asked the Minister for Trade whether he remains satisfied that the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations will be concluded in September.

The Commission has been instructed to report to the Council of Ministers by 30 September 1982 on its negotiations for renewal of the bilateral agreements concluded under the multi-fibre arrangement. It is not possible at this stage to say whether all the negotiations will have been concluded by then.

Does it remain the view of the British Government and the EC Commission that the letters from Hong Kong that were exchanged at Geneva recognise the EEC's problems and were taken by the British Government and the EC to mean clearly that Hong Kong accepted that there would have to be cut-backs in the levels of the most sensitive imports into the EEC? Does that remain the view of the British Government?

It is certainly the view of the British Government, although I understand that there is some doubt about the actual construction that the Hong Kong authorities put on the letters.

Have the Minister and our representatives in Brussels made it clear that the bilateral negotiations are not the opening gambit, with concessions on the way, but that it is the Government's intention to preserve a viable textile industry, and that the textile industry believes that concessions have already been made and that no further concessions will be made during the bilateral negotiations?

It is certainly the British Government's hope and intention that there should be a viable textile industry in the United Kingdom. It is a little early to judge the bilateral arrangements that have been concluded. It will be necessary to see how they conform with the overall mandate given to the Commission earlier this year.

Is the Commission seized of the necessity in these negotiations to provide that if any further countries are given quotas during the currency of the new agreement they will come out of the total already allowed and not be added to it? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is one of the greatest shortcomings of the two multi-fibre arrangements to date?

I should not like to comment too closely on the two previous multi-fibre arrangements. I hope that the third multi-fibre arrangement will be stricter and more protective than the two earlier ones. I certainly take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. He no doubt has in mind the negotiations with the Portuguese and Spanish Governments. That point is well borne in mind by the Commission.

Will the Minister confirm that if the negotiations are concluded by September or October he will give a commitment not to agree to the outcome if it falls below the position stated by the United Kingdom Government without returning to the House? Will the Minister confirm that if the negotiations are not concluded by September he will stand by the commitment to withdraw from the multi-fibre arrangement? As that requires 60 days' notice, and would have to be done by the end of October, does that not point to the importance of coming to the House before the recess to make a full statement to enable the House to consider carefully the matters that could arise during the recess?

No, I see no point in troubling the House with an entirely hypothetical question before the Summer Recess. The bilateral agreements, on the answer that I have already given, will certainly not have been concluded by the end of September. I intend that the House should be kept fully informed when the bilateral agreements are concluded, and when it becomes necessary for the Community to form a view on their outcome.

asked the Minister for Trade when he expects to be in a position to publish his proposals for legislation on the law of insolvency.

Consultations have only just started following publication of the Cork report on 9 June 1982. I cannot say at this stage when proposals for legislation may be introduced.

Does the Minister agree that for five years consumers and creditors have been getting a raw deal under our insolvency laws, and that all questions have been put off on the basis that the Cork committee has been considering the matter? Is it not time that the Government at least showed their tentative decisions by publishing their proposals as, after five years of investigation, there must be a limit to the consultations?

I agree. I am anxious about the position of consumers. A number of abuses are taking place, some serious, and we are considering what action we can take and how quickly.

If the Cork committee report were implemented, as well as helping the consumer, would it not enable a number of small businesses to continue? Although I appreciate the difficulty of securing time for legislation, will my hon. Friend at least consider whether the more important aspects, particularly those relating to dishonest directors, can be brought forward in the interim?

I am pleased to accept the suggestion. It is what we wish to do. I am anxious to make progress. I am worried about the position of a number of small businesses. The situation with dishonest directors has been improved under the Companies Acts, and regulations were brought in in June. It is possible for a director to be disqualified by a magistrates' court for up to 15 years.

Will early legislation be introduced to deal with the most flagrant abuses affecting the rights of consumers? Would it not be wrong to wait for the entirety of the Cork proposals to be considered before some legislative action is taken? What is the time scale for the Government's proposed action?

It would be wrong to give a firm assurance today. We are anxious to make progress. We are considering whether some of the recommendations can be pulled out for early action.

