asked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the balance of trade in manufactured goods between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Economic Community during the first six months of 1981; and how this compares with the first six months of 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the balance of trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community for each of the last six months.

Detailed overseas trade statistics for the United Kingdom for 1981 are available only for January. In that month the United Kingdom had a crude trade deficit of £18 million with the European Community in manufactured goods compared with a surplus of £18 million for the same month of 1971.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a longer run of figures would show clearly that membership of the Common Market has been a positive disadvantage to Britain's industry and trade, and that the hopes that were expressed at the time of our joining the EEC have by no means been fulfilled?

A longer run of figures would indicate that in 1980 the United Kingdom had a deficit of £1,800 million with the other nations of the European Community. However, about two-thirds of that deficit was accounted for by a deficit in motor vehicle trade. That may tell us as much about the United Kingdom motor vehicle industry as about British trade with the European Community.

I recognise that manufacturing industry is important, but will my right hon. Friend accept that if account is taken of all our trading, including invisible earnings, which have traditionally been one of our large areas of income, we have performed very well within Europe? It no more makes sense to isolate manufacturing industry than it does to isolate any other one sector.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that one should be careful about isolating figures to try to produce an answer that is congenial. However, our invisible trade balance with Europe is adverse.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that nearly 60 per cent. of all our exports are to the Community or to the European countries associated with the Community?

That is right. That figure is one that goes beyond the Community. However, it would be true if one were to take Europe in its geographic rather than its narrow political sense.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, at five minutes to 3 o'clock, I was told that my question, had been bracketed with question 1. It was answered at 25 minutes to 3 o'clock. Hon. Members have business which they arrange well in advance and if told beforehand they can rearrange that business. In the circumstances, not knowing anything about it, it was quite impossible to do anything about it. Can you ask the Government to devise a better system for warning hon. Members than the one we have now?

The usual channels will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of total British exports were exports to the European Economic Community in the most recent 12-month period; and what was the proportion in the 12-month period immediately before the United Kingdom joined the Community.

In 1980 43 per cent. of the United Kingdom's exports went to the European Community compared with 30 per cent. in 1972.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show clearly how beneficial our membership of the Community has been and how dangerous are suggestions that we should withdraw from the Community?

I think that my hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to note the number of representations from companies explaining to us that the movement of the pound against the dollar is no longer the most important movement for them and that the movement of the pound against other European currencies is far more important. That underlines the fact that increasingly our trade is dependent on Europe.

Do not the figures equally show that it was beneficial for us formerly not to be part of the European Econoomic Community, since the percentages were then the reverse?

The figures tell us that those who would advise us to withdraw from the Community should think carefully before they start arguing their case. There is no doubt that one of the factors that has caused the increase in trade has been the removal of trade barriers in the Community. We should seek to remove barriers in our trade with the rest of the world.

Is it not remarkable that in the calender year 1980 we have achieved an overall balance surplus of £0·8 million in comparison with a deficit in the previous year of nearly £2½ million? Is not that not only a remarkable reflection of the ability of this country to trade increasingly in Europe but a vindication of our original entry and a proof, along the lines of the New Standard article today, that it was a pity we missed the bus originally, but now we should get on with our membership of the Community and make a success of it?

My hon. Friend is right. The debate about whether we should be members of the EEC is sterile and damaging. We should take advantage of the fact that we are now members of a Community, with a huge potential market, where there are no barriers to our trade.

Will the Minister of State say what proportion of that trade with Europe is in oil?

Had we omitted oil from the figures, the answer would have been roughly the same. Our non-oil trade has risen from 30 per cent. to about 41 per cent., compared with 30 per cent. to 43 per cent. with oil, so the trend, whether in manufacturing or food, has been fairly uniformly a substantial increase in our trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet come to a decision upon the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations on credit card surcharges.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is yet able to state what action he intends to take following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on credit cards.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps are being taken to implement the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on credit cards.

The Director General of Fair Trading and I have been consulting interested parties on the steps to be taken following the report. There are complex issues to be considered and my right hon. Friend will announce his decision as soon as practicable.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that total confusion has been created for the consumers, when they are facing substantial and escalating surcharges? As prices are being increased in almost every case, as tourism is being damaged and as no other comparable country allows surcharges, will not the Minister change the proposals of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and allow the previous situation to continue?

