asked the Minister for Trade what are the respective import tariffs in the United Kingdom and Spain relating to trade in motor vehicles between the two countries.

A number of rates of duty apply. For example, for cars the rates are 4·2 per cent. and 36·7 per cent. respectively; for large commercial vehicles 8·8 per cent. and 28 per cent.; and for small commercial vehicles 4·4 per cent. and 31·6 per cent. These rates stem from an agreement signed in 1970 between Spain and the Community of Six.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for confirming the great disparity in tariffs, particularly for motor vehicles. Given the delay in any agreement on the date of Spain's formal assumption of the obligations of EEC membership and the doubt about the length of any interim period, for how long are the Government willing to put up with such a gross disparity? Cars can be imported into Britain on a large scale, and the situation is likely to be aggravated by the introduction next year of General Motors' S car.

The transitional period for Spain— in the event of Spain's accession to the European Community — is under discussion in Luxembourg today. We shall press for a short transitional period because of the disadvantage to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. However, I assure my hon. Friend that that will not discourage us from raising the question bilaterally in the intervening period.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the component manufacturers—many of whom are in the Sheffield area—find themselves at a considerable disadvantage when selling their products in this country, let alone in other EEC countries, because of the tariff system? Will he do his utmost to speed up the shortening of the tariff gap between British exports to Spain and Spanish exports to Britain?

I gladly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will list the eight countries that took most British exports in the most recent year for which figures are available.

In 1980, the latest year for which figures are available, the United Kingdom's top export market was the Federal Republic of Germany, followed by the United States of America, Netherlands, France, Irish Republic, Belgium and Luxembourg, Switzerland and Italy.

Is it not significant that six of those eight countries are in the EEC? Is there any guarantee that we would still be able to sell as much to those countries if we were not in the Community?

It is implicit in my hon. Friend's question that the EC is our fastest growing and most important market. There is certainly no guarantee that it would remain our fastest growing market or that we should have such successful access to it if we were outside the Community.

Like most Ministers, in his initial reply the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the latest year for which figures were available was 1980. We now have computers, calculators and electronic this and that. In 1982, why cannot Ministers give more up-to-date figures, like they used to do in 1945?

I can give an answer, although it gives me no pleasure to do so. Industrial action prevented the statistics from being brought up to date. It was thought more appropriate to catch up with later, rather than earlier, figures. I take the hon. Gentleman's point and hope that we shall have the complete figures for 1981 as soon as possible. However, I cannot guarantee when that will be.

Is not the significant aspect of my hon. and learned Friend's answer that most of our trade now goes to the Common Market, whereas in 1974 it did not? There has been a major switch by our manufacturers to the Common Market and away from the rest of the world. Having made that switch, if we were to withdraw from the Common Market our manufacturers would lose heavily and there would be a severe loss of jobs.

It is true that there has been a shift of emphasis in trade with the United Kingdom. I should not like to give the House the impression that the other countries of the European Community are our largest markets, but they represent one of our most important markets and the fastest growing one. For that reason, we must be sensitive to suggestions that sometimes emanate from certain quarters of the House that we should withdraw from the European Community.

asked the Minister for Trade if the Government have been consulted by British Airways on any proposals to sell off subsidiary companies.

The disposal of International Aeradio Limited is under consideration.

Has there not been much speculation recently on the disposal of International Aeradio Limited? If that happens, a very important earner for British Airways will be disposed of. Is it the policy of the Government that if anything in the public sector is successful it has to be sold off, thereby diminishing the future earning capacity of public corporations? Will the Minister also end the disgraceful uncertainty about the future of British Airways Helicopters, which is doing no good whatever to that company?

I have had no proposals so far from British Airways about disposing of British Airways Helicopters. If and when such proposals come before me, I shall consider them on their merits. As to the general financial aspect, the disposal of subsidiaries of British Airways is a matter for the board of British Airways.