Would it not be most desirable urgently to impose on directors of insolvent companies a considerable degree of personal liability for the debts?

That is one aspect that we are considering.

asked the Minister for Trade when he expects to conclude his consultations following the Green Paper on copyright.

The closing date for comments on the Green Paper is the end of August. We shall then consider those responses and decide on appropriate action. A relevant consideration is the European Community harmonisation programme, which may involve negotiations later this year.

When does the Minister expect to have consultations with the Commission? Are the Government not showing a distressing lack of urgency in tackling the problem of video piracy, which is critical for manufacturers and retailers in my constituency and other parts of the country? Will the Minister consider introducing interim measures to protect copyright owners?

I am mindful of the need to make progress. The consultation period following the Green Paper ends next month. We have already had 180 answers, but some of the most important views are still to arrive. We shall take urgent action.

Is not the eight years since the Whitford committee reported too long to wait when it is reckoned that we are losing millions of pounds every year through lack of effective legislative protection?

I am as aware as is my hon. and learned Friend of the need to make progress.

Is the Minister aware that last week the United States Congress overrode the Presidential veto and insisted on continuing the long-standing law requiring all books to be printed in the United States to protect the copyright? As long as the United States is set on such extreme non-tarrif barriers, is it not essential that we should match them and consider a mechanism to protect our printing industry?

We have made a number of representations to the United States. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade took the matter up recently when he was in the United States. We are waiting to see what action follows between the President and the United States Government over the veto.

May I remind my hon. Friend that an effective copyright is an absolute prerequisite for our recording, video and film industries? Will we have legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament, as without it the industries will bleed to death and no doubt it will be impossible to sustain them?

We are aware of the importance of the issue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is conducting a review.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the current level of manufactured goods, non-oil exports, oil exports and invisible exports, showing how these compare with imports for the current year.

In the first five months of 1982, the United Kingdom had an estimated current account surplus of over £900 million. With permission, I shall circulate detailed figures in the Official Report.

Although I welcome the fact that Great Britain is almost unique in having a balance of payments surplus because of oil, is it not essential to consolidate the export of manufactured goods? What consideration has my hon. and learned Friend given to resisting import penetration by manufactured goods? Could he not take a leaf out of the United States book and resort to the courts, as the results seem to be much more instantaneous in dealing with unfair competition, especially in steel and small tools?

I wish to consolidate and preserve our position, but in this instance I would not wish to follow the lead of the United States. We are protesting vigorously against what it did, and the European Community has asked for some of its actions to be considered by the relevant GATT committees.

Does the Minister understand that in the first two months of this year £200 million worth, or nearly 700,000 tonnes, of steel was imported? Does he yet know the tonnage imports of steel for the two following months? How can he help the steel industry?

We are helping the industry by vigorous action over the United States measures which will affect exports to the United States and may affect the rolling mill at Shotton. We are concentrating on trying to keep open our important markets.

Could not our export-import figures be severely damaged by the new Spanish car that will compete with the Mini Metro, as while our duty on Spanish goods is low, their duty on ours is eight times as big? Will my hon. and learned Friend not stand idly by while our sales are sorely damaged by unfair trading?

We are acutely aware of the danger of Spanish exports, and we have requested the shortest possible transitional period. In case the House should believe that everything is gloom, I emphasise that our car exports rose by 50 per cent. between April and May, and exports of British Leyland cars in the first six months of the year were up by 30 per cent. on the same period in 1981. I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate all those involved.

Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety in the steel industry about the attitude and action of the United States Administration who, while mouthing free trade policies, are practising active and vigorous protection in their economic interests? What action have the British Government taken? Are they proceeding with the adjudication before the GATT or negotiating with the United States? May we have the fullest possible information?

I shall certainly give the House the fullest possible information. Two weeks ago in the United States I stated our position. The matter is on the agenda of the Ministerial Council in Brussels, which I hope to attend after Question Time.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on recent trends in the visible and invisible United Kingdom balance of trade with other European Economic Community countries.