My hon. Friend has validly indicated some of the complexities in the problem that the Government must face in reaching that decision. He is right to say that confusion has arisen in some cases for consumers where the surcharge is not indicated, and in others where it is indicated. All those things are under consideration by the Government and by my right hon. Friend and I during the consultations that we are holding at present and in our consideration of the final outcome of the issue.

As my right hon. Friend will admit that the present situation is far from satisfactory not only with regard to surcharges, can she tell the House when she will bring proposals to it to take measures appropriate to the recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report, because it was produced in September 1980, which is almost a year ago?

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. He mentioned the great complexities in the issue, all of which the Government must consider. My right hon. Friend and I in particular must consider them in reaching a decision on the issue. It would not be fair to any of the parties concerned, most of all to the consumer, if we rushed the decision and did not consult as fully as possible before reaching such a decision. I am aware that there is some uncertainty now and that that uncertainty is unwelcome. My right hon. Friend and I will be as quick as we can in giving full consideration to all the representations which have been made to us.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that whether we have any more surcharges or not, those cards are inflationary, in that they encourage people to spend money which they do not have?

I am not sure whether that has been fully established. As I understand it—it is not particularly an issue in this case—a large majority of people using credit cards do not avail themselves of the full credit facilities, but only of the monthly facility. It is more a service that is provided to consumers than anything else at present. That is one of the things that adds to the complexity of the situation and the decision that the Government must make.

Does the right hon. Lady believe in one simple proposition, that garages that give discounts for cash should not be penalised by credit card companies?

Yes, Sir. But at the same time one of the things that we must consider is whether those who are giving discounts for cash are the same people who are adding a surcharge for the use of credit cards. At the moment that is one of the things that are not absolutely clear, which are clouding the issue and that are under consideration.

So that my right hon. Friend can consider the whole matter, does not she agree that the companies that take credit cards are having to pay to the credit card companies a percentage—sometimes 3 per cent.—of the bill that they charge the customer? Therefore, if there are limitations, there could be a decrease in the number of outlets taking credit cards, which would be a disadvantage to the customer.

My hon. Friend has illustrated well one of the facets of the situation that my right hon. Friend and I must consider. It is true that there are charges. I must make it clear mat those are more likely to be service charges than credit card charges because, as I understand it, those using those facilities can reclaim the money more or less on the same day in most cases. However, the service that is levied, and the one that costs the money, is that of servicing the facility on the part both of garages and of the credit card companies. I should also make it clear—

That is an inordinately long reply. In fact, every one of the Minister's replies has been inordinately long. The Minister may finish her sentence, however.

I should also make it clear to the House that the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will affect not only garages but the whole retail trade, as well as restaurants and hotels.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will state by what percentage bankruptcies and insolvencies, respectively, in the United Kingdom have increased since May 1979.

In the second quarter of 1981 the number of bankruptcies was 46 per cent. higher than in the second quarter of 1979. Figures for total company liquidations are not available for the second quarter of 1981; in the first quarter they were 104 per cent higher than in the same period of 1979.

In the light of that appalling and deteriorating situation and the obvious need for an efficient Official Receiver service, will the Minister say what support he has received for his cock-eyed schemes virtually to wind up the Official Receiver service? What reactions have been evoked from the Cork committee with regard to that proposal?

All hon. Members will be relieved to know that the number of bankruptcies was slightly lower in the second quarter of 1981 than in the first quarter. The figure for compulsory liquidations of companies was considerably lower. Those figures show that the upward trend may now have come to an end. With regard to the hon. Member's reference to bankruptcy and insolvency procedure, we are awaiting the second part of the Cork committee's report. After that the Government will make clear their intentions.

Bearing in mind the desire of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and of the Opposition to present a fair picture, will my hon. Friend tell the House the increase in the number of new firms started up in the same period?

There are healthy signs that there is a high birth rate of new firms. For example, no fewer than 69,100 new companies were registered in 1980–81. In addition, the increased number of registered businesses in the same year was 153,200.

To what extent have those higher bankruptcies been caused or accentuated by the higher bank rates, higher interest rates generally, the inflationary spiral that the Government have created since May 1979 and above all, high unemployment? Have those factors had any effect?

Interest rates have, of course, been a factor, but the real trouble is that in recent years we have had rising prices and reduced competitiveness, which have brought about a loss of profitability and, accordingly, a sad loss of employment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-fibre arrangement renewal negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a progress report on his preparations for the multi-fibre arrangement renegotiations.

