asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he arrived at his assessment that unemployment will not double during the tenure of office of the present Government.

Because of the very substantial measures taken by the Government to stimulate the economy.

Is the Secretary of State aware that just before Christmas one of the Under-Secretaries of State now sitting near him said that unemployment would not double during the lifetime of this Parliament? On Thursday, figures will be published which may well show that unemployment has in fact doubled. That, however, is pure speculation, but I may be able to help the right hon. Gentleman on a much more topical issue. Will he trot along to Hobart House and tell Derek Ezra that according to all the speculation we are getting from the "Think Tank" he should ensure that there will be 300,000 jobs for the British miners over the next ten years; and that the way to do that is to pay them in accordance with the wage demand made by the National Union of Mineworkers?

I understand that this matter will be fully debated tomorrow.

Will my right hon. Friend recall that during the period of the Labour Administration the level of unemployment nearly doubled, and is it not quite inappropriate to take note of advice from or criticism by the Labour Party, whose policies led to the present level of unemployment?

Yes, Sir. The number of registered unemployed in Great Britain more than doubled between June, 1966, and June, 1970.

Can the Minister give the House the Government's forecast of the date at which unemployment will fall to the level at which it stood when the present Administration came into power?

I have always been very unwilling to give specific forecasts of unemployment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Chesterfield travel-to-work area, which is classed as being the industrial centre of England, unemployment has gone up since the advent of the present Government from 3¼ per cent. to 7 per cent., and that it is drastically rising all the time?

The level of unemployment in Chesterfield, as in many other parts of the country, is a matter of very grievous concern to me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am doing all I humanly can to try to correct the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he can now give a date for the publication of the White Paper on metrication.

I cannot yet give a precise date, but it will be published within a month.

I thank my right hon. Friend for at least getting a little along the way. We are looking forward to publication of the White Paper. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper will remove some of the muddle by making certain that people know what weights their babies are, and what distances are, as shown on road signs; and that there will be no question of forcing metrication on those people who do not want it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will find the White Paper very useful in all the respects to which he has referred.

Is it not a fact that the Common Market Commission has made the S.I. system of metrication mandatory? Is it not also a fact that this will be an extremely expensive business for British industry, which is very worried about it—particularly on the equipment side? Will the White Paper, whenever published, give us any guidance in this respect?

I think that it will be wise to await the White Paper, but it will certainly deal with the position vis-à-vis the Community when it is published.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now able to make a statement on the second report of the Joint Steering Group on the Steel Industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the results of the review of long-term investment in the steel industry.

I have nothing to add to the Minister for Industry's statement on 16th December.

Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply will cause grave concern to full-time trade union officers in the Sheffield district, because they are being constantly frustrated in their attempts to forecast the investment intentions and therefore employment prospects in the special steels division? Does he not think that their frustration will go wider throughout industry generally, and that an early statement will help confidence?

On the whole, I should have thought that recent developments satisfied a considerable number of uncertainties in the special steels division. The problems which are more the concern of the Joint Steering Group relate to major questions of bulk steel making.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the light of the review it is his intention to set the steel industry on a steady course of modernisation and expansion so as to maintain Britain's traditional rôle as a leading steel-maker?

As my hon. Friend knows, nothing is nearer to my heart than to see our steel industry develop as a very important part of the industrial equipment of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total cost of the extensions to Aldermaston Research Station made during the last 10 years.

It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

How is Parliament to exercise any parliamentary control over either the civil or the military research that takes place at Aldermaston if the Minister is not prepared to give the House figures even as to the total of the continual costs being incurred there?

On questions relating to defence research, it has been customary not to disclose to the House detailed figures of this nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what civil projects are currently being undertaken at Aldermaston Research Station.

Major civil projects at Aldermaston include work for the Authority's reactor programme; nuclear repayment work for the Science Research Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board and others; and non-nuclear work, mainly for Government Departments on repayment, on topics such as biomedical engineering and micro-circuit technology.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, nevertheless, is not more than 85 per cent. of the work carried out at Aldermaston still military in character? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking further to increase the civil content?

Regarding the latter part of the question, in the statement made by my right hon. Friend in this House and by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in another place, it was made clear that responsibility for the transfer would fall to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and that part of those arrangements for the transfer would be discussions with the Atomic Energy Authority for the continuation of civil work.