In the six months to May, United Kingdom visible trade with the rest of the European Community showed an average monthly crude deficit of £110 million, on a seasonally adjusted basis, with both imports and exports running at about £2 billion a month. Information on invisible trade with the European Community is compiled on an annual basis and is not yet available for 1981.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that information. Will he confirm that 43 per cent. of our total trade is with the other EEC countries? Will he also confirm that a greater proportion of other countries' investment in Western Europe has been switched to the United Kingdom since we joined the EEC? Does he agree that that trend would quickly be reversed if there were any thought that we might leave the EEC?

The Community accounts for about 43 per cent. of all British exports compared with about 30 per cent. in 1970. That proves the ever-increasing importance of that market for British exporters. It is an unlikely hypothesis, since this Administration are firmly committed to the United Kingdom remaining a member of the Community, but I agree that there would not be such massive overseas investment in Britain were it not for our access to the European Community market.

What is the Department doing about British cars being bought in Europe at about one-third less than they can be bought in Britain? Where do such cars appear on the balance sheet? Are they imports, exports or what?

They appear among our imports.

Has there not been a serious deterioration in invisible earnings, such as tourism? What steps does the Minister intend to take to improve the British tourist industry?

Of course we recognise the importance of the British tourist industry. Its earnings have increased in the last five months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will be reasonably assured about that.

Does it not cause my hon. and learned Friend the gravest alarm to read the tables published by his Department in Hansard on 29 June, which show that over the previous six months the daily deficit in manufacturing trade with the Common Market was £11 million compared with a profit of £15 million a day in that trade with the rest of the world? As we used to have a profit in manufacturing trade with the EEC before we joined, does not that trend require serious investigation, bearing in mind the appalling consequences to British jobs involved in the figures?

Naturally, I admire my hon. Friend's consistent concern about the problem. I remind him that for the last few years we have run a deficit in manufactured goods with the United States. If I showed anxiety at every deficit we might be led to some curious conclusions. I imagine that my hon. Friend does not suppose that we should enter into a protectionist war against the United States.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on his discussions with the American Secretary of Commerce concerning United States trade embargoes in connection with the Siberian gas pipeline.

When I met Commerce Secretary Baldrige in Washington I expressed the Government's strong objection to the measures taken by the United States Administration which purport to restrict the export by non-United States companies of certain oil and gas equipment to the Soviet Union. I stressed the harm that these measures must do to commercial relations between the European Community and the United States. I also informed Secretary Baldrige of the order made on 30 June by my right hon. and noble Friend under section 1(1) of the Protection of Trading Interests Act.

Did the American Secretary of Commerce manage to explain satisfactorily how he reconciles his Government's policy of seeking to coerce European companies into applying economic sanctions against the Soviet Union, with, at the same time, exporting vast amounts of grain to the Soviet Union?

I ventured to point out that anomaly to the Secretary of Commerce. I was not entirely persuaded by his explanation.

Will the Minister inquire how British companies will be affected if they try to break the embargo? How do they know when they are breaking the embargo if they use techniques and equipment which they have used in Alaska and elsewhere and lend or sell that equipment in Europe?

I am reluctant to give comprehensive legal advice from the Dispatch Box, but I understand that such companies would be at risk if they re-exported parts acquired from the United States or if, in the process of exporting to the Soviet Union, they used technology for which they were licencees by agreement with United States companies. I cannot anticipate what counter-measures the United States Administration might be disposed to take if a British company were in that position. We should have to consider that carefully and we might make representations if that eventuality arose.

Would any of the discussions with the Americans or our European partners be necessary if Her Majesty's Government and the previous Government had decided to build a pipeline to take gas from the Norwegian and British sectors of the North Sea to the Continent, using the United Kingdom?

I am asked to speculate on the likely reaction of European consumers. My hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that Britain will not benefit directly from the trans-Siberian pipeline. I cannot speculate whether the interesting alternative that my hon. Friend suggests would have met the energy needs of, for example, German companies.