The Council of Ministers of the Community reached agreement on 13 July on the initial negotiating directives to be given to the Commission for the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that of the many issues the level of the base position of the quotas is perhaps of overwhelming importance? Does he agree that they should be fixed in relation to the current realities of trade rather than to the position that it was thought would exist in 1973 and 1977? If so, what detailed negotiations are proceeding, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult the industry and the trade union associations on the matter before the autumn?

I appreciate the significance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the level of the base figure. The Commission's negotiating position is to use a variety of techniques designed to have an impact on the actual levels of the successor agreement, and the level of base is certainly one factor that it will consider. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Department is more than happy to continue the closest consultations with employers and unions in the industry.

I pay tribute to the recognition given to the textile and clothing industry by the Government, which was epitomised in my right hon. Friend's speech at the beginning of the MFA debate a few weeks ago. However, does he recognise that, in addition to the point raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) about the base rate—which relates to the base growth situation, which is so important—the actual growth rate and the existence of the recession clause in the new MFA are absolutely vital if this industry, which is very important to the country and employs over 650,000 people, is to survive and prosper under successive Governments?

I thank my hon. Friend for his initial comments. Considerations about growth rates and recession clauses are designed to secure a tougher successor arrangement than that which we have now secured. I do not wish to indicate how the Commission should negotiate in each and every detail, but within that general assumption I am certain that the points raised this afternoon will be held very much in mind.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the man-made fibre sector is taking very heavy punishment? Does he know that on Friday, in my constituency, 380 workers lose their jobs at Courtaulds? Will he undertake to fight even harder to safeguard what is left of our industry?

I can say "Yes" to both parts of the question. I feel for the hon. Gentleman, as I know the constituency situation that he refers to.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the failure to get a recession clause in the present MFA has caused considerable loss of employment and concern in Scotland? Will he ensure that in future MFAs such a clause will clearly be included to support and sustain the people in the industry?

The United Kingdom Government made clear from the outset the importance that they attach to a recession clause, but I would be less than open with the House if I did not say that some of the other Community countries have not been similarly motivated. However, we shall continue to fight for our corner.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the survival of the British textile industry depends on the success of the negotiations this year? Is he aware that in West Yorkshire since the beginning of last year 20,000 jobs have been lost in the clothing and textile industry, and that if the remaining jobs are to be preserved the new MFA must be strong and precise?

I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully seized of the importance of the MFA and its successor for the durability and prosperity of the textile industry. We are joined in that sentiment by many of our negotiating partners, not least France.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an MFA, like any other form of protectionism, can serve no useful purpose unless it puts up prices for consumers, and, if it does that, it must cause them to have less money to spend on other items, thus creating unemployment elsewhere?

Although I would not disagree with the general philosophic proposition, I point out that the textile industry has been subject to a more rapid and sustained rate of change than almost any other aspect of our economy.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many foreign tourists have visited London in the current year compared with last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many foreign tourists have visited London in 1981 compared with 1980.

Provisional figures from the international passenger survey for up to only the end of the first quarter of 1981—the latest available—show that some 1·11 million foreign visitors—excluding those from the Irish Republic—spent at least one night in the capital compared with 1·22 million in the same period in 1980.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although we want a strong and well-balanced tourist industry, those who live and work in London or who have come here this week to enjoy the celebrations will be pleased at some measure of relief? Does she agree that uninhibited development of mass tourism eventually destroys the thing that tourists have come to see?

I welcome my hon. Friend's remark in one sense. Although the number of foreign tourists is marginally down, the number of domestic tourists to London in the first quarter of the year is very much up. Not only are the numbers higher; domestic tourists have spent more nights and substantially more money in London than last year, which is welcome to the tourist industry in London and to all who work in it. I remind my hon. Friend that the tourist industry is a primary export-earner, a primary provider of jobs and a primary growth industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that world interest in this country is unique among nations because of the bearing and example of the Queen and all the members of the Royal Family? Does she further agree that the splendour and pageantry of the Royal wedding will also be a deeply personal moment for two people and that tourists in London are never more welcome in sharing our joy on this occasion?