I recognise that the disposal of assets such as International Aeradio Limited will contribute to a reduction of British Airways' capital debt, but will my hon. Friend confirm that it will also reduce any trend towards trading profitability? Does he agree that, in moving towards the privatisation of British Airways, a record of growing profitability is extremely important? Therefore, is he sure that British Airways have got the matter right.

Yes, I am certain that British Airways have got the matter right. If they decide that they want to sell off International Aeradio Limited, that is a matter for them. I am glad to tell the House that British Airways are right on the road towards privatisation.

asked the Minister for Trade what was the seasonally adjusted index for the volume of exports of non-oil goods for the latest available three-month period compared with the volume index for 1979.

In the first quarter of this year, non-oil export volume was 2 per cent. lower than the average for the year 1979.

As we are continually told by Ministers that the recession is on its way out, how can the Minister justify such statements in view of the figures that he has just announced?

When we are concerned with exports, we are concerned with other countries' response to a world recession. The hon. Gentleman might care to ponder the fact that, while the United Kingdom is emerging satisfactorily and robustly from the recession, other countries are moving a little more slowly in that direction.

As a matter of interest to the House, what has happened to the non-oil export index with the Community over the last few months compared with 1979, and how does it compare with the non-oil import index with the Community?

I should require notice of that question to give the precise figures. I shall be happy to give them to my hon. Friend if he wishes to press that point.

Is it not time that the Government stopped misleading the country about the prospects for economic recovery and falling unemployment? Is it not true that, under the Labour Government, exports of non-oil products increased by 4 per cent. a year, whereas under the Conservative Government they have fallen by 2 per cent. over three years?

The prospects for recovery under this Government are not remote. We have never made any attempt to conceal the relevant facts from the country. If the hon. Gentleman reflects, he may feel that it is a testimony to Britain's exporting strength that we have managed to maintain our exports at such a high rate against a background of world recession. That testifies to the underlying strength of British industry.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will seek to introduce legislation to protect consumers' and investors' deposits.

This will be for consideration in the light of the Cork committee's recommendations, and those I shall be receiving in due course from Professor Gower.

Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to study the recent annual report of the Metropolitan and City fraud squad, which describes legislation for the protection of depositors as inadequate? In the light of that report and the farce of Laker's collapse, with people having paid for scheduled air tickets in advance, does he agree with the general principle that consumers' and investors' money ought to be protected by the depositor keeping proper accounts and keeping a clients' account? Will he eventually move to outlaw muddle and meddling with investors' and consumers' cash?

That is a very important aspect. The Conservative Party has always concerned itself with people's ability to save and with protecting their savings when they are abused. I am looking at several different reports on the matter. We shall have to wait until we have had an opportunity to look in detail not only at the Cork committee's proposals, but at the Gower discussion document and the comments that are coming in on that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Britain are losing money every year under the present legislation and that several of us would support a major change in that legislation? At first sight, the Cork committee's proposals will not of themselves do very much to change the underlying position.

I accept that there are some serious abuses in this area. We shall have to consider whether we should do what Cork would like and take his report as a package to be legislated on as a whole, or to pull out some parts of it and deal with the more urgent abuses more immediately.

Is there no quick help that the Minister can offer to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Johnston, of Cranston Road, Forest Hill, who were foolish enough to pay their deposit for their Laker holiday through an Access credit card and now find that the credit card companies are hiding behind the small print? It looks as though there will be many months of expensive litigation before Mr. and Mrs. Johnston see a penny of their money. On top of that, they get wholly unhelpful answers from the Minister.

I am deeply concerned about Mr. and Mrs. Johnston and, if I may say so, about many other Mr. and Mrs. Johnstons in various parts of the country.

I in no way challenge the validity of the proposition contained in the question, but would it not be as well for my hon. Friend to make it clear to the House and the country that if the idea were to be extended—as it is arguable that it should—to those going on package holidays, the interruption of cash flow to travel agents and tour operators would necessitate a very considerable increase in the cost of package holidays?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are very concerned about these matters, and we are looking into them. Meanwhile, my advice is that people should use credit cards when it is appropriate, because they get some protection in that way. They should also deal with traders who are members of the voluntary bonding schemes which are run by different parts of the industry.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the recent trend in the volume of visible exports.