When in Washington, did the Minister point out to the United States Administration the number of jobs that Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would lose as a result of the American President's decision? Is the Minister aware that the matter is taken seriously, and that most people believe that it can do nothing but harm to Anglo-American trading and political relationships?

I stressed the damaging impact that the regulations could have on British companies, particularly those operating in the part of the world that the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) represent. I put that to the forefront of my argument.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States embargo is also having its effect on businesses here that do not have to import components from the United States to fulfil their share of a contract? Is he aware that the embargo will have an effect on jobs and that he must find a solution to the problem?

Earlier I stressed that it is a question not only of the import and re-export of parts from the United States, but of the use of United States technology. We are as concerned as any European country to find a reasonable solution. The problem is souring trade relations between the United States and the European Community.

Is the Minister aware that I recently wrote to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressing the support that the Opposition would give to any action by the Government to resist the United States embargo? Is he aware, from the feelings expressed from both sides of the House, that it is felt widely that the action is not only economically foolish but commercially backward and politically maladroit in its effects? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take further action, if necessary, under the Protection of Trading Interests Act? Will he assure the British firms involved of the Government's fullest support at a legal level and of their intention to protect them against commercial repercussions? Will he assure the firms that that solid defence of their interests will involve other Western European countries?

I did not criticise the measures promulgated by the President in quite the same terms as those used by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) from the Opposition Front Bench, but that was the tenor of my remarks to the United States Administration. I assure the House that, depending on how the situation develops, we shall not be hesitant in activating the further provisions of the Protection of Trading Interests Act.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he has received recent representations from the record industry concerning the extent of copyright infringement resulting from home taping.

British Phonographic Industry Ltd., which represents the United Kingdom record industry, has recently submitted its written response to the copyright Green Paper (Cmnd. 8302). This includes its latest estimate of the amount of home taping of music that takes place. It estimates that in 1981, 22 per cent. of the music that was recorded privately on to blank tape resulted in lost sales to the record industry, and from this it draws the conclusion that the industry lost sales with a total retail value of £305 million. Of course, these are only estimates. There is no way of knowing exactly how many sales are lost as a result of home taping.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern in the British record industry about infringement of copyright in sound recording is equal to the concern expressed by the British film industry about infringement of copyright in British films? Will my hon. Friend take urgent action to deal with this problem, as he has done already in supporting the amendment of the copyright law to stamp out video piracy? What consideration has his Department given to the possibility of a levy on the sale of blank tapes?

A levy on blank tapes is one of the possibilities which have been put to us in all the responses which have come in following the Green Paper and which the Government currently are considering. I assure my hon. Friend that I take this matter as seriously as the video piracy business. Perhaps it is an appropriate moment for me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the splendid part that he played in getting that Bill through the House some 10 days ago.

Since it is more difficult to control home taping, would not a levy be the most equitable way of getting money to the holders of the copyright of records? As for video piracy, will the hon. Gentleman now have discussions with the police and the copyright owners about the way in which the recent amendment to the law can be enforced more readily?

On that latter point, discussions with the police are a matter for the Home Department, but I have no doubt that that Department followed our interesting debate and the hon. Gentleman's contribution to it the other day. As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about audio piracy and the idea of a levy on blank tape, that is one of the suggestions put forward in response to the Green Paper that the Government are considering.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is said—I do not know how much it goes on—that some people actually tape from the BBC the recordings of proceedings in the House in order that those who are on flexible rostering may hear them later? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that nothing will be done to interfere with this? Seriously, is it not difficult to stop people taking the odd copy on their own tapes? The practice is extremely widespread. Short of a home factory, I do not see what can be done to stop it.

My hon. Friend pinpoints with his customary accuracy one of the real difficulties that we face. I did not know that people were recording what was said in the House, but no doubt they find some contributions more valuable than others.

asked the Minister for Trade what trade developments he foresees between the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community member States in the remainder of 1982 and throughout 1983.