Is it not reasonable to suppose that more attention would be given to civil nuclear work at Aldermaston if it were restored to the Ministry of Health instead of being transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which will naturally have a dominant and decisive roôle in its activities?

The hon. Member has not quite got his responsibilities right. In so far as any medical work has been done at the A.W.R.E., it has not been the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The A.W.R.E. has merely done it on contract, and these arrangements are in no way altered by the transfer of responsibility from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total acreage of land used by the Aldermaston Research Station during its first year of operation; and what is the total acreage of land now used.

The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston was established in 1950 on a disused airfield of approximately 880 acres. There has been no significant change in the size of the site since then.

Is this why there has been no significant change in civil projects, or am I wrong in believing that there has been no increase in civil projects?

Since the establishment was started in 1950, the civil work has increased, as has the whole activity on the site since it was established.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total number of staff employed at the Aldermaston Research Station at the end of its first year of operation; and what is the total number of staff currently employed.

It is not customary to give this sort of information for defence establishments.

Would the Minister agree that it has been difficult for us to get information of this kind in the past? What degree of parliamentary accountability does he foresee in the future when this establishment comes under the umbrella of the Ministry of Defence? Shall we find less information available than we have had in the past?

That question is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence?

When can we expect to debate the legislation forecast in the statement last summer? Can we be assured that there will be very full consultation with the staff, however many there are, so as to ensure that their interests are safeguarded in this transfer, which is a matter that we regard, as the hon. Gentleman knows, as one of considerable public importance.

I shall take the questions in reverse order. On the latter question, the answer is, "Yes". There has already been consultation, but this is not the end of consultation. On the first question, I have nothing to add to the statement made on 5th August by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that legislation would be introduced in the current session.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for encouraging publicly-owned industrial investment in Scotland; and if he will make a statement, in the light of the forward figures presented in the White Paper on Public Expenditure for 1972–73 and 1973–74.

It is for the nationalised industries to prepare their own investment programmes but in considering these I naturally bear in mind wider considerations including the case for investment in Scotland.

Is not one problem the delay in investment in the nuclear power industry? When will the Vintner Committee bring to an end the present chaos in this industry?

I could not agree that there is any state of chaos in the industry. We shall soon be extremely interested to see the results of the Vintner Committee's studies, which are of crucial importance to our strategic decisions on nuclear reactors in the next decade.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his proposed legislation for promoting competition in the economy will cover the contracts procedures of nationalised industries.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his proposed legislation to improve competition and provide new safeguards against monopolies in the private sector of industry will also include the nationalised industries.

Yes, Sir. The new legislation is intended to extend the power to investigate and take action on abuses of a monopoly position to the commercial activities of the nationalised industries generally.

I warmly welcome that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a growing tendency among a number of State boards to place large construction contracts without the normal process of competitive tendering? In advance of this legislation, will he condemn this practice, which runs directly contrary to the Government's policy of maximum competition in these spheres?

It would have to be for the nationalised industry concerned to decide how to place orders. I do not think that the practice my hon. Friend has described would come within the ambit of the legislation about which he asked.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before this legislation is brought to the House, a White Paper will be published, as I understand that consultations have been going on with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.?

The intention is to publish the Bill, and that will act as an opportunity for discussion on the Government's proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations the Government have had regarding regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

Representations have been received from a number of interests. Statements are made on these whenever appropriate.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the present appalling waste of human resources in the regions cannot be attributed solely to the high national level of unemployment and that economic expansion alone will not solve this problem? Will he assure the House that the Government are studying the situation with a view to bringing forward new regional policy measures within the next few months?

On several occasions I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made it clear that these matters are under urgent and continuous study by the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Common Market's regional rules prevent and forbid grants of more than 20 per cent. in areas designated as central by the Common Market Commission? Has he had any communication from the Commission as to the areas of Scotland, and Britain as a whole, that the Commission would wish to designate as central? If so, when may we have information about this?

No. This is a matter which will require further discussion with the Community. It will be, perhaps, of interest to my hon. Friend to know that, at present at least, I am sure that the 20 per cent. to which he has referred would not impede the incentives available in intermediary areas, even if those intermediary areas were characterised as central areas.