The export trend rose through 1981. Recent figures have been particularly volatile and therefore the underlying position is difficult to interpret. However, it is reassuring to note that export volume in the first quarter of 1982 is 3 per cent. above the level recorded for the same period a year ago.

I accept that the figures fluctuate from month to month, but does the Minister accept that the figures for the latest three months taken together show a 5½ per cent. fall over the previous three months? If he examines exports of services by volume he will find that they fell by 3 per cent. in the first three months, which is 10 per cent. less than in 1979. How does that square with the tales of recovery?

The hon. Gentleman, with his dexterity with figures and statistics, no doubt endeavours—[Interruption.] I should like to pay a tribute without interruption—to make a case which is not substantiated by the figures. There was a fall in the January figures. That is why I referred to their volatility. The underlying trend is still strong, and I am happy to testify to the exporting strength of British industry and to the British service industry in particular.

How much do hidden barriers to trade still affect the volume of our exports? What proposals does the Minister have either to eradicate them or to retaliate against countries which employ such methods against British exporters?

Hidden barriers to trade undoubtedly have an impact on our exports, just as they have on some other countries' exports, too. It is a matter that we shall want to press inside the European Community, particularly with regard to the directive on insurance. We are also concerned with hidden barriers in Japan. That is a matter that we take up regularly and with varying degrees of success.

We all wish British exports to succeed and we applaud the enormous efforts made by British manufacturers, management and workers, but surely the Minister recognises that British Business, published by the Departments of Industry and Trade, at the end of May said that, despite the problems of volatility, the underlying trend in exports is, at best, flat. Is that not the truth, however much we might want it otherwise? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman mislead not only the House but the country by false optimism, just as the Treasury Ministers have misled us?

I am sure that the House will be reassured by the statement that the Opposition wish British exporters well. Sometimes that does not shine through in the questions that they put to me and to my hon. Friends. We have stated with perfect truth that the trend is flat, but, as I said earlier, in a period of world recession we have done very well to maintain our level of exports by contrast with other countries.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will introduce legislation to provide that retail outlets selling electrical equipment that requires servicing shall provide such facilities.

Of course, it is important that customers should be able to have the goods that they buy serviced when necessary, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider that legislation to compel all retailers to provide this would not be advisable, since it would in some cases reduce the service available and also jeopardise a number of small firms which specialise in servicing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is anomalous that small shops should provide service facilities at considerable cost to themselves for the electrical equipment they sell and that sold by other retailing outlets, whereas hypermarkets sell such equipment at cut prices because they provide no service? In those circumstances, should we not follow the West German example and insist that shops, such as hypermarkets, should provide the same servicing as is provided by the smaller outlets?

No, I do not agree. As part of a free market and competition, it is important that people should be able to provide services in different ways and at different prices.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a particular problem with the servicing of expensive items of imported electrical equipment, the manufacturers of which appear to disown all responsibility for subsequent servicing of their equipment?

There are difficulties. It seems to me that my hon. Friend is making a case for people, whenever they can and wish, to buy goods produced in the home markets, where servicing is undoubtedly easier.

asked the Minister for Trade how much of British Airways' debt is backed by Government guarantees.

As at 31 March 1982, Government guarantees covered £940 million of British Airways' loan and lease finance. This represents almost all of the airline's capital borrowings.

In view of the size of British Airways' debt, does my hon. Friend agree that the company is in no position to provide the £50 million to recapitalise International Aeradio Ltd., which was referred to in an earlier question, and that, therefore, it would be in the best interests of that company, those who work in it and the taxpayer, too, if it were sold off to the private sector at the earliest opportunity?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Certainly, if that is the judgment of the British Airways Board, we would support it. I must also congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing out the point that International Aeradio Ltd. may benefit from being freed from the shackles of the rest of British Airways.

The Minister told us earlier that his plans for privatisation were "right on target". I think that was the phrase that he used. Will he explain now, since he has been asked a number of times, what the Government propose to do about the moneys owed by British Airways to American banks and others? Are these to be taken off the back of British Airways by the Government prior to privatisation? If not, what does he expect to get from the sale?