I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend says. In moving around the area one has the feeling that in the next two days the world is coming to London in more ways than one. The face of London that is shown at the moment is very important, and I believe that it is one that the world will look on with approbation and respect and with great felicitation for those involved in what is probably the greatest tourist attraction of the century and also a memorable occasion in all our lives.

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that although the Royal wedding is an important occasion, it will have an impact on the tourist trade for only a short time? I support her in her repudiation of the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), but will she let us know what direct support the Government will give to the tourist industry? What will the right hon. Lady do to give added stimulus to the various tourist boards, including the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board?

The Government give a great deal of direct support to the BTA, the ETB and the regional boards through a substantial grant. More importantly and significantly, the tourist industry raises as much, or more, than the Government give it. It does not make great demands on the Government. It provides many jobs and is worthy of high recognition in the economic scheme of things. The Roy al wedding provides a particular focus for the tourist industry, but attractions in London and in the rest of the country will continue to commend themselves to an increasing number of tourists throughout the world in the coming years.

Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent report from Lancaster university, which points out that the 20 per cent. increase in employment in the service sector in that area is mainly accounted for by the tourist industry? Will she urge all those in the North-West to take advantage of the naturally superb assets that exist in the form of scenery, historic sites and magnificent communications, so that they may cash in on the tourist boom? The North-West, in particular, has lost many of its traditional industries. Will she encourage applications to be made to the regional development fund for tourism projects?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the tourist industry. It is a major provider of jobs. The service industries now employ a little more than 54 per cent. of working people in Britain. The tourist industry is a major growth area. As I said in a speech that I made the week before last, the tourist industry is a jewel in the crown of our service industries. My hon. Friend is right to say that regional development grants have greatly assisted.

Does the Minister agree that it is a great pity that such emphasis is placed on London? Would it not be a good idea if the Minister spent more energy on encouraging tourism in the North-West and in the North? She could help by encouraging the greater use of Manchester airport instead of giving consideration to another airport in the South.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of the grant that is available to development areas goes to that area. Last week I presented awards on behalf of the BTA One of them went to that area for the initiative that has been shown. Manchester airport has done a splendid job and is part of the important infrastructure of regional airports in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the latest figures available for the balance of trade with Japan; what steps he is taking to improve this balance; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what measures are being taken to improve the balance of trade with Japan.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on trading between the United Kingdom and Japan, including the value of imports and exports between the two countries during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress he is making in conjunction with other European Economic Community countries to limit the disruptive effect of Japanese imports into member countries.

In 1980 United Kingdom companies exported to Japan goods worth £597 million; imports from Japan amounted to £1,712 million. The deficit on visible trade was therefore £1,115 million, partly offset by a surplus of some £200 million on invisible trade.

Will not the Secretary of State accept that Japanese success is based, on the one hand, on Japan's co-ordinated and far-seeing export policy and, on the other, on rigid protection of its home market? Unless Britain adopts the same type of initiative and protectionism for its home market, large sections of British industry—regardless of any pseudo agreement with the Japanese—will completely disappear.

I cannot accept the proposition that a substantial extension of protection would enhance British industry's virility.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Japan has a 40 per cent. tariff against, for example, confectionery and biscuit imports from Britain and is substantially hindering our export of those products? Does not my right hon. Friend think that if Japan wants to export its manufactured products to Britain it should be willing to lower those punitive tariff rates on our exports to Japan?

Yes, I do.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the different tariffs, it is important that the Japanese should allow us the same conditions of access as we allow Japan on such things as product safety and specification? Is not that a problem that the Government must face?

I am not sure how much of the problem lies in the formal existence of restraints within Japan and how much of the problem is culturally related, in that, in the absence of constraints, the Japanese are still determined to buy Japanese.

I apologise for not being in the Chamber for my right hon. Friend's substantive reply, but I did not know that he would answer my question so soon. As for the balance of payments, does not my right hon. Friend agree that we are now more than £1 billion in deficit to the Japanese and that the EEC as a whole is nearly £4 billion in deficit? Despite what my right hon. Friend may say about cultural lags in Japan, has not the situation gone on for too long? Will he follow not EEC or British rules but French rules for coping with Japanese imports?

I should like to receive a little advice from my hon. Friend on what constitutes the nuances of French rules. However, I am certain that the present imbalance will give rise to continuing anxieties between the OECD countries and Japan and that it cannot be allowed to continue.

Is there any good reason why Britain's trade account with any one country should balance?