Is it not clear that the Government's regional policy has failed totally? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain areas such as Merseyside, Scotland and North Wales—all areas of growing and high unemployment—the workers are now not prepared to accept unemployment and are now, in certain cases, occupying factories in order to oppose the Government's policy? Is not this an indication that at the earliest possible moment there must be a reversal of Government policy, in order to create employment in those areas?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this: that over perhaps the whole of the post-war period regional policies have not been able to create the number of employment opportunities in many parts of the country which we all would have wished. The Government have worked hard to try to develop the right policies to counter this very damag- ing effect, and will continue to do so. But that the present Government's policies are themselves responsible for a more serious situation is something to which I would not accede.

Despite the Secretary of State's assurance that this matter is under continuous examination in the Department, is it not time that the House was informed of the results of the review and of the Government's policy? The Northern Region, in particular, as well as the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), is running at the rate of 2,000 redundancies a month. In my constituency there is one vacancy for every 137 males unemployed. In view of this, and because of the right hon. Gentleman's concern, would it not be proper for the House to have the information arising from this examination, perhaps in the form of a White Paper on regional policies?

The House will clearly wish to discuss these matters. Surely it would be best to discuss them against clear propositions which seek to amend and improve the situation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the assurance given on 20th December by the Minister for Industry that, when this current review is complete, the results will be announced to the House and there will be an opportunity for the House to debate these issues, perhaps on the publication of a White Paper?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and not for me. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to recognise the clear desire of the House to debate these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent, when forming his decision to retain in 1972 the present quotas for cotton textile imports, he took into account the needs of clothing manufacturers who can obtain neither the textiles they require nor substitutes from United Kingdom manufacturers.

The needs of clothing manufacturers, along with those of the cotton textiles industry generally, were fully taken into account in reaching the decision to retain quota controls.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in his letter of 14th July replying to my letter dated 17th December about corduroy imports he said that the purpose of the quota controls was to prevent the United Kingdom industry from being disrupted by an upsurge in imports? The United Kingdom mills cannot take any more orders for two years. Is my hon. Friend aware that the disruption my constituents fear is that they will lose their jobs because their employers cannot anywhere in the world market gain access to corduroy material to import to Britain before the end of 1972?

The quota controls permit the import from the developing countries of 2 million square yards of finished corduroy. In addition to that, substantial quantities of loom state corduroy would also be admitted. I think that about 2 million square yards a year in the unfinished form are coming in from Hong Kong. The balance of the United Kingdom's requirements is made up by imports from the developed countries, notably Canada, the United States of America and the Netherlands, which together supply about 4½ million square yards of finished corduroy a year.

In the latter part of his answer the Minister referred to imports from a number of Commonwealth countries. Will he assure us that if we join the Common Market no restriction in this respect will be placed upon us by the E.E.C. and that imports from Commonwealth countries will be allowed to enter the country in the same way and on the same basis as now?

From the beginning of this year the United Kingdom making up industry will have the new protection of a tariff on imports of woven cotton made-ups from the Commonwealth Preference area.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the prospects for the ship-repairing industry.

It is for individual firms within the industry to assess their own prospects, which will depend primarily on their efficiency and competitiveness.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as merchant shipping becomes increasingly sophisticated the differences between high-class merchant ships and naval ships are greatly diminishing? This industry needs a spur for investment opportunities to equip itself for the potentialities which are currently available and which will be available in the future.

I am aware that there are difficulties facing the industry. Many of the reasons for these difficulties are outside the industry's own control and arise from such factors as the reduction in coastal trade, changes in the pattern of trade, increases in ship size beyond the capacity of United Kingdom facilities, labour troubles, and the difficulty many areas have had in fulfilling completion dates. These are matters the industry itself will have to put right.

Apart from the reasons for the difficulty, which are well known to the House, does not the re-equipment of the ship-repairing industry now, with sensible Government help, provide an opportunity of reducing unemployment in areas of very high unemployment and also of leaving Britain better equipped to deal with the very ships which the Minister mentioned in his answer and with which the existing industry is ill-equipped to cope?

I believe that the existing industry is fully capable of meeting the difficulties it has been experiencing. It is being encouraged to do just that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to announce his proposals for legislation consequent upon the recommendations of the Crowther Report.

I cannot yet add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 25th October, 1971.—[Vol. 823, c. 228.]