The right hon. Gentleman said that I had been asked the question many times. He is right: I have. I have given him the answer many times that he must wait and see what the financial position of British Airways is as we approach the date for privatisation. I hope that we will have the strong support of the right hon. Gentleman when the date for privatisation comes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be a clear mark of the achievement of British Airways if and when they get down to the target of 43,000 staff? Is there any possibility of that happening within the distant or foreseeable future?

I am extremely glad to be able to tell the House that not only is there the prospect of British Airways reaching 43,000 staff, but that they have already gone below that target. It is a great tribute to the grip that Sir John King and the management have now taken on the finances of British Airways that they have managed to do that. That is one of the reasons why I say that British Airways are right on target for privatisation.

Does the Minister accept that part of the purpose of giving a guarantee is to enable public corporations, such as British Airways, to borrow more cheaply on the capital market? How many of the guarantees have ever been called up?

I am happy to tell the House that so far the Government have not had to pay up for any of the £940 million. However, I remind the House that when Sir Freddie Laker went bankrupt his debts were about a quarter of the debts of British Airways. That is another example of how nationalised industries are protected when they can rely on the taxpayer to support them by guarantees.

asked the Minister for Trade when he expects the receiver to report on the financial collapse of Laker Airways.

asked the Minister for Trade if the receiver has yet made his full report on the collapse of Laker Airways.

The receiver's statutory duty is to file with the Registrar of Companies a copy of the statement of affairs prepared by the directors of the company. He may, if he sees fit, comment upon the statement. Once filed, it will be open to public inspection. The receiver is unable to estimate at present when the statement will be filed, but I have no doubt he will carry out his duty as quickly as he can.

Will the receiver's report cover the activities, or rather the inactivity, of Ministers who were aware that the company had gone bust, yet allowed the public to be deceived by Laker into buying a large proportion of the 17,000 tickets for translantic flights? Will the receiver also investigate the Prime Minister's role in this shabby affair?

I do not know what the receiver will say, but I should think it extremely unlikely that he will say anything remotely like what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps I should point out that when the Bank of England, other banks, the Civil Aviation Authority and Ministers were examining the position prior to 2 February, 90 per cent. of the debts owed by Laker were owed to those banks. The banks believed that a package could be put together. If those to whom 90 per cent. of the debts were owed thought it was worth going on, I agree with the Civil Aviation Authority that it should have gone on until it did.

Have any of Laker's Airbuses yet been sold? Will he confirm that when they are sold Her Majesty's Government will be relieved of any guarantees that they gave for their purchase?

I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact answer about the Airbuses, but I shall carry out a check and let him know the result.

Has the receiver intimated to the Minister the number of repudiated Laker Airways tickets? Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind when he contemplates the privatisation of British Airways? Surely, copper-bottomed financial guarantees for ticket holders will be required.

I shall bear in mind all the relevant facts when the happy day comes to privatise British Airways.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently he said that the banks' judgment was the important factor when it came to considering whether Laker Airways should be allowed to continue trading? Is it not deplorable that a Minister is prepared to abdicate his responsibilities in favour of the judgment of banks which lent money to Laker Airways? The Laker Airways affair left thousands of people and many companies in debt. It is gratuitously and ridiculously offensive of the Minister to try to compare British Airways with the collapse and fiasco of Laker Airways.

When comparing Laker Airways with British Airways I said—this should be of interest to the whole House—that Laker's debts were about one-quarter of the debts of British Airways. When talking about the banks, I made the reasonable point that 90 per cent. of the debts were owed to those who wanted to ascertain whether a package could be put together, and that was a good reason for Ministers to examine whether such a package could be assembled. We did not abdicate our responsibilities. We and the Civil Aviation Authority kept in the closest touch. We agreed with everything that the authority did until the day when Sir Freddie went into receivership.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the receiver examining the matter in depth, all the available information shows that Laker Airways' problems arose not because of competition on the North Atlantic route, but because of borrowing and difficulty in supporting the debt due to the cost of doing so.

