they have not seen any silver-linings since the Government were elected 23 months ago?

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and his supporters would prefer that every cloud should have a red-lining.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made in reducing the imbalance of trade between Japan and the United Kingdom.

The imbalance of trade between Japan and the United Kingdom continues to widen and is a matter for serious concern. The European Community as a whole has a large and growing deficit in its trade with Japan. The Government fully support the course of action recently agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council to reduce that imbalance.

In view of the widening imbalance, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that two bearing companies in Northampton—namely, Ransome Hoffmann Pollard and British Timken—are due, respectively, to close and to shed 300 jobs? Does he accept that there are two reasons for the closure and the loss of 300 jobs—first, the downturn in the motor industry and, secondly, and more importantly, the unfair trading practices of the Japanese? When will my right hon. Friend say that these trading practices are unacceptable and that the United Kingdom, alongside the EEC, will do something about them?

That will be when the evidence is such as to convince the anti-dumping unit, and through that unit the agencies within the EEC that are sovereign in these matters.

In technology Japan appears to be passing through a phase of superiority in comparison with Western Europe, including the United Kingdom. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that exports to Japan from this country and Japanese imports must be considered seriously by the Government? Is he aware that while the Japanese are imposing restrictive practices on the United Kingdom's imports it seems that we are prepared to open our doors to let in their goods, including their motor cars?

We are always anxious to receive evidence from any quarter that will substantiate the hon. Gentleman's generalised comments. It ill-becomes the United Kingdom to initiate a trade restriction policy when 29 per cent. of our domestic product is represented by exports, whereas for Japan the figure is only 12 per cent.

As we import from Japan two and a half times as many manufactures as we export to Japan, why do we not investigate those areas where Japanese imports are causing, on balance, harm to the British economy and keep them out, in the same way as the Italians do with Japanese cars?

These matters are kept under constant review. It would be foolish for a country that, broadly speaking, has a direct concern in the promotion of open trade fortuitously to engage in trade restriction. If my hon. Friend can advance cogent and compelling arguments, we shall be happy to receive them.

Is not one of the reasons for the imbalance that Japan is well ahead in consumer electronics technology? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues with a view to ensuring that British companies invest in advanced technology in this sector in Britain so that we do not have to import from Japan?

It would be unwise for the United Kingdom Government to take a hostile attitude to Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that, for example, the Nissan investment can be turned aside, let him say so. If he is inviting the Government to engage in a pick-and-choose operation, the consequences of such an operation would be extremely harmful.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will ask the Director General of Fair Trading what reaction he has had from the Motor Agents Association in relation to the approaches he has made to it following the Consumers Association's report on garage servicing.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 22 January I regard this as a valuable report which, I feel sure, reflects the experience and great concern of a number of motorists. I hope that the trade will take steps to strengthen its code of practice and to enforce it more effectively as the Consumers Association recommends. The Director General has for some time been discussing with the relevant trade associations proposals for strengthening the code of practice.

Will my right hon. Friend take a considerable interest in this issue? Will she do her best to ensure that effective regulations are introduced by the motor manufacturers? Is she aware that there is undoubtedly grave concern among many members of the public over the way in which they are being taken for a rotten ride by some repair units in the motor industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was especially disappointed that the MAA's published reaction to the CA report was not more constructive. I hope that acceptance by it of the many criticisms in the CA report will be reflected in a strengthened code of practice that is currently being negotiated and that such a code will be widely observed. If it is not, we shall have to consider what alternatives might be applicable.

As a result of the proposals in the Budget the Government have hit motorists by increasing the price of a gallon of petrol by 20p and by increasing the road fund licence. Will they now take some action to defend the motorist? Why did not the Government come forward with some definite proposals following a good report?

The question concerns garage servicing. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table an appropriate question, I shall be pleased to answer it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Motor Agents Association has absolutely no concern for anything outside the narrow self-interests of its own membership and that it regards the public as a golden goose to be alternately plucked and stuffed?