Why is the Minister's Department so sluggish and unenthusiastic about implementing this admirable Report which deals with some longstanding, very serious social problems? Does any draft legislation on this matter exist in the Department?

The Report was very long and complex and contained proposals for two separate pieces of legislation. These require extensive consultation and study. We are proceeding with the consultations and the study, and in due course I hope that these will lead to legislation. The hon. Gentleman must not hurry us beyond the right pace.

So that the House does not have the horrible feeling that it is impetuously pushing the Minister on, will he, for the information of the House, and to reassure the House, state when the studies which led to the Crowther Report were put in hand by the Treasury and when we may expect to see some tangible impact of this Report in the form of suitable legislation being enacted?

I would hate to give specific dates in answer to the right hon. Gentleman without being sure that they were correct. We recognise the importance of this matter and we hope to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is important to get the matter right and not to rush it.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now declare Swindon an intermediate area in the light of the recent announcement by British Rail that 1,300 men are to be declared redundant during 1972 and 1973.

We are keeping a careful watch on the situation. But unemployment is appreciably below the national average and the outlook is more favourable than in many other unassisted areas elsewhere.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that his reply will cause acute disappointment in my constituency and that, if British Railways continues with its policy, the unemployment rate in Swindon will rise to 7 per cent.? Would it not be better for the Department to consider the position now in advance, rather than to impose upon Swindon heavy unemployment, which is endemic in Britain at present?

I understand the situation, because I have had the advantage of a discussion with the hon. Gentleman and I am prepared to see his constituents about this question. It would be a mistake at this stage to start changing the areas in anticipation of what might happen in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the total values of Japanese imports into the United Kingdom from July, 1971, to the latest convenient date, divided into raw materials, processed materials, part manufactured products and manufactured goods.

Figures for imports from Japan are published in Table II of the monthly Overseas Trade Statistics. In the period July to November, 1971, total imports were £91 million, of which food was £12 million, basic materials £3 million, semi-manufactures £28 million, and finished manufactures £48 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a worrying situation when imports of semi-manufactured and manufactured goods have risen in the way they have, particularly in view of the international pricing arrangements, which mean that some Japanese goods enter Britain below the cost of production and gravely affect our own industry in comparable fields?

To get the matter in perspective, it should be remembered that the total imports from Japan still account for only about 2 per cent. of our total imports and that the growth in imports from Japan over the latter part of last year showed a reduction as compared with the earlier part of last year.

However small the percentage of imports, is it not a fact that there are large imports, for instance, of electronic equipment into this country which are being produced at a tremendously low price with which our manufacturers cannot compete? Cannot something more be done about this?

Under the 1962 Anglo-Japanese Trade Agreement it is possible to take measures to restrict imports if they cause substantial damage to the home industry. The Japanese have been moving considerably towards liberalisation recently. In fact, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that there are some 40 items which Japan restricts against us, whereas the United Kingdom restricts about 50 items of Japanese origin.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to approve the construction of a new major coal-fired power station.

The construction of new power stations is primarily a matter for the C.E.G.B. from whom I have as yet received no firm proposals.

Would the hon. Gentleman take this matter further with the C.E.G.B.? Will he bear in mind that if the Government gave the coal industry such help as this, it would be much easier for miners to be paid a fair wage instead of the wholly inadequate amounts that they have taken home each week?

This matter must rest in the first instance with the C.E.G.B. As the hon. Gentleman knows, three-quarters of the C.E.G.B. generating plant is already coal fired.

Is not the case for the nuclear power station daily growing in strength? Would the Minister pay tribute to the value of the research work done at Winfrith in Dorset and other places, in this respect?

I gladly pay tribute to the value of the work done at Winfrith in Dorset. The assessment of the relative merits of alternative thermal reactor types is still in progress, as the House knows; and this will no doubt be one of the factors of which the C.E.G.B. will take account.

Would not the Minister agree that since electricity loads are bound to advance in the years ahead, there is a very strong economic case for the country generally that the generation construction programme should be advanced?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we took the decision on employment grounds to bring forward the construction of the Ince B power station. The matter of further power station orders must lie with the C.E.G.B. which has the responsibility of assessing the forward load.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding that at present Australian coal can be delivered more cheaply than British coal to power stations, and that therefore there will have to be further protection for the British coal industry possibly before very long?