High interest rates.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) for his question. Sir Freddie's difficulties were brought about: by borrowing too much at too high a rate of interest to buy aeroplanes that he did not really need.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the trends in the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Community countries, excluding oil and oil products.

In this trade with the rest of the European Community the United Kingdom was in deficit by £1 billion in the first quarter of 1982 compared with a deficit of £1½ billion in the fourth quarter of 1981. However, this should be seen in the context of an overall surplus on the current account of the balance of payments of about £2 billion in these two quarters.

Would it not be better for the oil figures to be separated from the rest of the balance of payments figures when they are presented? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that membership of the Common Market is disadvantageous for British consumers of agricultural produce and that it is not widely favourable for British manufacturing industry? What will the Government do to ensure that we get a better deal for manufacturing industry?

It would be unrealistic to exclude the oil figures, which are an important part of the national economy. As I have said on numerous occasions, the European Community is Britain's fastest growing market. I am sure that British industry in both the oil and non-oil sectors will continue to exploit to its profit and that of the United Kingdom the opportunities that are offered on the Continent of Europe.

Will my hon. and learned Friend explain carefully to Opposition Members that even our trade with the European Community in manufactures has a better export-import balance than with any of our other major trading partners in the industrial world?

It would take more than my modest powers of advocacy to overcome the prejudice of some Opposition Members and to persuade them to accept the advantages to Britain of membership of the European Community.

What industrial raw material do we need to import from Europe that is comparable to the oil that we send to it?

Certain types of food.

If my hon. and learned Friend wants to get rid of prejudice and misunderstanding on these issues, will he tell us why the Government found no difficulty in telling the world about the tens of thousands of jobs that were lost because Japan made a £1 billion profit in manufacturing trade with Britain but made no assessment of the balance of payments deficit in manufactured goods of £1 million in three months with the Common Market? What is the difference?

We do not encounter on the Continent of Europe the same non-tariff barriers that we encounter in Japan. Secondly, the proportions are not quite of the same order.

asked the Minister for Trade what steps are being taken to induce the Japanese Government to reduce the number of tariffs they apply to imports.

As a result of pressure from their main trading partners, including the United Kingdom, the Japanese Government are currently carrying out a programme of modest reductions in a large number of tariffs. We shall continue to press for further reductions, particularly on the limited number of items of interest to British exporters on which the tariffs remain high.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is especially important to press harder in this direction for two reasons, which are that the countries of the free world are struggling to emerge from the recession and, secondly, that it is likely that a large order for the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyer" might be placed in Japan?

The replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyer" must be a matter for the company concerned. I have no doubt that it will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend is right in general terms. The Japanese market is extremely important and it is important to impress on our friends in Japan that our companies should have the same open access to their markets as we afford to its companies in the United Kingdom.

The Minister has commented adversely on the non-tariff barriers erected by the Japanese Government and Japanese industry. What is he doing about these barriers?

Constant multilateral and bilateral pressure has resulted recently in the package of measures announced by Prime Minister Suzuki. I do not pretend to the House that they completely satisfy us, but they are a further step in the right direction.

I wish to encourage my hon. and learned Friend to persuade the Japanese to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to our trade, but we have been singularly unsuccessful over the years in achieving that. Does he agree that the real answer is to encourage investment by Japan in the United Kingdom? Can he tell me what progress has been made with the Nissan investment?

I am not able to give the House the up-to-date position on the Nissan investment, which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should encourage investment by Japanese companies in the United Kingdom, provided that it is on the right terms and involves an increase in British jobs and a transfer of technology to this country.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman review his answer about the Government's noninvolvement in the order to replace the "Atlantic Conveyer"? The British merchant fleet is not purely a commercial entity as recent events have shown. Secondly, would it not be disgraceful if Japan became the beneficiary of the sad loss of the "Atlantic Conveyor", when Japan has pursued an opportunistic economic and political policy over recent months?