I have no doubt that our fellow Community countries will continue to constitute overwhelmingly the largest market for British goods abroad, and I look forward with confidence to the further development of mutually beneficial trade across the Channel.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a generally very favourable picture of a build-up of United Kingdom visible manufactured and invisible exports is marred by certain disadvantages, notably in the insurance industry? Will he make energetic moves as soon as possible to take up with the Trade Ministers of the other EEC countries the possibility of breaking down the barriers in individual countries which prevent our insurance companies expanding their business in those countries?

I am greatly concerned about the lack of progress with the draft insurance directive, and I am also concerned with the total liberalisation of trade and services in the Community. This is one of the matters which I shall be discussing with the relevant Commissioner, Herr Narjes, tonight.

Will the Minister take into account the lack of competitiveness of this country in the EEC and the fact that there is in the EEC a greater understanding between Governments, banks and the trade union movement about production? What do the Government intend to do to try to create greater co-operation between themselves, employers and the trade union movement, instead of combating and confronting the trade unions on every occasion?

The hon. Gentleman raises a question of enormous breadth. I am sure that the House is anxious to see that British industry should be as competitive as possible, and this means an input from many sources.

Will my hon. and learned Friend raise at the Council of Ministers the possibility of considering those areas of trade where the Japanese are likely to make major infiltrations into European markets in the years ahead, so that Britain and Europe may be better prepared to deal with them than we have been in the past in certain technical and motor industries?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it is not always easy to forecast with accuracy where this laser beam approach is likely to make impacts in the future. We have this matter under constant review. Many representations have been made on behalf of the European Community, and proceedings are under way under article XXIII of the GATT.

asked the Minister for Trade how many individuals and how many organisations have made representations to him opposing floating exchange rates.

No recent formal representations have been received by my Department for or against floating exchange rates.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the British economy worked much better with a fixed exchange rate than with floating exchange rates? In view of the uncertainty caused by floating exchange rates for those engaged in international trade, does my hon. and learned Friend think that it would be a good idea if Britain joined the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, so removing that uncertainty at least in our trade with the EEC?

I hesitate to say whether the British economy has done better or worse under a regime of floating exchange rates. Certainly I am prepared to acknowledge the contribution that the EMS has made to stability between the participating currencies and therefore the spin-off advantages for trade, although, as the recent currency realignments within the system have shown, that stability can sometimes be somewhat short-lived.

Is the Minister aware that the recent reduction in inflation in this country is in part illusory because it is the result of the Government forcing up the exchange rate to levels which, if maintained, will result in the continuing decline of manufacturing industry? Irrespective of whether we join the EMS, what policy is his Department advocating to try to bring an air of reality to the Treasury?

I should like to think that perfect harmony obtained between every Government Department. I do not accept that the decline in inflation is illusory. It is solidly based and will, I hope, continue throughout the lifetime of this Administration and well beyond.

Will my hon. and learned Friend say how uncertainty can be removed by our joining the EMS when we recall that the French franc has been devalued twice in the past six months?

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), fluctuations in exchange rates may present difficulties. It has proved difficult even inside the EMS always to contain these movements.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that, as the The Times today says, there is a sinking feeling among Ministers that output is not recovering? Clearly the exchange rate is important for both our exporters and our importers. If the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend in the other place can take heart from a small increase in exports, should he not be concerned about the massive growth in imports? When will the hon. and learned Gentleman support steps to increase competitiveness through the exchange rate and lower interest rates as a result of sound economic policies, instead of the madness that the Government are foisting upon our manufacturers?

If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more analytical, he would have noticed that the increase in imports was due largely to imports of capital goods and machinery, which suggests that British companies are concentrating on restocking and investment. No doubt that will be reflected in increased production and exports in due course.

asked the Minister for Trade if the Civil Aviation Authority has provided him with any assessment of the conclusions to be drawn about the collapse of Laker Airways.

The events leading up to the collapse of Laker Airways are well known. They have been discussed in this House as well as in the media. I see no reason to call for any assessment by the authority.

Is it not up to the Minister to make sure that the British public have better information about what actually happened? Is it not the responsibility of the authority to provide such an assessment to the Minister?