Absolutely none. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, knowing my prejudices just as I know his, should ask me that question. We are confronted by an assault from Japan's exporting industries on a scale and a narrowness that gives rise to intolerable economic and social dislocation in the various economies of the West.

Given the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), is it not a fact that the French Government have clearly directed—rather than pussy-footing around with negotiations with the Japanese over the level of car imports—that not more than 3 per cent. of France's market should be taken by Japanese cars? Given the cultural difficulties that the Japanese have in importing goods from Europe, is not the only action that we can take tough action of the kind that the French and Italians have taken?

The actions of France and Italy are different in character. Italian action proceeds under trade regulations that are incorporated into Community law. The French have applied an administrative procedure which, were it to happen in Britain, would give rise to so much discretionary power on the part of civil servants that it would be rightly challenged in the courts.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese have an advantage over us and other Western countries in that their defence expenditure is much lower, because of the peace treaties? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend urge the Government to press the Japanese to increase their overseas aid and thus to take some of the responsibility away from Western countries?

I am certain that if Japan had a defence budget that was analogous to the budgets of many of the other OECD countries Britain would probably be a supplier—given our acknowledged skills in providing defence equipment—to Japan. That is a fact of life.

If the Japanese continue to increase their exports to Britain or fail to take more exports from Britain is there any reason why, ultimately, we should not emulate the Italians and have unilateral controls?

Any action would probably be undertaken in concert with our trading partners in the OECD.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the levels of imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom of engineering products in the last 12 months.

Exports of the principal products of the mechanical, instrument and electrical engineering industries as defined in the standard industrial classification were £11,562 million for the year 1980. The corresponding figure for imports was £8,419 million.

In those circumstances does the Minister recognise the vital importance of the engineering industry to our economy and also, alongside the export credit, the awful state of the industry and the very high unemployment in it? In the light of that, will he consult the Defence Secretary about the sad prospect of the current Marconi Radar Sea Wolf project, in my constituency, being replaced by a Dutch designed and manufactured product of a lighter calibre?

I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I agree with him that the figures show the great importance of the engineering sector. They also highlight the importance of resisting pressure for protectionism. Were we to close our markets to other people's goods, the £3,000 million surplus that we have on exports could rapidly disappear.

As a matter of passing interest to my constituents, who have lost some jobs in efficient industries as a result of West German competition, will my hon. Friend tell me how our balance of trade in engineering goods with Japan compares with our balance of trade in engineering goods with West Germany?

If my hon. Friend will table a question about that I shall be happy to give him the answer.

Bearing in mind the importance that the Minister has rightly given to the engineering industry, may I ask whether he is concerned that there is a growing trend in this country for engineering companies to export their manufacture, because of wages and industrial relations practices abroad, and merely to have companies in this country acting as distributors, where previously they had been manufacturers?

My hon. Friend has pointed to what he calls a trend in this country, but an industry that managed last year to export over £11,500 million of goods during a recession is still a very important industry. Large quantities of goods are being made here at a price that people overseas wish to pay. Goods of the right quality are still being produced here in large quantities.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received following the announcement of the disposal of retail gas showrooms.

Following my announcement on 8 July, my right hon. Friend received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members, members of the public and British Gas Corporation employees on the Government's decision, putting forward a number of differing points of view.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is always predictable that any entrenched monopoly will defend itself tooth and claw, and so will the suppliers who batten on it for their own benefit? Will she agree that it makes no kind of sense to maintain expensive prime site High Street locations for the payment of bills that can be paid through the Post Office? If she cares to take similar action in regard to electricity showrooms and British Airways travel shops she will have my wholehearted support.

It is notable that electricity showrooms command 10 per cent. of the retail market, whereas British gas showrooms command over 90 per cent. of the retail market.

Can the right hon. Lady confirm that on the day that she announced the Government's proposals about retail gas showrooms there were, as stated in the British Gas Corporation's annual report, more than twice as many privately owned showrooms as showrooms owned by the British Gas Corporation?

What is important in terms of competition is the share of the market, not the number of showrooms. The British Gas Corporation has a 90 per cent. share of the market. The number of showrooms is not important. What is important is the finding of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that some BGC activities had harmed competition, limited choice and possibly put up prices, as well as debilitating the gas appliance manufacturing industry and rendering the jobs in that industry less secure than they might otherwise have been.