That is another question.

May I take it from the Minister's reply that there is some lack of communication between the Cabinet and junior Ministers, in view of the fact that Mr. Chapman Pincher alleges in the Daily Express that there is some secret Cabinet decision arising from the "Think Tank" about the future potential of coal, or is the Minister saying that Mr. Chapman Pincher's allegations are wrong?

Mr. Chapman Pincher is not yet a member of the Cabinet.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement on Concorde.

The first pre-production aircraft flew from Filton on 14th December. I flew in the prototype on 10th December. As hon. Members know, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh made a flight on 12th January. The Government are giving the project their full backing and support and my right hon. Friend will be meeting our French colleague within the next two months to review progress.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made by the French Minister of Transport on 11th January that an offer has been received from the Soviet Union and the United States to co-operate in the building a second generation of supersonic aircraft? Will the Secretary of State also inform the House why we have to wait for our information from the French Minister on this as well as on costs and other matters?

I do not think that is quite right. The fact is that the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman referred were made at the Paris Air Show and were not at all positive suggestions made by responsible people to Ministers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be anxiously awaiting an early statement that regular supersonic flights over this country will be banned, and that many of us who have experienced the noise from these aircraft will find it impossible to support the continuation of this project without such an announcement?

I take due note of that remark. The matter, of course, is very much under active consideration by the Government.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State and other members of the Government on their decision to fly in the aircraft, and say how glad the people who make it are that the Government appear to be giving it such full support? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is likely to be a gap before orders come in, even if Air France and B.O.A.C. and others order, and that there is a serious possibility of short-term redundancies in Bristol which would not be sensible with the build-up of the programme which is likely to go forward? Without regard to second generation aircraft, which I agree will have to be looked at separately, it would be a great mistake if the project were in any way endangered by this gap between development and ordering.

The right hon. Gentleman can be very sure that this matter is under very careful study by the Government.

In view of the continuing unsatisfactory nature of the reply—and as Ministers fail to answer Questions—I wish to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet the French Minister of Transport to discuss airline contracts for the Concorde aircraft.

A date has not yet been fixed, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace expects to meet M. Chamant some time within the next two months. The point mentioned by the hon. Member will be one of the subjects discussed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in Bristol we are anxious to know when the national arlines of Britain and France will place orders for a significant number of Concordes? Could he give us any hope in that respect?

This question of any contracts with Air France and B.O.A.C. is clearly the next crucial issue in the future story of Concorde. It is clearly a matter which will bedeveloped as a result of the meetings between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and M.Chamant.

What is the latest international position of the overland flying rights of Concorde?

The question of supersonic flights over land has already been raised in the course of Questions, and I sai dthat the matter was under careful consideration by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about his further discussions with representatives from Hong Kong about the tariff and quota system for textiles.

Talks with Hong Kong Officials were held last week in order to examine in more detail the implications of the decision to retain quota controls on Hong Kong's trade in cotton textiles with the United Kingdom.

In these discussions, are Her Majesty's Ministers bearing in mind that in addition to their responsibility towards British manufacturers they have a responsibility, both legal and moral, towards Hong Kong, which is unique amongst our overseas suppliers of textiles, being a developing country and a dependent territory?

There was a detailed exchange of views. Each Government has been given a full understanding of the other's position and each side is now considering its position.

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that if we enter the Common Market on 1st January, 1973, he will have to reduce the level of import quotas to bring them into line with those in Europe? Will he reduce the present level in order to get a smoother transition?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not in a position to make such an announcement at this stage of the talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the annual amount of compensation being paid by gas boards to people whose gas appliances are not being converted to natural gas.

I understand that the gas industry does not keep this information.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread criticism of the amounts of compensation which are being paid? In my area, they range from £2 to £5 for each gas appliance which is not converted, and I have constituents who are without heating this winter because of the inadequate compensation which they have been paid. Will the hon. Gentleman take it that in one case, for example, an elderly gentleman was paid £6 for three gas fires, and it has cost him £85 to obtain other heating appliances? Is not this a scandalous way to treat people? Will not the Minister show more interest in the matter?