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the offers by certain insurance companies to cover intending passengers in the event of airlines going out of business before they can utilise their tickets? Having, I hope, welcomed that development, does he agree that it will probably be easier to obtain cover when there is no likelihood of a company going out of business than otherwise? Will he therefore consider as an alternative the possibility of a surcharge on all scheduled airline tickets with a view to building up—

Order. In view of that long supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who I had not noticed has the next question on the Order Paper, will forgo his supplementary on the next question.

I am not attracted by the idea of a surcharge on airline tickets. Many people already think that tickets are too expensive. However, I certainly join my hon. Friend in the welcome that he gave in the first part of his supplementary question.

Will the Minister reflect on the appalling complacency of the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)? Does he agree that it is now becoming apparent from the events which immediately preceded the collapse of Laker Airways that for a substantial time Laker Airways was allowed to fly and to sell tickets to the public in circumstances which, under existing legislation, was wrong? Is it not important to establish whether that appalling lack of supervision was caused by the CAA or by the Minister? Is it not time for us to know where the responsibility lies?

As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. The Civil Aviation Authority acted exactly as it should have done. It monitored the affairs of Laker Airways. As long as the banks felt that there was a chance of patching things together to the benefit of the airline and the passengers, it was the duty of the CAA to continue as it did. I have no criticism whatever to make of the CAA in this matter.

What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the cost to the British Government, and, therefore, to the taxpayer, of the Laker collapse?

I have made no such estimate. However, I should point out that the money that was owed by Laker Airways was owed by Laker Airways, not by a nationalised industry such as British Airways.

asked the Minister for Trade if he will meet representatives of the travel agents organisations to discuss consumer protection of the travelling public.

I am willing, of course, to consider any points which the industry wishes to raise.

I shall call the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

In deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall put my supplementary question in one sentence. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as travel agents about the threat to the public arising from stolen airline tickets?

Yes, we are very concerned at the small but growing problem of counterfeit tickets. It is not only criminal, but it erodes public confidence in the majority of bona fide travel organisations. I am considering what action can be taken.

asked the Minister for Trade whether, in view of the level of audio and video piracy, he will seek to amend the Copyright Act 1956.

Audio piracy is in fact very low in the United Kingdom. Industry figures put it at under 5 per cent. of the market, due to the effective application of the existing civil remedies under the Copyright Act 1956 by the record industry. However, the Government are very concerned at the growth of video piracy. Although the civil remedies can also be very effective against video piracy, as recent cases have shown, the Government are looking closely at the possibility of increasing the maximum penalties on the criminal side.

I thank the Minister for that reply and the earlier replies that he gave on the Green Paper. Can he say how long it will be before he is likely to come to the House with recommendations to change the law?

No, Sir, I cannot do that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be as soon as possible. As soon as the memorandum which we are awaiting from the European Commission is before us, we shall take matters forward as rapidly as possible.

My hon. Friend's assurances of discussions and consideration are welcome. Does he agree that it is essential that amendments to the Copyright Act should be made, or there will be dire consequences for the recording industry?

Indeed, and, as I think I made clear in the House when I replied to the debate that was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) recently, we are well aware of that matter and not rule out any interim measures.

Does the Under-Secretary recognise that waiting for Europe to do things has proved disastrous in many aspects of trade—for example, doorstep selling? If legislation is needed, will he confirm that we will legislate for our own best interests without waiting for Europe?

Yes, Sir, if necessary.

asked the Minister for Trade whether he will make a statement about British trading prospects arising from the Siberian gas pipeline project.

British companies have won contracts for the Siberian gas pipeline project totalling more than £200 million.

Will the Government now take further action to help workers employed by firms such as the Scottish company, John Brown Engineering, which won more than £100 million worth of turbine contracts for the pipeline? As those orders are now jeopardised by the Reagan embargo, is it not time that the Prime Minister brought appropriate pressure to bear on President Reagan, who seems to be so obsessed with his hatred of the Soviet Union that he is willing to sacrifice the jobs of workers in Scotland and elsewhere?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman regards as appropriate pressure, but we are, of course, concerned not only about John Brown but about all the companies that are likely to be affected by the two regulations that the President has promulgated. As I said in answers to earlier questions, we have activated part I of the Protection of Trading Interests Act, and we shall not be slow to activate subsequent parts if the situation develops in such a way that we feel that that will assist the companies concerned. As I told the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), we are acutely concerned about the employment consequences in his constituency and in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney).