My hon. Friend has expressed a characteristically robust view. I fear that it is a view that is shared by all too many members of the public as a result of their experience. That is why I have said that I hope that there will be a strengthened code of practice negotiated. I hope that it will be widely observed. I repeat, if it is not we shall have to consider what alternatives might be appropriate.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we look forward to the time when she will be no longer a spectator but an intervener in these matters? Bearing in mind the enormous amount of evidence of abuse by garages when engaging in sales and servicing, is not there a case for giving statutory force to a code of conduct and eventually disqualifying those who repeatedly rook the consumer?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at a time when the Director General of Fair Trading is conducting negotiations with those in the motor trade on this issue it would be premature for me to make a more definite observation than the fairly definite one that I have already made.

May I advise the right hon. Lady that there is nothing like a mention of action on her part to make the negotiations easier and not more difficult?

Surely that is precisely what I have done.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will refer the bid of the American corporation Enserch for the British firm of Davy-Loewy to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

I referred this proposed merger to the commission on 3 March.

That answer is useful as far as it goes. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objective of the American corporation is to gain control of certain chemical processes of Davy-Loewy involved in energy production, and that, having obtained it, it is as likely as not to shut down the steel plate making capacity of Davy-Loewy, which would be a disaster for Britain? Will he have close consultations with the Secretary of State for Industry about the implications of the takeover?

I shall keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the takeover. I wish to say nothing that might imply that I have prejudged the studies now being undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this famous Sheffield company is the only firm in Britain that makes entire steel mills for export? If a competitor took over the firm, changed the nature of it and closed it, does he understand that it would be a disaster for not only Sheffield—which is taking a keen interest in the proposed takeover—but for British industry generally? Even if the commission gives an unsatisfactory answer, will he do something to try to preserve this firm?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the Fair Trading Act 1973, especially section 84, which places before the commission a series of criteria which cover the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It will be better to wait until it has reported.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his replies will not give much encouragement to the management and work force at Davy-Loewy who are looking to him to protect their interests and the national interest? Does he accept that it would be a national disaster if the entire British steel industry became dependent on overseas producers for its metallurgical plant?

It would not serve public policy in its widest sense if I gave the impression that I had made up my mind independently of whatever might be concluded by the commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what particular benefits he hopes to achieve from the United Kingdom Presidency of the EEC Council of Trade Ministers.

It is too early to go into details of specific objectives, but I will have the interests of British trade and commerce well in mind when pursuing the Government's general objective of contributing to the development of practical and constructive policies in the Community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he do his best to make progress to enable our successful insurance industry to compete on equal terms on the Continent? Although trade has to be fair for our visible trade, is he aware that that is still not so for invisible trade?

I am sure that the development of the European Community in respect of insurance, in sympathy with the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, would be widely welcomed in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will bear that in mind.

Can we expect British trading interests to be more greatly protected than they appear to be? Last year we imported 169,870 electric dry irons from East Germany at a United Kingdom landed price of £1·70. How many jobs in British manufacturing and in the British steel industry does that sort of unfair competition sacrifice?

That point relates to the external trade policies of the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw the attention of the anti-dumping unit of the British Government to that phenomenon, we shall consider it.

Will my right hon. Friend be careful to ensure that the European Community does not restrict imports too much from the under-developed world, because to take the manufactures of those countries is better than to give them aid?

As a broad proposition, one would wish to see a liberal trading Community rather than a protectionist Community. The operation of the common agricultural policy shows us the dangers of being protectionist. However, there are a number of industries, of which textiles is one, where we want to balance many interests in the conclusion of policy.

What is the Government's objective in the negotiations between the EEC and the United States for the protection of British textiles from unfair American competion based on cheap energy? Is he aware that he has placed a great deal of reliance on EEC action to protect the British industry? What action does he want it to take?

We support the representations made by the European Community, through the Commission, to the United States Government with a view to securing action in respect of natural gas. However, we shall have to see how those negotiations proceed. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—and it should be well understood in the Chamber—that, at the end of the day, we are not sovereign in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he proposes to raise the issue of flags of convenience at the next meeting of EEC Transport Ministers.