I would be sorry, as I am sure the House would, if an order of this dimension went to a Japanese rather than a British yard. However, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not adopt a dirigiste view of the economy, particularly in regard to merchant shipping.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the current level of imports of manufactured goods into the United Kingdom.

The volume of imports of manufactured goods now appears to have settled at a level similar to that recorded in the first half of 1980, following an increase in 1981.

Does the Minister agree that if we were experiencing the type of economic recovery that the Government claim, the volume of imports of manufactured goods would be declining? Will the Minister give attention to the excellent article in this week's The Economist on the Japanese economy, which shows clearly that when we have tried to place restrictions on the Japanese in one area, they have gone into another area, particularly high technology? What percentage of the manufactured goods coming into the United Kingdom are of a high technology content?

The hon. Gentleman may want time to study my answer to his question. If he does so, he will notice that the volume of imports of manufactured goods has declined since 1980, which bears out the point that he would like the Government to take on board. I cannot give the figures for the precise volume of imported high-technology Japanese goods without prior notice. However, if needs be, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

As some manufactured imports are coming from the United States, will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what action he intends to take against the American restrictions placed on the import into the United States of specialist steel from the British Steel Corporation? Will my hon. and learned Friend consider—as the negotiations carried out by the Community have not met with as much success as we would like—taking a unilateral line concerning British exports to America as soon as possible?

I assure the House that the Government are extremely concerned by the preliminary determination of the Department of Commerce in Washington on the countervailing duties on British steel, as well as steels from other companies in the European Community. Before we give up the idea of a Continental European approach concerted with our own, we should remember that that is a matter for discussion at the ministerial Council, which I shall attend in Luxembourg tomorrow. I hope that a robust and concerted Community position will emerge, but we shall have to consider our national position if that does not happen

Is it not a fact that many imported manufactured goods could be manufactured in this country? Should not the Government look at their policy on exchange controls, because, after North Sea oil, one of our largest exports is British capital that could be invested in British industry?

No, Sir. I do not believe that we should reconsider our policy on exchange controls, nor do I believe that the protectionist policies which, by implication, the hon. Gentleman advocates would do other than harm to the British economy.

Are we not subsidising Japanese imports by failing to work with our allies in persuading Japan to take on a greater responsibility for her own defence?

Defence matters are not for me. The European Community is considering action against the Japanese by an application under article XXIII of GATT.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he remains satisfied with the efficacy of trade sanctions against Argentina.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the operation of trade sanctions against Argentina.

asked the Minister for Trade what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of trade sanctions against Argentina.

The trade sanctions taken by the European Community and other countries have contributed substantially to the withdrawal of international confidence in the Argentine economy.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Falklands inquiry promised by the Prime Minister will investigate how British bankers such as Schroder Wagg were allowed to continue loan arrangements that helped to prop up the Argentine economy and how even the Bank of England was allowed to continue short-term loan arrangements with Argentina, while over 1,000 lives were being lost in a costly military conflict? Do the Tory Government believe that bankers' profits are more important than human lives?

Certainly not. The House is used to the unsubstantiated allegations of the hon. Gentleman, which he repeats on many occasions without bothering to back them up with solid evidence. If there is solid evidence of breaches of the order that was introduced by this Administration after the invasion by the Argentine troops, I shall be happy to look at it.

Is not my hon. and learned Friend somewhat disappointed with the attitude of our EEC partners in dropping sanctions against Argentina so quickly? Does that not show that in trade matters, as in defence, the first duty of the Government is to look after our own country's interests?

It is the Government's duty to look after this country's interests, but they must do so within the framework that various Governments have considered appropriate and helpful to embrace other countries' activities. My hon. Friend referred to sanctions by the other countries of the European Community. I am sure that the House will recognise the remarkable solidarity that has been shown throughout this period. [Interruption.] I do not think that it is appropriate or necessary to consider that allegation. I am not certain whose back was stabbed by whom. The European Community has stated categorically that, should there be a resumption of hostilities, a new situation would arise to which the 10 members of the European Community would have to react immediately.