Where the customer does not wish to buy a new cooker or fire, the gas boards offer a reconditioned one free of charge. As regards portable fires, the gas boards are withdrawing all such fires for safety reasons and are compensating the customers accordingly. If the hon. Gentleman has specific complaints, I suggest that he gets in touch with his gas board, which is responsible for administering these arrangements. I have no responsibility to tell gas boards how to proceed.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present amount of publicly- and privately-owned capital in Govan Shipbuilders Limited; what further investment in both spheres is anticipated; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the Upper Clyde shipyards.

I shall, with permission, answer these Questions at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the inquiry which has been held into the use of airport police dogs during an industrial dispute at London Airport.

The British Airports Authority has now invited Mr. P. J. Matthews, the Chief Constable of Surrey, to carry out this inquiry.

It is a long time a-coming. Has the Minister noted that, last month, the Home Secretary told me that it would be contrary to the normal practice to use dogs at industrial or political meetings? Will he give an assurance that it will not be repeated, in view of its provocative effect, at London Airport or at any establishment or premises under his control?

At this stage, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told the hon. Member.

But will the hon. Gentleman recognise that this is an extremely serious affair, and that no previous incident has ever brought such bitterness as that which arose on the occasion to which the Question refers? It was an orderly meeting, a proper and normal protest meeting, which was exacerbated by the vicious business of letting loose dogs on protesting working men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Will the hon. Gentleman speed up the inquiry, and will he make sure that those responsible do not behave in such a way again?

These are all matters which Mr. Matthews will, no doubt, look into with extreme care.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the next list will be issued giving the names of the companies which have been allocated area blocks for gas and oil exploration in the North Sea.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) on 22nd December, 1971, I expect to be able to announce further allocations of licences early this year.—[Vol. 828, c. 396.]

Does the Minister recall that in June last year 15 blocks were offered and a total of £135 million was received because they were put to the highest bidder? Is it not a fact that the Government are now offering 421 blocks but have not yet received 300 applications for them? What is the matter with the auctioneer? Has he passed away? Or do the Government no longer believe in competition, which they have always claimed to be one of their first principles, and do they intend to give these blocks to their dearest friends?

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat mixed up on this. He will recall that the auction was an experimental procedure affecting a limited number of blocks, the remainder being subject to a form of discretionary allocation. I announced the first part on 22nd December, in relation to the southern area of the North Sea. I expect to be able to make an announcement in respect of the Celtic Sea and the West Orkneys areas in about two or three weeks. I cannot pin it down exactly, but it will be about that time. Finally, I hope to be in a position to announce those allocated in the northern area of the North Sea in about two months. That will complete it.

To amplify that encouraging reply, will my hon. Friend confirm that nearly all the discoveries of oil and gas so far have been made by private enterprise companies, at negligible cost to the taxpayer, and that the Government will continue to give every encouragement to further exploration?

On both points, yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals for capital investment in the steel industry in Scotland have been put to him by the British Steel Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Of the £265 million—1971 survey prices—investment approved for 1972–73, about an eighth is in Scotland. Part is expenditure on projects such as Ravenscraig and Clydesdale already announced; the Corporation's intentions as regards possible other new projects within the general programme are for it to make public.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the British Steel Corporation is likely to come to a decision regarding its plans for Hunterston and whether a major new steel works will be built there, and whether the Government are discussing the matter with the Corporation?

The matter is squarely in the hands of the British Steel Corporation at the moment in relation to the ore terminal, and I understand that the Corporation is urgently considering it with a view to an early decision. The major question of a large steel works depends in large degree on the Joint Steering Group's report, which I hope to receive at an early date.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future prospects of the nuclear power industry.

No, Sir. Any such statement must await completion and consideration of the current review of reactor development.

As there has been a substantial escalation in the cost of nuclear power stations, coupled with technical difficulties, is it not appropriate that the Government should take out an insurance policy for the nation by intervening now to settle the miners' strike and by agreeing to have a target for increased production of coal?

The second point does not arise on this Question. I think it wiser to await completion of the review before making decisions about the future of nuclear power.

But does not the Minister agree that these matters strengthen the case for a White Paper on fuel policy generally, and is it not a great pity that Mr. Chapman Pincher should, apparently, know more about these things than does the House of Commons?