Open registries were discussed at the last European Community Transport Council in November at the instance of the Federal Republic of Germany. They will now be considered further by the Council transport working group.

What action are the British Government proposing to take? Is the Minister aware that the Liberian shipowners' council is soliciting allies to resist the attack on flags of convenience? Is he prepared to form part of such a dubious alliance? Will he support the initiative taken by the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries in the EEC to prevent that attack on British and other shipping and the importation of the dubious standards which are employed by the flags of convenience?

The need in UNCTAD is that any analysis of flags of convenience should be realistic and impartial, with an emphasis on economic realities rather than political preconception. Any abuses—if they exist—should be considered with a view to their elimination. The work of the International Maritime Consultative Organisation is valuable in this respect.

What action is the Minister intending to take to discourage British shipowners from using flags of convenience which often means lowering safety standards as well as all the other conditions of employment? Does he realise what would happen in the seafaring community in this country if he did not take action?

We are opposed to a number of practices associated with open registries—or flags of convenience, as the hon. Gentleman calls them—and also with some of the practices applying to the traditional registries. We do not consider the existence of open registries to be an issue. What matters are the standards of safety, crewing and manning and all the matters which are connected with good standards in shipping. Those are better enforced by international conventions.

If more and more British ships are transferred to flags of convenience, what would happen if there were another war and we needed a Merchant Navy? We praised the Merchant Navy during the last war, but now we are completely ignoring it.

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that from 1965 to 1979 the open registry share of the world fleet grew from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent. That process has levelled off in the last three years. More foreign-owned shipping is registered in the United Kingdom than there are United Kingdom-owned ships registered under foreign flags.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the surplus on visible trade with the European Economic Community in January; and how this compares with the position in January 1980 and January 1979.

In January of this year, the United Kingdom had a crude surplus of £369 million on her trade with the Community, compared with crude deficits of £218 million and £20 million in January 1979 and January 1980, respectively.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a remarkable improvement in our trade with the EEC over the last two years? By what percentage has the value of exports to the EEC from Britain increased since we joined the Community in 1973?

Our exports to the EEC have grown at an average annual rate of 28 per cent. since we joined the EEC. The figure is 19 per cent. for exports to the rest of the world.

Is the Minister aware that the Continental EEC would have bought as much oil from the United Kingdom if we had not joined the EEC, and would continue to do so if we withdrew?

I could not argue with that proposition. The proportion of our imports of manufactures from the EEC which we cover by our exports has grown substantially from 80 per cent. in 1979 to 88 per cent. in 1980. It is not true that the whole improvement depends on oil.

What steps will the Minister take to ensure that some of the coal which is currently stocked in the United Kingdom is used to a greater extent inside the Common Market, since we seem to have to spend much of our money on goods from the Common Market while it seems to be importing considerable amounts of coal from Third world countries? Apart from the agreement which the Government are undertaking as a result of the muscle which has been shown by the miners recently, what steps are being taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that more British coal is sold inside the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is a strong world-wide demand for coal. A number of Ministers from inside and outside the Common Market have asked me recently about the possibilities of buying British coal. The problem is that the price of British coal is too high. One of the reasons for that is that the British coal industry supports too many unprofitable pits. However, there is no shortage of demand for coal. We have to get the price right.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade why the security arrangements for British airlines flying to and from Northern Ireland are not uniform; and whether he will make a statement.

Our security requirements for British airlines flying between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are uniform. Procedures vary in detail according to local circumstances, but meet a common standard of security.

Were not many of us who "Fly the Flag" to Northern Ireland aghast when, on security grounds, British Airways' crews refused to stay there overnight, unlike the crews of private operators, thus adding to the corporation's deficit? Have those "boys of the bulldog breed" thought better of it?

My hon. Friend knows that there has been a long-standing refusal by aircrew of British Airways to stay overnight in Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the management. It is interesting that British Midland Airways also flies between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but its aircrew stay overnight in the Province.