Why is the Minister not honest with the House? Is she aware—

I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean to imply dishonesty. Will he re-word his question?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Why is the Minister not more open with the House? Why does she not declare that it is the Government's intention to steer away from the nationalised industries the juicy parts of those industries, to ensure that the friends of the Government can make a profit, while leaving to the nationalised industries the general work of satisfying the needs of the people? Why are the Government taking other industries apart? Is it not true that the Government are taking Wytch Farm from the British Gas Corporation, now that it is—

Order. That subject will be debated later tonight.

I am prepared to be indulgent to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to the private sector making a profit out of the industry. I thought that the British Gas Corporation had always claimed that it made huge profits out of the retailing of appliances. That is by no means certain; indeed, it is not even likely. It is not the case in regard to a number of its activities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of showrooms disposal will be regarded as w holly irrelevant by many of my constituents who find their interest in gas products stimulated by lavishly mounted television advertising campaigns extolling the wonders of gas but who later find that British Gas is either unable or unwilling to make available to them a supply of gas?

Having visited a gas showroom recently I was able to take note of the advertisements to which my hon. Friend refers. I noted also that a large majority of the people visiting the showroom and queueing up for attention were there to ask about the supply of gas and not the supply of appliances.

In view of the effect that the Minister's announcement in July had on the morale of staff, will she set aside her ideological obstinacy and go for a less radical solution that would be perfectly in keeping with the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

The hon. Gentleman talks about ideological views. Would his party have viewed the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as being not in the interests of consumers? Would his party put consumers' interests second to those of the British Gas Corporation?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please look again at the point raised earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) started his remarks by speaking of an "honest reply"? As you will know, Mr. Speaker, very often hon. Members doubt whether a reply is honest in terms of facts and figures. There are always doubts whether a reply is an honest reply. I believe that one is not allowed to say that a Minister is being dishonest or is not telling the truth. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley was about to say that the reply was not honest. I think that there is a difference. Will you look at the matter again, because figures can be twisted and sometimes we are given twisted figures? Governments of both major parties have done that.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I intervened because the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) asked the Minister to be honest. I thought that the implication was clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many meetings he has attended in his capacity as president of Eurocontrol.

Since the United Kingdom took over the presidency of Eurocontrol in July 1980 there have been two ministerial meetings of the Permanent Commission. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with ministerial responsibility in these matters chaired the diplomatic conference on 12 February 1981. His predecessor chaired the previous meeting, held on 20 November 1980. My noble Friend has also made two informal visits to Eurocontrol facilities.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Eurocontrol, an organisation that controls air navigation charges within certain member countries, is in urgent need of a review, bearing in mind that it levies probably the most expensive charges anywhere in the world, including the United States of America? Will he ask his colleagues within Eurocontrol to pay particular attention to the amount of dog-legging that is required by aeroplanes as a result of defence requirements and the need to avoid military airspace?

I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. Eurocontrol will be making provisions about all route charges. I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there are no fewer than 26 national States in Europe that come under the aegis of Eurocontrol. I shall ask my noble Friend to consider the point that my hon. Friend makes about dog-legging on routes.

Is it not true that this is a nonsensical international quango which does work that would be much better done by other international organisations? Should not the Minister demonstrate his doctrinal purity by getting rid of it?

I do not think that the hon. Lady can justify her criticisms. The combined efforts of member States exerted through Eurocontrol will provide the best guarantee that safety and efficiency will remain prime objectives.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in international discussions in considering proposals implementing the Brandt report recommendations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a statement about the agenda of the preparatory meeting of Foreign Ministers on 1 and 2 August for the Mexico summit in October.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further consultations he proposes to have concerning the Government's actions on the Brandt report.

I have nothing to add to the statements made by my hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and my hon. Friend the Minister of State in last Friday's debate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how much the positive attitude displayed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his opening speech in that debate has been welcomed by the House and by the country at large? Does he agree that Britain, as a trading nation that exports more than 30 per cent. of its gross domestic product, has much to lose if there is not a positive outcome from the Mexico summit,? Will he tell the House what initiatives he proposes at the Mexico summit because Britain will be the one nation at that meeting that is oil-sufficient in the Northern area?

I shall not attend the Mexico summit, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his speech to the House on Friday set out the four initiatives that we shall be taking.