On the latter point, I must add that Mr. Chapman Pincher knows more about them than I do, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that fuel policy is a subject under constant review and that if the Government were to change their mind about any aspects of fuel policy they would, of course, report back to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aero-engine noise reduction programmes his Department is funding; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace said on 6th December, 1971, the Government are spending about £1 million a year on engine noise research; they are supporting the development of quieter engines such as the RB211; and they are giving high priority to Concorde noise suppression.

Although I am delighted to hear that reply, I had hoped that we could have heard also a reply which announced a more definitive programme in this area, since it has given rise to considerable public concern not only among people who live near airports but also in the industry itself, which would hope to improve its export prospects through such a Government-funded programme.

My hon. Friend, who understands these matters, will know that the figure of £1 million which comes in as part of the aeronautical research programme is only a relatively small part of total Government support in this field, since every new engine project which has been or which is being considered for Government support has an element of lower noise emission in it. Therefore, taking these secondary effects into account, the actual figure of public expenditure is much higher than that which I gave for direct support.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers to make the practice known as pyramid selling a criminal offence.

I am first considering the application of existing legislation to cases where this practice may have been abused.

Is not the Minister aware that many people are being "conned" out of their whole life savings—I have received tragic letters showing that hundreds of pounds, and sometimes thousands, have been taken—by a small number of operators who are able through this vicious system to swindle a vast mass of people? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this system is a criminal offence in many of the States of the United States of America? How long will he allow such an abominable practice to continue in Britain?

Two companies have been investigated under Section 109 of the Companies Act, and we have petitioned for the compulsory winding up of a third, Koscot Interplanetary Limited, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has given. He will see that we have been taking pretty severe action in the matter.

There are many more than two companies involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will exercise his powers under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963 so as to require prepackaged biscuits to be sold in standardised prescribed quantities.

I am not convinced that it would be in the interests of consumers to exercise these powers in respect of biscuits, but I will keep the matter under review.

Can my hon. Friend explain how the great god competition, of which I thought the present Government were devoted high priests, is served by bamboozling consumers with such weights as 6¾ ounces, 7½ ounces, and 8 ounces?

The difficulty is that biscuits are mostly of different densities. Therefore, if they were to be made up in standard packs all the sizes would be different, and the situation might be even more confusing to the consumer than it is now.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Biscuits factory in my constituency has for many years produced packs of biscuits weighing exactly 8 ounces—no more and no less? If one company can do it, why cannot the Government persuade others to do the same?

It would be perfectly possible to insist on that, but it would result in many more different sizes of pack than there are now. Although I shall be very happy to look at the matter carefully—and we are doing so—I am not convinced that it would be in the interests of the consumer to insist upon standard packs.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what general directions he has issued to the National Coal Board and the gas boards to avoid deliberate wastage of indigenous natural gas.

None, Sir.

That reply will be received with a great deal of disappointment in my part of the world. Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of evidence that no agreement can be reached between the gas boards and the National Coal Board on the price of the gas being sold by the N.C.B. to the gas boards, and that because of the failure to reach agreement gas to the extent of several scores of thousands of therms is discharged into the atmosphere weekly, which is a gross wastage of our natural resources? Will the Minister intervene to persuade both bodies to utilise the gas?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. He will be aware that colliery gas is produced under licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934. It is different from by-product gas, in that if the gas industry does not want it, it is then up to the N.C.B. to seek an alternative outlet for its product, in which case the gas boards do not have to be involved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take up any detailed aspect of the matter, I will readily look into it.

Is the Minister aware that the N.C.B. is not empowered by the law to sell gas to any individual consumer? It produces methane gas underground and is unable to sell it to customers who are crying out for it. Therefore the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend is totally inaccurate.

I do not think that it is, but I shall certainly look at the position in view of what has been said. It is for the N.C.B. to find another buyer. There are difficulties in its doing that, because fluctuations in supply do not always make the gas attractive. The provisions obtaining in the case of methane gas are different from those obtaining in the case of by-product gas.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is aware that, under the rules of the European Economic Community, various units of measure, such as horsepower, must disappear from the member States' laws in 1977 and in their place Governments will have to introduce a harmonised range of international units; to what extent this will affect this country's various units of measurement; and whether he will make a statement.

I am aware of the E.E.C. directive on units of measurement, which was published in the pre-accession series of English texts of secondary legislation of the European communities on 13th January and placed in the Library. As to the effect of this directive, I would counsel the hon. Member to await the White Paper on Metrication.