Do the Government have a view about the desirability of the pipeline project, particularly in view of the great aid and comfort that it will give to the military capability of the Soviet Union?

I am not certain how much aid and comfort it will give to the military capability of the Soviet Union, but it will certainly assist various European countries to diversify their supplies of gas. That is a matter of concern for them. Within our international obligations, we are glad that British companies have tendered successfully. That will, I believe, assist their profits and the job opportunities that they can create.

asked the Minister for Trade if he has yet received the annual report of British Airways for 1981–82.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister desist from behind the scenes efforts to manipulate the accounts before they appear? Does he not realise that attempts to massage the accounts before they appear in order to make British Airways more saleable to a private buyer have not gone without note? It has been commented on in The Times during the past week. Does he accept that actions such as pushing British Airways into panic measures, which will leave the airline weak, whether it is private or public, does the airline no good at all?

I cannot desist from something that I am not doing. I am not manipulating the accounts of British Airways. The accounts of British Airways are a matter for the board of British Airways. I congratulate Sir John King and his team at British Airways on doing a splendid job in making the airline more profitable and ready for privatisation next year.

I welcome the vigorous steps that Sir John King and his board of directors are taking in difficult circumstances to put BA on a sound financial footing, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for serious concern that these accounts have been delayed for so long? That would not be acceptable in a publicly quoted company. Is there not also concern that some items which one would have expected to see in last year's accounts are apparently to appear in this year's accounts?

The House will be well advised to wait for the accounts. There is nothing particularly unusual about the timing of the accounts. I expect to see them in the time scale that I gave to the House a couple of months ago.

Surely the Minister cannot escape responsibility for this matter. If the accounts are deliberately manipulated, as is widely predicted will be the case, the Minister cannot stand back from that. Is it not clear that British Airways, under their present chairman, are trying to manipulate their accounts and are seeking to sack 7,000 workers merely to accommodate the Government's obsession with selling off the airline at the first available opportunity?

Every time the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box he gets it wrong, and he has got it wrong again. British Airways are looking for another 7,000 redundancies because they want to be profitable and their productivity is well below that of other international airlines. I entirely support what Sir John King is doing in this matter.

Since the Opposition are so interested in the financial results of British Airways, will my hon. Friend arrange for the publication of the Price Waterhouse report into the efficiency of British Airways?

The Price Waterhouse report was commissioned by British Airways, and it is entirely for British Airways whether they publish the report.

Does the Minister regard the adventures of Laker Airways as a strong argument for privatising British Airways?

I regard the possibility of privatising British Airways as a chance to get off the backs of taxpayers the endless subsidies, guarantees and support that British Airways have enjoyed for many years. Our firm expectation is that British Airways will be placed in the private sector next year to the gratification of British Airways staff, shareholders and passengers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional steps he expects to take in respect of official assistance to developing countries, following agreements reached at the Versailles summit.

Our aid policies are already consistent with the Versailles declaration.

What new emphasis does the Minister propose to give to the policies designed to promote energy and food development in the Third world? Will he contemplate increasing overseas development assistance to meet the 0·7 per cent. target set by the United Nations 10 years ago?

No initiative on energy was proposed at the Versailles summit, and we have no further proposals to make. The 0·7 per cent. target was not specifically mentioned at Versailles, but we take the same view as the previous Administration—that we shall reach it as soon as our economy can justify it.

In order that we may make a more objective assessment of the value of the Versailles, Cancun and other summits, will the Minister answer the question that he refused to answer on 7 July? Will he confirm or deny that the PESC allocations from his Department are going to the Ministry of Defence or to the Foreign Office to pay for the Falklands exercise?