Taking trade aid and private investment into consideration, is it not true that Britain's record is good, if not second to none? Ought not our attitude at Mexico to be constructive and to encourage every developed country to contribute according to its means to each individual poorer country according to its needs and not according to political expediency as, sadly, has too often been the case in the past?

My hon. Friend is correct to stress the first point about combining private and official aid. The second point is a good suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have noted. She will take a constructive attitude at the Mexico summit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first five-year programme called for in the Brandt report is already behind schedule? Is he aware that this Government's inertia and lack of enthusiasm for the programme is the cause of that disappointing state of affairs? Does he agree that the Commonwealth summit, due to begin on 30 September, is of crucial importance in making progress in Mexico? Will the Government demonstrate more dynamic leadership than they have done so far? [Interruption.]

Someone behind me muttered that if the hon. Gentleman had been present on Friday he would have had a different point of view.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity this week to meet Heads of Commonwealth Governments—many of whom head undeveloped countries—who are here for the Royal wedding, to try to stimulate more trade with those whom we know and who know us?

I am meeting a number of Heads of Commonwealth Governments during this week and other Ministers will be doing likewise. The Commonwealth Heads of Government conference at Melbourne will be another opportunity to discuss the subject that my hon. Friend has raised.

Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister, in signing the communiqué of the Ottawa summit, committed this country to substantial and growing levels of official development assistance? How can the Prime Minister sign such a statement when the Government are cutting aid over the next two years by 15·3 per cent.?

We hope that that will happen when the economy of this country gets into better shape. If the Members of the Opposition can help this country in getting our economy into better shape I am sure that that will be much appreciated.

Has my hon. Friend seen the manifesto issued by the Nobel prize winners, which draws attention to the even more urgent problem of mass world starvation? Will he give urgent attention to that manifesto?

I have not seen that manifesto but I shall look at it.

Does the Minister agree that British aid to the Solomon Islands, which is a less developed, remote and fragmented country, should be in the form of grants rather than soft loans? Is it not wrong that in the initial years the country should be burdened with interest repayments?.

Part of the aid to the Solomon Islands, which I have recently visited, is in the form of grant, but the loans to which the hon. Gentleman refers are extremely soft and on easy terms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most interesting recommendations of the Brandt report was that countries should co-operate to draw up a code of practice for the operation of multinational companies throughout the world, to assist them in promoting investment within the developing countries? Does he agree that that would be a fruitful issue for Heads of Government to consider in Mexico?

Yes, I hope that it will be discussed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what extra money has so far been allocated to the Third world countries to help the disabled in those countries in the International Year of Disabled People.

Many of the projects funded under our regular aid programme contribute directly or indirectly to the welfare of the disabled in the developing world and help to prevent disability, in particular some of those we fund jointly with voluntary agencies. Recent jointly funded projects include support for the Chittagong eye hospital and for training of doctors in cataract operations in Bangladesh in collaboration with the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind; for the Cheshire Foundation and for the establishment of a rehabilitation centre in Zimbabwe and for a "Stop Polio" campaign in Lesotho in conjunction with the Save the Children Fund.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the spending of £34,000 on a rehabilitation centre was made instead of contributing to the United Nations voluntary trust fund? Is the Minister aware that the treasurer has discovered that he has vast resources to spend on different schemes? Does he agree that in this International Year of Disabled People more money should be spent by this country on those unfortunate people? Will he inform the House what he is doing to squeeze more money out of the Treasury for that purpose?

We have no central aid allocation within the aid programme. There is, therefore, no pocket of money set aside for the disabled. However, about 10 per cent. of our overall aid programme is devoted to help such activities, which are intended in one way or another to prevent disability.

Is not the remarkable success of the "Stop Polio" campaign in Southern Africa a very good example of what can be done by an imaginative small British charity working in a crucial area?

Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The "Stop Polio" campaign of the Save the Children Fund is a magnificent conception and is being executed remarkably well.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the current expenditure on overseas aid in the field of the use of biomass for energy purposes; and how many projects are being currently financed.

During the present financial year we expect to spend about £580,000 in financing 12 projects.

That is a modest effort, but it is welcome. Does the Minister agree that the trememdous rate of growth of natural materials in a tropical climate is such that this offers an area in which we should be exploring much more vigorously the possibility of fuel sources front plants?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We do explore these matters, but this is very much a question of the developing countries requesting our aid along these lines.