Like other hon. Members, I have been waiting for months and months to obtain all the regulations. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are about 2,000 of them, and that they are not available to hon. Members, although I am told that they are now to be printed at a cost of £140 each? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the 1,400 Members of both Houses will be given a copy of the 2,000 rules and regulations? Will the £250,000 or so printing cost have to be paid by the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that those who have the deep interest in these matters that he has will certainly have access to the information he seeks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that the change to decimalisation led to a dramatic increase in prices? Will he make every possible endeavour to protect the consumer against a similar rise in prices when we change to metric units?

I take very careful note of what my hon. Friend says on the subject.

Are we to understand that a cricket pitch can no longer be 22 yards?

To the best of my knowledge there is no specific E.E.C. directive on cricket pitches.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will review the operation of industrial development certificates and the exemption limits applying in respect thereof.

I do continuously, Sir.

On the assumption that we are allowed to exercise that form of control at all in the future, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the fact that it is a bureaucratic form of control, not subject to the processes of public inquiry and appeal like town planning control, will not induce a state of complacency, and will he assure the House that there will be a frequent and regular review in conjunction with industrialists and town planners?

Yes, Sir. I give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage approximately of machine tools operated by nationalised industries are over 10 years old; and whether he will take steps to stimulate the nationalised corporations for which he is responsible to modernise and re-equip their machinery as a matter of urgency.

I refer the hon. Member to what I said in the Adjournment debate on the machine tool industry on 22nd December, 1971.—[Vol. 828, c. 1518.]

Since then the situation has deteriorated. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that redundancies have increased and orders have fallen? In view of the parlous situation at Churchills and Alfred Herbert, is not it time the Secretary of State himself took some interest in the matter and initiated urgent Government intervention to deal with the catastrophic situation?

My right hon. Friend has been taking a considerable interest in the situation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it gives cause for concern, and we are watching it very closely. But the suggestion in the hon. Gentleman's Question does not appear to be a practical way of helping the industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now refer the proposed take-over by Beechams of Glaxo to the Monopolies Commission.

I announced on 6th January that I did not intend to refer this proposal to the Monopolies Commission.

Although the boot is now on another foot, will the right hon. Gentleman take a further look at the matter? It would be wholly indefensible if one proposed take-over is not to be referred and another proposed amalgamation is. Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the fact that the main consumer of the products of the three companies concerned happens to be the taxpayer, through the Department of Health and Social Security, and that there is a need to protect the interests not only of shareholders but of the consumer?

And the workers.

My task is to assess the potential effect on the public interest generally of such mergers. It is not possible to assimilate one merger with another; each must be examined on its own merits.

In view of the obvious effects on the public interest in the case we are considering, is not it pre-eminently a case where there should be a reference to the Commission? If the right hon. Gentleman does not refer this proposal, what is the point of having a Monopolies Commission?

I am far from clear whether "this proposal" in the right hon. Gentleman's parlance is Boots—Glaxo or Beecham—Glaxo.

Both.

Then the right hon. Gentleman means "these proposals". I am considering very carefully that of Boots. I have already given my decision on that affecting Beecham.

Can my right hon. Friend say how far he takes into account the effect on the workers in the industry in making such decisions? In that context, will he pay special attention to the letter I wrote him on Friday in regard to the proposed take-over? One of the factories is in my constituency?

I shall of course take careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend says. I emphasise that "the public interest" for this purpose is a wide-ranging consideration and would certainly include employment matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Beecham bid was an example of City buccaneering at its worst, and that the effect on the employment of people in development districts could be considerable? As has already been said, there is no reason for the continued existence of the Monopolies Commission if such a bid is not referred to it.

I would not agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. The employment consideration is very much in my mind in considering this case. No doubt he will have seen the observation by the Chairman of Beecham about its intentions in relation to employment.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has a duty to the taxpayer to refer any merger involving drug companies to the Monopolies Commission in view of the fact that the National Health Service spends £200 million a year with them?

That very fact is very much in the forefront of my mind in making my considerations.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the usual practice, when a Minister is replying to a Question, to include similar Questions on the Order Paper? Will you draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that I had a similar Question on the Order Paper to No. 40?

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.