That question did not arise at the Versailles summit. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a question on the matter, I shall answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of aid currently granted to countries of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan; and what is the form of such aid.

In 1981 we disbursed £444 million of official bilateral aid to countries in the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. Of this total, £336 million was in the form of financial aid and £108 million in the form of technical co-operation.

Will my right hon. Friend consult our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see whether a portion of this aid could be devoted to immigrants who take advantage of the Government's voluntary repatriation scheme to help them to resettle when they go back to India, Pakistan and other countries of the New Commonwealth?

I do not think that that would be a proper use of the aid funds that have been voted by Parliament for developing countries.

Does the Minister agree that it is a pity that when Britain entered the Common Market 10 years ago such countries were discriminated against in the entry negotiations by being excluded from the benefits, such as they are, of the Lomé convention? Would it not be a great help to those countries if they could be brought within that system?

Many Commonwealth countries are within the Lomé convention, although some are outside. Within the Community, we have tried to do our best to help those countries outside the Lomé convention.

Will the Minister take no notice of those of his hon. Friends who constantly carp about the Indian and Pakistan communities in Britain and fervently try to persuade the House that there is a need to repatriate them? What economic factors must apply for the 0·7 per cent. to be given to such countries?

I cannot say that I shall not take notice of what hon. Members say. I take notice of what every hon. Member says, although I may not agree with many of them. I do not agree with many of the points made from the Opposition Front Bench.

Is United Kingdom aid to Pakistan being concentrated on Baluchistan?

Some of it is going there. Some is also going to help the refugees from occupied Afghanistan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount is provided by his Department towards the agricultural programme costs in India.

In 1981–82 our bilateral assistance to India for projects related to agriculture, including fertiliser production, totalled £64·5 million. The United Kingdom is also a major contributor to multilateral organisations which assist India in this field.

I have noted the success of the Festival of India, in which the Minister has participated, which is currently being promoted in England. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that few people are rejoicing in a festive mood in India's larger towns and smaller villages, because of the chronic starvation that they face day in, day out? Henceforward, will he take every opportunity not only to resist the suggestions of hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), but to make sure that the aid programme is extended so that we honour our real commitment to the starving millions?

The Indian agricultural sector is very successful. Indeed, it had a grain surplus and grain exports. It is a matter of distribution and administration to cope with starvation in any particular area.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain still gives more bilateral aid to India than any other country, including the United States of America?

Yes, Sir, that is true. We plan to exceed the 1981–82 figure both this year and in the following financial year. Our aid to India is largely in grant form, whereas much of the aid from other countries is in loan form.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet finalised the response of his Department to the Overseas Students Trust.

No, Sir.

Although the report does not go far enough, does the Minister accept that it would at least be a step in the right direction if we were to abolish the increased fees for students from British dependent territories? For example, is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Prime Minister and other Ministers to keep telling us that the Falkland Islanders are British and yet to charge their students up to 12 times the fees of British students?

We shall consider such factors when we consider the report.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, the entire study was commissioned by British industry and business and the CBI, which were deeply concerned about the effects on British trade and influence abroad of the decisions made by the Labour Government. Will he tell the House when the Government's view on the report will be given?

I recognise the source of the money for the study, but many of the people who carried out the study will have experience much wider than in business. The timing of the report is under consideration. There are one or two quite difficult problems. I hope that we shall be able to say something about it when Parliament reassembles after the Summer Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider further assistance to the Governments of Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward Islands.

A new loan of £2·5 million has been agreed for Jamaica for 1982–83. We have recently provided £500,000 for the provision of fertiliser and other inputs primarily directed to help small banana growers in the Windward Islands. By the end of 1982 more than £6 million of British aid will have been provided in support of a five-year Windward Islands banana development programme.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and helpful reply. Will he add to the package of finance an expression of recognition of the fact that it is necessary to increase management control in Jamaica and on the Leeward and Windward Islands, especially in the banana industry? Can he help in any way?

Yes. We are helping in the management of the banana industry, and we have sent representatives to help the islands in that respect.