Does the Minister agree that security arrangements are inconsistent when a woman can take her handbag on to a plane but a small briefcase is not allowed? Is he aware that magazines and newspapers can be taken on board but in some cases small books are not allowed? Will he accept that that does not make sense, and will he comment?

Arrangements for hand luggage have recently been improved. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the purpose of the security arrangements is to stop dangerous material being taken on to aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he supports the European Commission's proposals for harmonising legislation on trademarks and the creation of a Community trademark.

The Government support the principle of a Community trademark and the need for corresponding alignment of national law. In the long term I am satisfied that the scheme will be helpful to United Kingdom traders who wish to expand their Community trade. The Commission's proposals do, however, raise a number of difficult problems, and they will be the subject of further negotiations.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of the business community over a number of important points in the proposals? Will he ensure that before accepting the proposals he deals with the questions of inroads into common law rights and international exhaustion and the other significant matters that are troubling the business community?

And also whether we are going to stay in the Community.

I appreciate the validity of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I believe that there will be further substantial negotiations. The points that he raises will be borne very much in mind.

What does the Minister intend to do to try to establish the trademark registry in the United Kingdom?

The Government are firm in their desire to secure the siting of the trademark office in London, and will make specific proposals about a site at a more appropriate date, having regard to the probable length of the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has any plans to extend the sector covered by the Origin Marking Order (S.I., 1981, No. 121).

I shall keep the case for extension under review; but my first priority is to implement the order, the principle of which has been widely welcomed, as it stands, before considering the case for bringing in new products or sectors.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the special situation of the clothing industry over origin marking? If it can he shown that the purchaser of an article of clothing has an economic need to know the country where the cloth was made, as well as the country where the article was made up, will she consider extending the order?

I have received a number of representions on the matter, but I fear that it is not practical to extend the order in that way. However, manufacturers, textile weavers and suppliers of cloth are free to supply the information when goods are made up and they often do so.

Does the Minister recognise the strong feeling, in particular in the wool textile industry, about consumers being misled by labels which, for instance, on a wool suit state "Made in Britain", when, in fact, the cloth is imported? Is it not disgraceful for her to ask the industry to prove that the consumer will benefit from more accurate labelling? Is it not merely an excuse for non-action? Will she reconsider the point about the need for the consumer to know whether he is buying the product of a British worker?

If not disgraceful, it is remarkable that such criticisms should come from Opposition Members. They are vocal about wishing to extend the order, but their Government took no such steps when in office. I understand the textile industry's case, but it is for the industry to make representations to the manufacturers, most of whom will be pleased to put the label "British made" on textiles.

May I congratulate the right hon. Lady on making an order following on negotiations that I started about three years ago? Will she extend origin marking of foreign goods to cutlery and silverware blanks, which are imported from South-East Asia and plated in Sheffield but which are marked "Made in Sheffield" or "Made in England"?

With due respect, the hon. Gentleman appears to be woefully ignorant of the second order to be made, which refers specifically to cutlery and cutlery blanks. The matter is covered by the amending order. Many cutlery manufactures, including Viners Ltd., already mark on blades, for instance, "Made in Korea".

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the current system of provisional registration for shipping, following the abuses in the case of the "Tiger Bay", which ran aground on a voyage to Riga in the winter of 1980.

The facility of provisional registration is under examination as part of a general review of the registration provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. It is our intention to introduce new legislation as soon as possible after the review has been completed.

Does the Minister admit that the 1894 legislation allows registration without inspection or survey? Does not that amount to the "flag-of-convenience" process, albeit under our own flag?

The hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledges that the legislation has applied since 1894. Under the Merchant Shipping Act there is provision for the master to take certain steps if a ship is not seaworthy. We shall bear in mind the case of the "Tiger Bay", but we do not have evidence of widespread abuse.