If trade sanctions were so effective in this minor and ill-judged adventure in the South Atlantic, will the Minister consider impressing on his colleagues the efficacy of trade sanctions, as far as the EEC trade and financial agreements are concerned, on the genocidal policies of Israel?

rose—

Mr. Robin Squire. Mr. Faulds: Answer the Question.

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question was about Israel. That subject does not arise on this question.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Surely representations to a colleague are perfectly in order. Perhaps I can be allowed occasionally to make a point in the House of Commons.

The hon. Gentleman's question did not relate to the original question.

Contrary to an earlier comment, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the prompt delivery of sanctions by our European colleagues, which was sustained by the overwhelming majority throughout our hostilities, was a fine example of the co-operation that we receive from Europe, which should be applauded and not criticised?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That was a fine example of European co-operation, which made a significant impact on the Argentines, judging from their renotification to GATT that they wished to have the sanctions lifted.

Realistically, is there a cat's chance in hell that our European partners will reimpose sanctions once they have been lifted? Is not the sanctions policy in ruins? Will the Department of Trade look carefully at what happens to the end user certificates for the export of arms? Is there not evidence that Colombia, Venezuela and other countries have been lax in the use of end user certificates?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I can say truthfully that the policy on economic sanctions is not in ruins. It would be idle for me to speculate on how, why and in what circumstances the policy might have to be resurrected by the European Community. I am sure that the House hopes that a situation that would make it necessary for the Community to consider a reimposition of sanctions will not arise. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, we shall consider the question of end user certificates.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he has yet reached any conclusion on the report by the Adam Smith Institute, in which it recommended the establishment of free ports; and if he will make a statement.

We are in the final stages of our consideration of this report and now await the views of certain outside bodies that have expressed interest in the subject.

Would not the creation of free ports, together with the Government's policy on enterprise zones, make a substantial impact on job creation?

The prospects for job creation are one of the important aspects of this matter, which we shall consider when we receive the views of the various outside bodies.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is examining the matter. Does he agree that employment similar to that created in the free ports of Shannon, Hamburg and Brussels would be the salvation of Prestwich and of great advantage in Aberdeen, where there is a considerable drop in employment with the loss of oil-related work?

I am always eager to foster more jobs in Aberdeen. I look forward in due course to the opportunity to appear before the Select Committee to give my views on the subject. Shanon and Hamburg are perhaps different examples from what we might want to set up.

Will the Minister invite Sir Freddie Laker, the arch exponent of monetarism, free ports, enterprise zones and the rest, to take part in the exercise in view of his massive fall from grace only a few months ago? If an arch monetarist cannot make the system work, what is the point of extending it to other areas?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman's question is so idiotic that it does not deserve an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that British companies are given a comparable level of support from his Department in carrying out projects abroad to that provided by other countries, in particular other member States of the European Community.

Yes, Sir. The bulk of our substantial aid programme is spent on the purchase of goods and services from British companies, we have a special facility for countering the use of mixed credits by other Governments and I believe that the technical support services offered to British companies competing for project business abroad are as good as any other.

Do not the French do this a good deal better? They give special facilities to their industries to trade with their previous overseas possession. Should we not do a little more in that direction?

The French probably do it a little better, but not always within the same guidelines as we have.

In view of the Minister's helpful answer to the effect that most of the trade in these cases arising from overseas aid goes to British companies and helps employment in this country, will the Government emphasise the importance of overseas aid for us as well as the recipients and try to extend it, especially to countries like India, which need it so very badly?

I constantly emphasise that fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know how much India is getting in this year's programme. It is a substantial amount. India is the recipient of the greatest amount of our aid.

Although members of the British Consultants Bureau, who are responsible for projects abroad worth thousands of millions of pounds each year, appreciate the personal contacts that they have with the Department, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they feel at a disadvantage because of the financial help given to consultants undertaking projects from other countries? Will he keep an open door for those people and their problems?

I shall bear that in mind, but believe that the consultants do extremely well. Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me know if he has a particular point in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a major stumbling block to companies gaining orders in the developing world is the lack of funds available for feasibility studies? Will he reconsider making aid funds available for that purpose?