Is the Minister aware that in the past three-quarters of an hour the Department of Trade has set up half a dozen quangos to watch various matters and six committees to take other matters into consideration and that a further half a dozen matters are being put under review? How many more civil servants will all that require?

The first Merchant Shipping Act was passed in 1894. Instead of criticising us for not doing anything about it, the hon. Gentleman should accuse his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Is the Minister so ignorant that he does not recognise that there was a substantial change in the law relating to merchant shipping in 1978? Does he accept that the "Tiger Bay" incident illustrates the fact—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) said—that substandard shipping can join the British register, as admitted by his noble Friend Lord Trefgarne? When will the law be changed to ensure that permanent and provisional registration will be conditional upon inspection and survey?

The changes in 1978 that the hon. Gentleman mentions did not relate to this loophole. I have made it clear that the review will take account of the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson).

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now take steps to prohibit restrictive practices in the sale of spectacles.

I understand that the General Optical Council's revised rules on price display have been submitted to the Privy Council for approval. The Director General has decided that these should be given time to prove their effect on competition before reconsidering use of his powers.

Since my right hon. Friend believes passionately in competition, can she tell my why it is necessary for us to pay £40 for a pair of spectacles when a similar product is on sale in America and elsewhere for only £5? What assurance can she give that the price of spectacle frames will not be kept artificially high and that prospective buyers will be able to go from qualified testers to whichever optician they choose, having compared prices exhibited in shop windows?

The quick answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that he should buy spectacles in the United States—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I recognise that the problem of competition concerns a number of people. The Government are encouraging opticians to be more open about prices, so that patients can be made more aware of the cost involved and of comparative costs before committing themselves to purchase.

Is the Minister aware that the optical profession seeks to defend the excess prices charged on spectacles by saying that it is not paid a decent rate for normal optical services? In looking into this matter, will the Minister also consider the entire question as it affects that profession?

I shall certainly bear in mind all aspects of the matter which affect the consumer and which affect questions of competition. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there are a number of aspects of this question which affect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Is the Minister aware that her original reply to this question is deeply unsatisfactory in that as the Minister allegedly responsible for consumer protection she advised an hon. Member to purchase goods outwith this country, where he might obtain better terms? Is she aware that time after time today, when issues of competition have arisen—on which she says that she places great reliance—it has been clear that the Government are prepared to do very little in practice to back the philosophy of competition that they allegedly espouse?

British goods will be sold successfully in this country and abroad only when their prices and quality are comparable with those of goods obtainable from abroad. While they are not, clearly consumers will not buy goods manufactured in this country. The whole point of strengthening competition policy, which the Government to a large extent have done, is to ensure that lower prices and higher standards prevail for consumers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the United Kingdom's bilateral aid to the poorest countries in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and how this compares in real terms with the previous 12 months.

Net bilateral aid to the poorest countries in the calendar year 1980 is estimated at £288 million, which is about 24 per cent. lower in real terms compared with 1979. But I would emphasise that this does not represent a policy decision to cut aid to these countries by 24 per cent. United Kingdom aid is planned on a financial year basis. The pattern of drawings often fluctuates sharply between quarters. Drawings in the first three-quarters of the current financial year by some recipients, notably India, were lower than anticipated. The level of bilateral aid drawings in the calendar year 1980 was low, in contrast to 1979 which was rather high, in relation to resources available.

Is the Minister aware that a cut of this magnitude from one year to the next may have a disastrous effect on the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world? Is he further aware that such countries, particularly those hit by oil price rises and the world recession, may be driven into deeper economic straits, leading to a political instability which would be in no one's interests?

Yes, I recognise those facts. But, as I said in my answer, this is not a cut.

Does the Minister accept that the saddest feature of all this cutting, economy and cheeseparing is in overseas education? The Minister must know as well as I do, because he goes overseas far more than I do, that countries overseas are dying for teachers, particularly teachers of the English language. Is he aware that this hits back at us and at his party because if the English language is losing ground our business men are at a disadvantage in competing against the French and many other nations?

I recognise that, but plenty of teachers are willing to go abroad. The market is there and they go. Overseas countries can employ them if they want to, and they can go there if they want to.

As the Minister has twice said that this figure does not represent a cut, will he assure the House that in the year ahead the Government will take steps to ensure that the drop will be made up?

We shall do our best to do so, but it is not necessarily the fault of this Government. The receiving Governments are sometimes very slow in taking up what we have offered.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what commitments the Commonwealth Development Corporation has currently to projects in the field of energy resources.

In 1979 and 1980, taken together, the CDC made commitments of about £37 million to projects in this field.

Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth Development Corporation has considerable expertise in energy matters and has given considerable help to overseas countries? In the light of this and the problem of oil prices, will he ensure that the resources available to the CDC are expanded and its borrowing powers increased and that there is no question of cutting back on its activities?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have discussed exactly that point with Lord Kindersley, the chairman of the CDC. I hope to have an answer on this in the fairly near future.

Is the Minister aware that the CDC will be unable to make any commitment, not only in energy but in any other area, unless he manages to convince the Treasury that for the CDC to borrow on the open money markets, and indeed overseas money markets, is not a real charge on the public sector borrowing requirement? What steps has he taken to convince the Treasury of that?

Discussions are still going on. I hope to make an announcement on this as soon as a decision has been reached by Ministers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received about further aid for Zimbabwe.

We are in close touch with the Zimbabwe Government about all aspects of our aid programme. As regards people in this country, I have received a number of letters urging the provision of further aid to Zimbabwe and a similar number suggesting that we have already done too much.

In view of the urgent need for a multimillion pound development programme in Zimbabwe and the lofty promises made by Britain at the Lancaster House conference, will the Minister increase the miserable offer that the Government have made so far? If the Treasury really is bankrupt, why does he not demand that the oil companies, including BP, hand over to the Zimbabwe Government the millions of pounds in profits that they made by breaking sanctions against the illegal Smith regime?

The latter part of that supplementary question, I am sure, is beyond the scope of this question. On the former part, I simply do not agree with the basis of the question. We have given £75 million in aid, £14 million in training and education, £7 million on ATP. That is a total of £96 million. In addition, there is £22 million forgiveness of debt relief, £33 million of debt has been rescheduled and we are also giving military assistance. That is not a bad record, but it must be up to the rest of the world, as well as ourselves, to help Zimbabwe.

In view of the special difficulties that Zimbabwe faces following the war, and also the great economic prospects, will my hon. Friend think again about this and recognise that it might be wise to be generous now on the principle that prompt aid at this stage will do the most good and bring the best return?

I am very sympathetic to the line taken by my hon. Friend. I think that we must await the results of the donors' conference at which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will represent this country.

Is the Minister aware that the Zimbabwe Government reckon that it is in the next three years that the job needs to be done, and that generous aid is therefore needed during those three years in the hope that they can stand on their own feet after that? Will he also confirm that the money for Zimbabwean students in this country has not been included in the figure that he quoted for aid to Zimbabwe?

The figure of £14 million that I quoted is within the money, but we are considering further money. This will, however, have to await the outcome of the donors' conference. On the first part of the question, I agree that aid during the next three years is what is needed. I think that we have done extremely well. I repeat that one should await the outcome of the donors' conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the likely level of disbursement of aid to Zimbabwe in the current financial year.

It is too soon to tell precisely how much we shall spend in aid to Zimbabwe in this financial year, but we expect the total to be about £14·5 million.

Will my hon. Friend consider making special funds available in the coming year to enable Zimbabweans currently at school in Britain to continue their education at British universities later this year?

Yes. These matters are under consideration at the moment.

Does not the Minister agree that the Western world has a great deal at stake in regard to the success of Mr. Mugabe's Government in Zimbabwe? Is not it regrettable that, at this stage, he is not able to give a more positive indication about the extra assistance that is likely to be given by the Government at the donors' conference?

It is customary to announce at the donors' conference, and not beforehand, what aid, if any, one will give.