Aid funds are available for that purpose. Again, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could let me know if he has a specific proposal.

Is not one country in which British companies could play a major role Nicaragua, if only the Department would be more generous? The derisory sum given this month was £20,000. Among all EEC countries we give the lowest amount to that country. Is the Minister aware that one of the best ways to rebuild our relationships with Latin American countries is to give Nicaragua substantial aid, especially to help with the floods?

Perhaps I can answer that question when we come to the other question on the Order Paper about Nicaragua.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has received regarding the number of overseas students currently being assisted by funds from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas students are currently being assisted by the Overseas Development Administration.

I have received no recent representation specifically on the numbers of overseas students funded by my Department. We have trained about 13,000 people over the past year in this country on courses of varying length. I hope to sustain a similar programme in 1982, but I cannot at this stage give a total for the whole year. At the moment there are about 6,200 people undergoing training.

Has the Minister received representations from the United Kingdom branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to the effect that parliamentarians, particularly from Commonwealth and developing countries, are disturbed about the Government's attitude? Is he aware that in the past many students have come here to study and have returned to influential Government posts, but that similar people are now going East, West or to other parts of Europe?

I do not recall receiving representations from the IPU. The Overseas Students Trust study was published on 6 June. We are considering it, and that sort of question will arise.

Will the Government rectify the unjust anomoly mentioned in that study, whereby students from British dependent territories such as Hong Kong have to pay up to 12 times the fee of students from Common Market countries?

That is one question that we shall consider. I have noticed the motion on the Order Paper.

As the Overseas Students Trust spent 18 months preparing the report, and as its recommendations are reasonable and, I hope, acceptable to the Government, will my right hon. Friend invite the Leader of the House to give us the opportunity to debate the subject before the Summer Recess?

The Leader of the House is sitting on my right. I do not believe that he is deaf and he will have heard my hon. Friend's plea.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a detailed breakdown of the £112 million development assistance pledged to Zimbabwe in 1982–83.

Yes, Sir.

How far are the Government prepared to go in allowing the Zimbabwe Government to trample on the terms of the Lancaster House agreement and to set up a one-party State before it affects the £112 million worth of assistance?

A Bill to amend the constitution, such as I believe my hon. Friend is referring to, requires the votes of not less than 70 per cent. of the Members of the House of Assembly and not less than two-thirds of the Members of the Senate. For seven years from independence representation provisions for the white minority are amendable only by a unanimous vote of the House of Assembly and two-thirds of the Senate.

Is not a significant proportion of that sum of money available for land resettlement? Do the Government believe that land resettlement schemes should be proceeded with as quickly as possible but that money should be invested only in schemes that show promise of permament benefit? Has anything been done to speed up the system either of disbursements from Whitehall or work on the ground in Zimbabwe?

We have allocated £30 million to land resettlement. When Mr. Mugabe was here recently we discussed the matter. We have agreed to see whether there is a hold-up at our end and, if so, to be more flexible in getting things moving. I also saw Dr. Chidzero He is to produce a wider plan for land resettlement to include the building of schools, community centres and so on, which will make it more attractive for other donors to tip funds in for land resettlement.

Will official development assistance be available to help the Zimbabwe Government with the development of Harare airport?

We shall always consider propositions that are made to us for the use of our development funds. If we received a proposition with regard to Harare airport, we should examine it to see whether it was developmentally sound.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any requests from Governments of developing countries for financial or technical assistance in the field of implementing and monitoring the World Health Organisation's code of marketing breast milk substitutes.

No.

Following our discussions with our European partners last October about breast food substitutes, what concerted action are we taking with our European partners to combat the problem? What is being done about illiteracy in Third world countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is one of the reasons why the substitutes are being abused?

Although illiteracy is relevant, it is wide of this question. It is up to the developing country concerned to ask us if it wants help. The World Health Organisation is monitoring the problem throughout the developing world and it will tell us whether it believes that anything should be done. The question is primarily one for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Social Services.